Twin Peaks in South Africa: a new role for the central bank

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 154-162
Author(s):  
Corlia van Heerden ◽  
Gerda van Niekerk
Keyword(s):  
2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Miao Han

AbstractThe global financial crisis (GFC) has been defined as the worst financial crisis after the Great Depression of the 1930s. Reforms underway, as well as debates in discussion, revolve around both regulatory philosophy and approaches towards better supervisory outcomes. One of the most radical institutional reforms took place in the United Kingdom (UK), where the Twin-Peak model replaced the previous fully integrated regulator – the Financial Services Authority (FSA) under the Financial Services Act 2012. This paper argues that China should also introduce twin peaks regulation, but it is rather based on the resources of risk in its financial sector than the direct GFC challenge. In theory, the core arguments focus on the structure of agencies responsible for prudential regulation and the role played by the central bank as well. The Twin-Peak model has been further examined in terms of regulatory objectives and instruments. By method, this paper is a country-specific comparative study; Australia, the Netherlands and the UK are selected to represent different Twin-Peak models. This paper contributes to the relevant literature in two main aspects. First, it has displayed the principal pattern of the Twin-Peak model after detailing the case studies, including the relationship involving in two regulators, central bank and finance minister in particular. Based on this, second, it becomes possible to design a very specific model to reform China’s current sector-based financial monitoring regime. As far as the author knows, until end-2015, this is the first paper which has proposed such a particular model to China. It is argued that the appropriate institutional structure of market regulation should fit well in with a country’s financial market. Accordingly, the Twin-Peak model will be able to balance the regulatory tasks for the over-concentrated risk in China’s large banking sector but the underdeveloped securities market. Even though, regulatory independence will continue to be challenged.


Headline SOUTH AFRICA: Central bank reiterates reform urgency


2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 150-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jannie Rossouw

Although the title seems to be a contradictio in terminis, this paper identifies a small, eclectic number of central banks with private shareholders about which little has been published. It is shown that only the central banks of Belgium, Greece, Italy, Japan, South Africa, Switzerland, Turkey and the United States (US) Federal Reserve allow shareholding other than by the government of the respective countries, although not in all instances by the general public. This paper considers private shareholding in this eclectic group of central banks, despite the trend of nationalising central banks that commenced in 1935. Private shareholding is defined as shareholding in a central bank by any party other than the respective government or governments (e.g. the European Central Bank) where the central bank is located.Large differences in the classes of shareholders of these eclectic central banks and differences in their approaches to dividend payments are highlighted in the paper. The conclusions reached are, firstly, that investment only in the shares of the central banks of Belgium and Greece (albeit only for residents in the latter instance) can be regarded as growth investments. Secondly, shareholding in the Italian central bank has been used to recapitalise ailing commercial banks. Thirdly, shareholders play no role in the formulation and implementation of monetary policy. Lastly, the shareholding structure of these banks contributes to improved governance in the case of the central banks of Belgium, Greece, Italy, South Africa, Switzerland and Turkey, but no evidence can be found that central banks with shareholders in any way outperform central banks without shareholders.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document