Blog Post

Financial regulatory reforms in the UK and US to manage systemic risks and strengthen consumer protection

Compared to micro-prudence of financial institutions, ‘systemic stability’ and ‘consumer protection’ are harder to achieve because they are beyond the reach of the ‘invisible hand’ and of individual supervisory authorities. For this reason, it is of utmost importance to clarify who are the responsible parties for financial systemic stability and consumer protection. An independent regulatory committee for each of systemic risk and consumer protection, with strong legal bases, is expected to work most effectively.

By: Date: December 12, 2012 Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation

Compared to micro-prudence of financial institutions, ‘systemic stability’ and ‘consumer protection’ are harder to achieve because they are beyond the reach of the ‘invisible hand’ and of individual supervisory authorities. For this reason, it is of utmost importance to clarify who are the responsible parties for financial systemic stability and consumer protection. An independent regulatory committee for each of systemic risk and consumer protection, with strong legal bases, is expected to work most effectively.

In the financial industry, individual financial companies have a incentive to ensure their own soundness because it is necessary for business management and sustainability in the long run: this could be dubbed the ‘invisible hand.’ Furthermore, micro-prudence is incentivised even involuntarily since micro-prudential standards are required by the Basel committee. However, ‘systemic risks’ and ‘consumer protection’ are not taken care of by the ‘invisible hand’ or voluntary incentive mechanisms, since they are not included in the objective functions of financial firms.

The United States and United Kingdom recently adopted two measures for systemic stability. First, the objective function of SIFI (systemically important financial institution)-type financial firms must be constrained by capital surcharges and liquidity regulation for ‘systemic risks’ and ‘customer protection.’ Second, legal frameworks underpinning systemic stability have been constructed, such as the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) in the US. This implies that regulatory concern has expanded from micro-prudence to macro-prudence to enhance financial stability and customer protection.

The FSOC is a legal framework for financial stability based on the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The council has a statutory mandate that creates, for the first time, collective accountability in terms of regulatory cooperation, information sharing and consolidated supervision. Since the council launched in October 2010, 19 meetings have been held to examine systemic risks and find measures to address them.

Meanwhile, in the UK, the Treasury established a similar body, the Financial Policy Committee (FPC), based on the Financial Services Bill. Before that, the tripartite system – the Bank of England (BoE), the Financial Services Authority and the Treasury – shared the task of supervision based on memoranda of understanding, but no institution was clearly responsible for the job. To fix this, the Treasury installed the FPC within the BoE, expressly assigning the job of monitoring systemic risks to the bank. From a legal perspective, the BoE is under the Treasury, and accordingly, it can be said that the Treasury and the Parliament can now check the BoE’s supervisory activities. The interim FPC held meetings in June and September this year to examine systemic risks and discuss proper regulatory measures. Additionally, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) was established exclusively to protect consumers and to regulate financial firms’ conducts, as a peak of the so-called ‘twin peaks’ that may contribute to minimisation of the room for conflicts between prudential regulation and financial conduct regulation (see Figure 1).

The implication of regulatory reforms in the two countries is that systemic risk might be better taken care of by a regulatory body for which it is a sole responsibility. For systemic stability, the US adopted a ‘collective accountability scheme’ in which different regulatory bodies take supervisory looks at the SIFIs of each financial sector, while the UK adopted a ‘single responsibility scheme’ under the BoE in which a consolidated regulatory body, Financial Supervisory Authority (FSA), took a supervisory look at all the financial firms across financial sectors. 

What useful lessons from this are there for Korea? In a country in which it remains undetermined whether a legal regulatory body for financial stability oversight should be organised, supervisory authorities may work individually on how to measure and cope with systemic risks. However, it will be hard to effectively oversee and regulate financial systemic risks without comprehensive coordination between regulatory bodies, since systemic risks are triggered and affected by diverse factors beyond the reach of individual regulatory bodies, such as monetary and cyclical macroeconomic shocks and the credit risk of SIFI-type financial firms (SIFIs). Therefore, the government needs to establish legal grounds to establish a committee equivalent to the FSOC in the US or FPC in the UK.

