大型科技公司的系统性风险与监管:“大到不能倒?”

Q2 Economics, Econometrics and Finance
Roland Bódi, Péter Fáykiss, Ádám Nyikes
{"title":"大型科技公司的系统性风险与监管:“大到不能倒?”","authors":"Roland Bódi, Péter Fáykiss, Ádám Nyikes","doi":"10.33893/fer.22.1.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"When it comes to systemically important financial institutions, people usually think of banks, insurers or financial holding companies, but large technology firms (socalled BigTech) are increasingly part of this category. This paper examines regulatory approaches with which the systemic importance of BigTech firms in financial services could be addressed. According to the analysis, of the three regulatory frameworks identified in the literature (“restriction”, “segregation”, “inclusion”), when a balanced approach is used, the segregation of financial and non-financial activities seems to be the most promising regulatory solution, as this model works best for taking account of the practical aspects of operation, regulation and supervision.","PeriodicalId":53424,"journal":{"name":"Asian Economic and Financial Review","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Systemic Risks and Regulation of BigTech : “Too Big(Tech) to Fail?\",\"authors\":\"Roland Bódi, Péter Fáykiss, Ádám Nyikes\",\"doi\":\"10.33893/fer.22.1.5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"When it comes to systemically important financial institutions, people usually think of banks, insurers or financial holding companies, but large technology firms (socalled BigTech) are increasingly part of this category. This paper examines regulatory approaches with which the systemic importance of BigTech firms in financial services could be addressed. According to the analysis, of the three regulatory frameworks identified in the literature (“restriction”, “segregation”, “inclusion”), when a balanced approach is used, the segregation of financial and non-financial activities seems to be the most promising regulatory solution, as this model works best for taking account of the practical aspects of operation, regulation and supervision.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53424,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian Economic and Financial Review\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian Economic and Financial Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.33893/fer.22.1.5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Economics, Econometrics and Finance\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Economic and Financial Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33893/fer.22.1.5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

当谈到具有系统重要性的金融机构时,人们通常会想到银行、保险公司或金融控股公司,但大型科技公司(所谓的BigTech)越来越多地属于这一类。本文考察了监管方法,这些方法可以解决大型科技公司在金融服务中的系统重要性。根据分析,在文献中确定的三种监管框架(“限制”、“隔离”、“包容”)中,当使用平衡的方法时,金融和非金融活动的隔离似乎是最有希望的监管解决方案,因为这种模式最能考虑到运营、监管和监督的实际方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Systemic Risks and Regulation of BigTech : “Too Big(Tech) to Fail?
When it comes to systemically important financial institutions, people usually think of banks, insurers or financial holding companies, but large technology firms (socalled BigTech) are increasingly part of this category. This paper examines regulatory approaches with which the systemic importance of BigTech firms in financial services could be addressed. According to the analysis, of the three regulatory frameworks identified in the literature (“restriction”, “segregation”, “inclusion”), when a balanced approach is used, the segregation of financial and non-financial activities seems to be the most promising regulatory solution, as this model works best for taking account of the practical aspects of operation, regulation and supervision.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Asian Economic and Financial Review
Asian Economic and Financial Review Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Economics, Econometrics and Finance (all)
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
64
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信