Over the past two decades, several critical financial market regulations have been implemented globally, particularly in response to the 2008 Global Financial Crisis (GFC). These regulations have significantly impacted the operations and behaviour of financial institutions, contributing to greater stability, transparency, and accountability in global financial markets.
The years following 2008’s GFC experienced continued financial regulatory reform. New rules have impacted almost every financial firm, ranging from banks to asset managers. The importance of these rules can be linked to the reshaping of the regulatory environment and ultimately creating a more robust trading environment and promoting investor confidence. However, some industry participants believe that, particularly in Europe, we’re becoming over-regulated.
Reflecting on the most impactful regulations over the last 20 years, The TRADE has rounded up a list of 20 game-changing implementations, exploring their impact on the financial landscape.
- Dodd-Frank Act (DFA):
Topping the list of the most impactful regulations of the past 20 years is the Dodd-Frank Act. In the aftermath of the GFC, the US Congress enacted the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (commonly referred to as the Dodd-Frank Act or DFA) in response. This legislation brought forth regulatory reforms aimed at rectifying deficiencies in financial regulation and oversight. Among its provisions, the DFA established several new regulatory bodies, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), and introduced stringent regulations on banks and financial institutions. These measures included mandates for constraints on proprietary trading (known as the Volcker Rule), and enhanced supervision of derivatives markets, as well as increased capital reserves.
The DFA also introduced additional safeguards to bolster financial stability, including mandates for the clearing of over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives contracts, expanded reporting requirements, and a variety of regulatory directives to enhance investor protection.
New entities were set up by the DFA tasked with overseeing financial markets and managing risks. Among those was the establishment of the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) to identify threats to the stability of the US financial system, promote market discipline, and address emerging risks. The FSOC was granted authority to mitigate financial stability risks, including access to comprehensive datasets for risk monitoring and the ability to recommend regulatory enhancements to mitigate such risks. Furthermore, the DFA created the Office of Financial Research (OFR), housed within the Treasury, to support the FSOC’s efforts.
- Basel III:
Also following the financial crisis, came another critical change to the regulatory landscape. The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision introduced Basel III in November 2010; a set of international banking regulations with the aim of improving banking sector stability and strengthening regulation in order to allow both to withstand financial shocks.
Among the key components of Basel III is the increase in minimum capital requirements for banks, including higher common equity and Tier 1 capital ratios. By mandating banks to hold more capital in reserve, Basel III’s goal is to improve the stability and solvency of financial institutions, alongside reducing the possibility of bank failures during periods of economic turmoil.
Basel III introduced liquidity requirements, including the Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) and the Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR), ensuring banks remain sufficient liquidity buffers to manage short-term and long-term funding stresses. These measures aim to mitigate liquidity risks and bolster banks’ ability to meet their obligations during market disruptions.
Basel III includes provisions for countercyclical capital buffers, giving regulators the ability to require banks to build up additional capital during periods of excessive credit growth to avoid the accumulation of systemic risks.
The implementation of Basel III did, however, face a range of challenges, particularly in relation to its potential impact on bank profitability and lending activities. Sceptics argue that higher capital requirements could tighten banks’ ability to lend, which could ultimately reduce economic growth. Compliance with Basel III requirements has also resulted in notable costs on banks – especially smaller institutions – leading to worries about financial inclusion and credit access.
In a wider sense, Basel III impacted financial market by promoting greater stability, resilience, and risk management within the banking sector. Implementation does continue to evolve, with existing efforts to address challenges and refine regulatory standards to adapt to shifting market conditions.
- Mifid:
Coming in third is one of the most talked about regulations in Europe over the past two decades – the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (Mifid), which was first implemented in 2007 across the EU to harmonise regulation for investment services and activities. The implementation of Mifid has resulted in a wide range of changes to market structure, investor protection and competition.
A key objective of the regulation was to increase market transparency through the promotion of regulated trading venues and encouraging price discovery. The proliferation of multilateral trading facilities (MTFs) and systematic internalisers (Sis) is directly linked to Mifid. Both provide alternative venue for investors to execute trades and foster competition among trading venues.
Another outcome of the regulation was the introduction of best execution as a concept, essentially requiring investment firms to take all reasonable steps to obtain the best possible outcome for clients when executing orders. This increased focus on investor protection has resulted in greater scrutiny of execution practices and more focused reporting requirements to showcase compliance.