In addition, it should also be noted that in the UK, parliament may effectively check the activities of the regulatory authorities. Because of information asymmetry between consumers, regulatory bodies, and financial firms, it is recommendable that the Korean National Assembly takes on the role of ultimate monitor for regulatory supervisory regimes and activities. To do better job in this role, there should be a single monitoring committee, to avoid conflicts of interest between multiple assembly committees. Otherwise, politicians may push more for their own rents rather than for systemic stability and consumer protection.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

View comments
Read article More on this topic

Opinion

Will China’s trade war with the US end like that of Japan in the 1980s?

The outcome of the US-China trade war is anticipated to be quite different from the experience of Japan in the 1980s and 1990s, due to China’s relatively lower dependence on the US and having learned from the Japanese experience.

By: Alicia García-Herrero and Kohei Iwahara Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: May 13, 2019
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

The emerging new geography of financial centers in Europe

What shape is the new financial continent of Europe?

Speakers: Rebecca Christie, Valerie Herzberg, Nicolas Véron and William Wright Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: April 29, 2019
Read article More on this topic

Opinion

Life after the multilateral trading system

Considering a world absent a multilateral trading system is not to promote such an outcome, but to encourage all to prepare for the worst and instil greater clarity in the mind of policymakers as to what happens if compromise fails.

By: Uri Dadush and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: April 25, 2019
Read article More by this author

Opinion

Europe and the new imperialism

For decades, Europe has served as a steward of the post-war liberal order, ensuring that economic rules are enforced and that national ambitions are subordinated to shared goals within multilateral bodies. But with the United States and China increasingly mixing economics with nationalist foreign-policy agendas, Europe will have to adapt.

By: Jean Pisani-Ferry Topic: Global Economics & Governance, Innovation & Competition Policy Date: April 3, 2019
Read article More on this topic

Opinion

Brexit: When in doubt, slow down

Uncertainty over Brexit remains high despite looming deadlines. Here, the authors argue that the UK should take the necessary steps to make time to build consensus around the final shape of Brexit, and that the UK population should be consulted.

By: Maria Demertzis and Nicola Viegi Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: March 29, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

Takeaways from Xi Jinping’s visit to France and Italy and ideas for the EU-China summit

The author appraises China's strategy towards Europe ahead of next month's EU-China summit.

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: March 27, 2019
Read article More by this author

Blog Post

The Economists’ Statement on Carbon Dividends and the Green New Deal

In the last month two prominent policy proposals that aim to combat climate change have been presented in the United States. The Green New Deal calls for the deployment of substantial government resources to combat climate change. The Economists’ Statement on Carbon Dividends, suggests a market-based and budget-neutral approach through a carbon tax. Michael Baltensperger reviews reactions to both.

By: Michael Baltensperger Topic: Energy & Climate, Global Economics & Governance Date: February 25, 2019
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

External Publication

Analysis of developments in EU capital flows in the global context

The monitoring and analysis of capital movements is essential for policymakers, given that capital flows can have welfare implications. This report, commissioned by the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union, aims to analyse capital movements in the European Union in a global context.

By: Grégory Claeys, Maria Demertzis, Konstantinos Efstathiou, Inês Goncalves Raposo, Alexander Lehmann and David Pichler Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: January 17, 2019
Read article Download PDF More on this topic More by this author

Policy Contribution

Forecast errors and monetary policy normalisation in the euro area

What did we learn from the recent monetary policy normalisation experiences of Sweden, the United States and the United Kingdom? Zsolt Darvas consider the lessons and analyse the European Central Bank’s forecasting track record and possible factors that might explain the forecast errors.

By: Zsolt Darvas Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: December 13, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

Immigration: The doors of perception

Surveys show that people systematically overestimate the share of foreign-born citizens among resident populations. Aligning people's perceptions with reality is vital to the betterment of public debate and proposed policies.

By: Inês Goncalves Raposo Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: December 12, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

The great macro divergence

Global growth is expected to continue in 2019 and 2020, albeit at a slower pace. Forecasters are notoriously bad, however, at spotting macroeconomic turning points and the road ahead is hard to read. Potential obstacles abound.

By: Jean Pisani-Ferry Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: December 5, 2018
Read article Download PDF

Policy Contribution

European Parliament

A monetary policy framework for the European Central Bank to deal with uncertainty

In this Policy Contribution prepared for the European Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) as an input to the Monetary Dialogue, the authors review the emerging challenges to central banks, and propose an updated definition of price stability and an adequately refined monetary policy framework.

By: Grégory Claeys, Maria Demertzis and Jan Mazza Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, European Parliament, Testimonies Date: November 22, 2018
Load more posts