The European Banking Authority (EBA) launched today its annual transparency exercise, as announced in March. As the EBA observes, this is based entirely on supervisory reporting data – powered by XBRL – so the additional burden on banks is minimal.
In a unanimous recent vote, the Investor Advisory Committee (IAC) of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has recommended stricter regulation of special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs).
The Bank of England’s financial watchdog, the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA), has written to company CEOs discussing recent findings on the reliability of regulatory reporting, decrying poor practices, and reiterating its supervisory expectations.
“The independence of supervisory authorities is crucial for the legitimacy and credibility of the supervisory process,” says the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) – but how can we decide whether authorities are in fact free from conflicts of interest and undue external influence on supervisory decisions?
Some of our readers may be interested in new research from the Financial Stability Institute (FSI) on the growing accountability regimes of banking supervisors.
Joining regulators around the world who are increasingly concerned about the impact of climate change on financial institutions, the Hong Kong Money Authority (HKMA) recently set out a supervisory approach designed to ensure banks build resilience to climate-related risk.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) is expanding its publication of key risk indicators about some of the world’s largest financial institutions. Globally systemically important institutions (or “G-SIIs”) each have on and off balance sheet exposures in excess of EUR200bn.