The first rendition of Mifid also aimed to promote investor confidence through the introduction of requirements for investor protection measures such as suitability and appropriateness assessments as a means to ensure financial products and services are suitable for individual investors’ needs and risk profiles.
Mifid did, however, face criticism for unintended consequences including the fragmentation of liquidity across various trading venues, as well as potential conflicts of interest in the provision of investment services. Mifid’s legacy continues to shape regulatory frameworks and market dynamics, alongside laying the groundwork for subsequent regulatory initiatives such as Mifid II…
- Mifid II:
Next up is the revised Markets in Financial Instruments Directive, Mifid II, which was implemented in January 2018 as an overhaul of its predecessor, Mifid I. This regulatory framework, which has been actualised throughout the EU, aims to address the shortcomings of Mifid I, enhance transparency, investor protection and market integrity – essentially adapting to the evolving financial landscape.
A key aspect of Mifid II, is the expansion of transparency requirements, namely in the trading of financial instruments. It mandates increased pre- and post-trade transparency for a wide range of asset classes, including equities, fixed income, derivatives, and structured finance products. This transparency seeks to improve price discovery, enhance market efficiency, and provide investors with better insights into market dynamics.
The regulation also introduced stricter rules on investor protection and product governance, particularly through mandating more rigorous suitability and appropriateness assessments, to ensure that financial products and services are aligned with investors’ needs and risk profiles. Mifid II also imposes disclosure obligations on investment firms regarding costs, charges, and inducements, aiming to mitigate conflicts of interest and improve transparency in client relationships.
Market structure was another key focus area, with Mifid II introducing new requirements for trading venues and systematic internalisers, with an effort to enhance competition, promote the use of regulated trading venues, and improve access to liquidity for market participants.
As with most regulatory implementation, to market participants, especially with respect to compliance costs and operational complexities. To comply, firms have had to make significant investments in technology and infrastructure to meet the new reporting and transparency requirements.
More recently, numerous elements of the regulation are being reviewed again, leaving a lot of market participants frustrated, with revisions linked unbundling rules, the establishment of a consolidated tape and rules related to double volume caps.
- Emir (European Market Infrastructure Regulation):
Rounding out the top five is the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (Emir), which was similarly formulated in response to the 2008 GFC, with the aim of enhancing transparency and reducing risks in the derivatives market across the European Union (EU). Implemented in 2021, EMIR has since impacted the financial landscape through the imposition of strict requirements on over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives transactions.
Among the key elements of the regulation, Emir mandates the central clearing of standardised OTC derivatives through central counterparties (CCPs), which ultimately reduces the counterparty credit risk, alongside aiming to bolster market stability.
The regulation has resulted in notable increases in clearing volumes and the establishment of new CCPs to meet increased demand, leading to a more resilient financial infrastructure.
Emir has also resulted in the introduction of reporting obligations on derivative contracts, providing regulators with data to observe systemic risks and detect potential market abuses. By promoting transparency and accountability, Emir aims to help enhance market integrity and investor confidence.
As with any regulation, compliance with Emir requirements did come with growing pains. Smaller firms particularly faced greater challenges associated with adoption due to the associated costs and operational complexities. Also, regulatory changes and evolving market dynamics regularly require adaptation, resulting in a strain on resources and ongoing requirements for investment in technology and expertise.
The nature of Emir’s extraterritorial reach has also impacted non-EU entities facilitating derivatives transactions with EU counterparties – which would require compliance with certain Emir provisions or equivalent regulations within their own jurisdictions.
Although helping to reshape the derivatives market landscape through fostering greater transparency, resilient and risk management practices, ongoing monitoring and adaption are essential for this regulation to address emerging challenges and ensuring effectiveness in safeguarding financial stability within the EU and beyond. Having been established for over 10 years, the regulation is currently being reviewed under the Emir refit, with the purpose of this change and the introduction of new amendments is to raise data quality.
- Libor Transition:
Another key change within the regulatory landscape is the Libor transition, which refers to the phasing out of the London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor) as a benchmark interest rate, has had significant impacts on the financial market. The transition away from Libor began in earnest in 2017, when regulators raised concerns about the reliability and integrity of the benchmark. On 30 June 2023, Livor was replaced by the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR). Libor, which has been utilised as a key reference rate for various financial products and contracts globally for decades, has faced challenges due to manipulation scandals and a decline in underlying transaction volumes. The instrument was manipulated to the point that it had to be removed from the market and had various traders imprisoned as a result of their rigging and/or fixing of the benchmark.
The transition from Libor to alternative risk-free rates (RFRs) has been a key focus area for regulators and industry bodies to address the inherent weaknesses and uncertainties associated with Libor. This transition has had impacts various financial instrument including loans, bonds, derivatives, and structured products.
A key impact of the transition is the need for market participants to amend existing contracts and develop new products based on alternative RFRs, such as the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (Sofr) in the United States, the Sterling Overnight Index Average (Sonia) in the UK, and the Euro Short-Term Rate (€STR) in the EU. This has resulted in a range of operational and legal challenges, as well as potential basis risk between Libor and RFR-based contracts.
The regulation also led to changes in risk management practices and valuation methodologies for financial institutions. Market participants are required to assess the impact of the transition on their balance sheets, hedging strategies, and capital adequacy, as well as the potential implications for liquidity and funding.
The transition also has implications for financial markets infrastructure, including trading platforms, clearinghouses, and benchmark administrators, which need to adapt to support the use of alternative RFRs.
- T+1:
With a large amount of discourse around its seismic impact, the next regulatory change on the list is the critical shift to T+1 settlement in North America set for May 2024. Traditionally, many securities transactions have settled on a T+2 basis, in which buyers receive ownership of a security and the seller receives payment two business days after the trade date. However, there has been growing momentum towards adopting a T+1 settlement cycle in various financial markets around the world – arguably as a means for global alignment.
The shift to T+1 settlement has several potential impacts on the financial market. Firstly, it can reduce counterparty and systemic risks by reducing the duration of exposure to market and credit risks between trade execution and settlement. Shorter settlement cycles are expected to enhance market efficiency and stability by reducing the likelihood of default or disruption in the event of market volatility or counterparty failure.
T+1 settlement can also help improve liquidity management for market participants, as it accelerates the return of cash or securities tied up in transactions. This can lead to more efficient use of capital and reduced financing costs for investors and financial institutions.
However, the transition does also present challenges for market participants and infrastructure providers. Financial firms may need to upgrade their systems and processes to support shorter settlement cycles, including adjustments to risk management, compliance, and operational procedures. Elsewhere, infrastructure such as clearinghouses, custodians, and settlement systems, may require enhancements to accommodate the increased volume and frequency of transactions.
Foreign exchange is an element that will be hugely impacted by the US’ transition to T+1 settlement, with the move resulting in less time for firms to interact with any US-based counterparties. A shift to T+1 essentially means that if there are any breaks or exceptions to manage in the trade settlement process, there will be less time to engage with counterparties to settle those.
T+1 has been a largely discussed shift in regulation over the last few years and we don’t expect this to stop as the UK and EU explore the possibility to transition to T+1 or even T+0 as well.
- UMR:
The uncleared margin rules (UMR), are next up on the list. The regulatory requirements introduced by global regulators, including the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and the International Organisation of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) were a means to limit systemic risk in the over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives market. The rules mandate the exchange of initial and variation margin between counterparties for non-centrally cleared derivatives transactions. The regulation entered its final phase in September 2022, bringing its six-year implementation journey to an end.
UMR has resulted in higher cost of trading for OTC derivatives, given that counterparties are required to post initial margin to cover potential future exposures. Higher capital requirements have come about for market participants, namely for financial institutions as it has impacted their profitability and trading strategies.
The actual implementation of UMR also led to operational challenges for market participants, given the requirement for significant upgrades to risk management systems, collateral management processes and legal documentation. The impacts of compliance have been felt most by smaller firms, which have faced a strain on resources due to limited operational capabilities.
Elsewhere, UMR has impact market infrastructure through the development of new margining services, collateral optimisation platforms and central counterparties (CCPs) providing margining solutions for non-centrally cleared derivatives. These enhancements seek to improve margining processes, enhance efficiency and limit counterparty credit risk in the derivatives market.
- Systemically Important Financial Institutions (SIFIs) Designation:
Systemically Important Financial Institutions (SIFIs) Designation comes in as number nine on our roundup, which focuses on financial institutions whose defaults have the potential to pose a significant threat to the stability of the financial system and economy due to their size, interconnectedness, complexity and other systemic factors. The designation of SIFIs has been a key focus of regulatory efforts since the GFC, seeking to mitigate systemic risk and improve financial stability.
A key impact of SIFI designation is increased regulatory scrutiny and oversight. SIFIs are subject to stringent capital, liquidity, and risk management requirements from regulatory authorities to limit the likelihood of their failure. This regulation resulted in changes to the business models, operations, and risk profiles of SIFI institutions, as a means to comply with regulatory expectations and maintain their systemic importance.
SIFI designation can, however, have unintended consequences, such as reduced competition and market concentration, as regulatory burdens may discourage smaller firms from achieving SIFI status. The process of designation itself can be contentious, with debates over the criteria used to determine systemic importance and concerns about the potential for regulatory capture.
Contextually, the Bank of England (BofE) launched a stress testing exercise for major banks and buy-siders to avoid future bond collapses, shedding light on the behaviours of major institutions in stressed financial market conditions with a focus on the fixed income and derivatives markets.
- Volcker Rule:
The previously mentioned Volcker Rule enacted as part of the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010, rounds out the top ten. The regulation aims to prevent excessive risk-taking and conflicts of interest through the restriction of proprietary trading and certain investment activities conducted by banks. Its impact on the financial market has been wide-ranging, altering banks’ trading strategies, market liquidity, and overall financial market structure.
A primary objective of the regulation is to prohibit banks from engaging in proprietary trading which involves trading securities and derivatives for the bank’s own profit rather than on behalf of clients, as a means of mitigating risk. Through limiting speculative trading activities, the Volcker Rule seeks to protect banks from incurring significant losses and reduce the likelihood of taxpayer-funded bailouts in the event of financial turmoil.
The Volcker Rule also imposes restrictions on banks’ investments in hedge funds and private equity funds, as a preventative to conflicts of interest and to ensure that banks prioritise the interests of their clients and shareholders. This rule has resulted in changes in the structure and operations of certain financial institutions, as they divest from or restructure their proprietary trading desks and investment activities for compliance.
The regulation has faced criticism for its complexity and potential unintentional consequences. Sceptics argue that the rule has the potential to hinder market liquidity and reduce the efficiency of financial markets by limiting banks’ ability to facilitate trading activities. Compliance with the rule has resulted in notable costs on banks, leading to worries about its impact on profitability and competitiveness.
- ESMA’s rules on AI:
AI has been an ever-important theme across the capital markets sphere with regulators looking to ensure innovation does not lead to market disruption. The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has been vocal in the development of rules and guidelines regarding the use of artificial intelligence in the financial market, having released a risk analysis report in February 2023. As AI technologies become increasingly present and useable in financial services, ESMA has focused its attention on addressing potential risks while promoting innovation and efficiency.
A key determinant of the regulation is ESMA’s rules on AI is the promotion of responsible AI use. ESMA’s guidelines emphasise the importance of governance, accountability, and transparency in AI deployment. Firms are required to implement robust governance frameworks to ensure the ethical and responsible use of AI, such as mechanisms for monitoring and mitigating AI biases, ensuring data privacy and security, and maintaining transparency in AI decision-making processes.
ESMA’s rules on AI have also impacted risk management practices in the financial market, with firms required to conduct thorough risk assessments to identify and mitigate potential risks associated with AI, such as model risk, algorithmic bias, and data quality issues.
The rules may also influence the competitiveness and innovation landscape in the financial market, with ESMA aiming to encourage innovation and competition by providing clarity and certainty around regulatory expectations. This encourages firms to invest in AI technologies and develop innovative AI-driven financial products and services targeting market needs while still complying with regulatory obligations.
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau:
Established in 2010, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is another impactful regulatory change, also established under the Dodd-Frank Act, with the key aim to protect consumers in the financial landscape. Since its inception, the CFPB has had a significant influence on the financial market through its regulatory oversight, enforcement actions, and consumer education initiatives.
Among the key roles of the CFPB, is the enforcement of federal consumer financial laws and regulation in which financial institutions are held accountable for unfair, deceptive or abusive practices.
As part of its supervisory and enforcement authority, the CFPB has taken action against financial institutions for a various violations including predatory lending, deceptive advertising, and unlawful debt collection practices.
This has resulted in substantial penalties and restitution for affected consumers, reiterating the consequences of non-compliance. Additionally, the regulation offers consumer education and empowerment initiatives to help individuals make informed financial decisions and navigate the complexities of the financial system.
- Anti-Money Laundering Regulations:
Anti-Money Laundering (AML) regulations have become an important component of the global financial system aimed at detecting and preventing the illegal conversion of money received from illegal activities into legitimate funds.
These regulations have a significant impact on the financial market, influencing the operations, compliance requirements, and risk management practices of financial institutions.
A key impact of AML regulations has been the imposition of strict due diligence and customer identification procedures. Financial institutions are obliged to verify the identity of their customers, assess their risk profile, and monitor transactions for unusual activities.
This has led to the establishment of Know Your Customer (KYC) and Customer Due Diligence (CDD) processes, bolstering transparency and accountability in financial transactions.
- The SEC’s Regulation Best Interest (Reg BI):
Next up on our list is the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Regulation Best Interest (Reg BI), which was put into place in June 2020 as a means to enhancing investor protection and promoting greater transparency and accountability in the provision of investment advice. Reg BI represented a notable regulatory overhaul in the financial market, particularly for broker-dealers, investment advisers, and financial professionals who provide investment advice to retail clients.
A key aspect of Reg BI is the establishment of a higher standard of conduct for broker-dealers when making recommendations to retail customers. A spart of the regulation, broker-dealers are required to act in the best interest of their clients, placing the clients’ interests ahead of their own and avoiding conflicts of interest that could compromise impartiality linked to investment recommendations.
This has resulted in increased scrutiny of broker-dealer practices, particularly regarding the disclosure of conflicts of interest and the suitability of investment recommendations for clients. Major changes in compliance and disclosure requirements have been established by the regulation for broker-dealers and investment advisers.
Reg BI has led to increased regulatory oversight and enforcement actions by the SEC to ensure compliance with the new standards of conduct. Firms found to be in violation of Reg BI can potentially face significant penalties and reputational damage, emphasising the requirements for robust compliance programs and ethical practices in the financial industry.
- General Data Protection Regulation:
At number 15 comes the notable implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in May 2018. While not exclusively focused on financial markets, it introduced stringent regulations on data protection and privacy. Namely, strict requirements on how organisations handle personal data, including financial information, affecting financial institutions and their interactions with customers.
The regulation aimed to harmonise data protection laws across the European Union (EU) and provide individuals with greater control over their personal data. Its impact on financial markets has been notable, with changes in how financial institutions collect, process, and manage customer data.
This includes receiving explicit consent from individuals for data processing activities, maintaining transparency in data processing practices, and implementing solid data protection measures to safeguard sensitive information.
- Payment Services Directive 2:
The list would be incomplete without mention of the Payment Services Directive 2 (PSD2) of 2018, an EU regulation established to modernise and harmonise payment services across member states while promoting innovation, competition, and security in the financial market.
Since implementation in January 2018, PSD2 has impacted the financial landscape, namely in the areas of payment services, banking, and fintech.
A key impact of PSD2 is the promotion of open banking and increased competition. The regulation requires banks to provide third-party providers (TPPs) with access to customer account information and payment initiation services through application programming interfaces (APIs). The regulation also introduced strong customer authentication (SCA) requirements to bolster security and limit fraud in electronic payments.
Under SCA, customers are expected to authenticate their identity using at least two independent factors, such as passwords, biometrics, or one-time codes, when making electronic payments; helping protect consumers’ financial data and improve trust in digital payment services.
PSD2 had implications for traditional banks and financial institutions, as they are now expected to adapt to new regulatory requirements and compete with innovative fintech players.
- International Financial Reporting Standards:
As we near the end of this roundup, we could not forget to mention the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), which are a worldwide accepted set of accounting standards initiated and maintained by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). In 2002, the EU agreed that from 1 January 2005, IFRS would apply for the consolidated accounts of the EU listed companies; various countries have since followed suit with adoption.
IFRS aims to standardise financial reporting practices, enhance transparency, and improve comparability of financial statements across different jurisdictions. The impact of IFRS on the financial market has been notable, influencing financial reporting, investment decisions, and regulatory oversight.
A key impact of IFRS has been the harmonisation of accounting standards across borders. The provision of a common framework for financial reporting set out by IFRS has helped facilitate cross-border investments and transactions, resulting in improved understanding and assessments of the financial performance of multinational companies for investors, analysts and regulators. This has led to increased transparency and comparability of financial information, reducing information asymmetry, alongside improved market efficiency. The regulation also introduced changes in financial reporting practices and accounting treatments, namely in areas such as revenue recognition, lease accounting, and financial instruments.
The implementation did however present challenges for companies and regulators, including the need for training and education, adjustments to accounting systems and processes, and potential costs associated with compliance.
- Basel IV:
Stemming from the aftermath of the global financial crisis, Basel IV builds upon the foundations laid by earlier agreements such as Basel I, Basel II, and Basel III. Basel IV, which informally refers to as a series of proposed global banking reforms, commenced implementation on 1 January 2023, with a projected completion timeframe of five years.
A key aspect of Basel IV is its modification of the methodology for calculating risk-weighted assets, aiming to fortify the international banking system by standardising regulations across different countries, particularly in areas concerning risk management.
The overarching goal of the Basel Accords, encompassing Basel I, II, III, and now IV, is to enhance the comprehension of supervisory practices and elevate the quality of banking oversight globally, as outlined by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS).
The committee endeavours to achieve this objective through various means, including facilitating the exchange of information regarding national supervisory frameworks, refining the efficacy of supervisory approaches concerning international banking activities, and establishing minimum supervisory benchmarks deemed beneficial for the industry.
- Climate-related Financial Disclosure Requirements:
Next up are climate-related financial disclosure requirements which have emerged as a key element of sustainable finance initiatives in recent times. They seek to limit the risks and opportunities associated with climate change.
These requirements mandate that firms disclose information about their climate-related risks, impacts, and strategies in their financial filings and reporting.
A key impact of such requirements is increased transparency and awareness of climate-related risks among investors, lenders, and other stakeholders. The requirement for companies to disclose information about their exposure to climate risks, such as physical risks and transition risks have helped enable investors to make more informed decisions and allocate capital towards climate-resilient and sustainable investments.
Such initiatives can also help drive increased accountability and action among companies to address climate change. By publicly disclosing their climate-related risks and opportunities, companies are incentivised to implement strategies to mitigate risks, improve resilience, and transition to low-carbon business models.
These regulatory requirements have also led to the development of new financial products and services, such as green bonds, climate risk analytics, and sustainability-linked loans – enabling investors and financial institutions to integrate climate-related elements into their investment decisions and risk management practices, driving the growth of sustainable finance markets.
- Regulatory Technology Adoption:
Our final top 20 regulation is the adoption of Regulatory Technology (Regtech), a theme which has increasingly become more of a staple across the financial market – gaining traction from the mid-2010s in response to increasing regulatory requirements and advancements in technology. Regtech has helped improve the way financial institutions manage regulatory compliance, risk management, and reporting obligations.
Among the key impacts of Regtech adoption is the automation and streamlining of regulatory compliance processes. By accessing advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, and big data analytics, Regtech solutions allow financial institutions to automate manual compliance tasks, monitor regulatory changes in real-time, and result in improved compliance to complex regulatory requirements. As a result, a reduction in the burden of compliance costs and resource-intensive activities exists, allowing firms to allocate resources more efficiently and focus on value-added activities.
Regtech adoption has also led to improved transparency and risk management in the financial market. Such solutions allow firms to aggregate, analyse and visualise huge amounts of data from disparate sources, providing insights into potential risks and compliance gaps. This has led to a bolstering in risk management and decision-making, enabling firms to identify and mitigate risks more effectively and improve overall risk governance.
20 regulatory changes over 20 years
Having reached the close of this extensive round-up of regulatory changes over The TRADE’s 20-year existence, it’s clear that regulation has been a key theme over the last two decades.
The GFC helped inspire an extensive shift in regulatory reforms which has continued to shake up the landscape of financial markets globally. Despite concerns and proof that consistent regulatory reforms are leaving market participants ‘exhausted’, revisions and changes ultimately aim to help improve market dynamics and to create a more efficient – and safer – financial landscape.
Us at The TRADE do not expect regulatory updates to stop any time soon and the team will be sure to keep our ears to the ground to ensure we keep you apprised of incoming updates and revisions for years to come!