A Starling Insights Deeper Dive Report

Supervisors on Supervision

Public Exposure Draft

Tiff Macklem

Governor

Bank of Canada

Picture of Tiff Macklem
View Full Report

Contributions to the Supervisors on Supervision Stocktake

What does culture mean in the supervisory context?

1.1.1a There is recognition among stocktake participants that culture lacks a commonly agreed-upon definition, which makes it difficult to discuss, examine, or assess.

“To date, discussions of culture have remained abstract. They’ve relied on self-assessment, survey sentiment or reputational proxies. Supervisors have struggled to clearly define what ‘good’ looks like and focus instead on evidence of ‘bad.’That understandably frustrates firms, which then tend to approach the topic as an exercise in window-dressing, designed to placate supervisors.” 

Should culture, and the conduct proclivities it may promote or discourage among employees, factor into supervisory engagements?

1.2.1d Some supervisors have suggested that organizational culture has the potential to generate systemic risks, rather than merely idiosyncratic risks isolated to a given firm.

“Trust, culture, and legitimacy are not abstract ideals… They are systemic inputs that determine the confidence enjoyed by institutions and markets.”

How does the lack of a common supervisory approach to culture and conduct risk across jurisdictions pose a concern?

1.3.1a Some participants note that, because many financial institutions operate in multiple jurisdictions, a lack of coordination on culture and conduct risk creates challenges for effective supervision.

"Culture is increasingly being treated as a ‘hard’ driver of risk. 

Fragmented approaches to culture risk governance and supervision will make for inefficiencies and overlaps while leaving gaps in oversight. A shared framework, interoperable tools and a common evidentiary basis for judging effectiveness proactively, rather than remedying the consequences of failure after they manifest, yields the best result for the least regulatory burden.”

How do supervisors approach supervision in the absence of clear frameworks and guidelines related to culture?

1.4.1b Participants also acknowledged how supervisory discretion may be limited.

“Supervision relies on discretion. That is both its value and its vulnerability. 

Discretion, if it is to be exercised with the necessary legitimacy, must be transparent. It must produce results aligned with a mandate of stability.”

How does a lack of effective tools and frameworks for culture risk supervision impact perceptions of supervisory legitimacy?

1.4.3b Participants also point out that such tools would be helpful in supporting effective governance around supervision itself.

“Regulators and supervisors operate within cultures that shape their own performance. Putting these tools to work in our own organizations may be exactly the place to start.”

What have we learned from past approaches to culture risk governance and supervision?

3.3.2e Other participants caution against using capital or liquidity controls as a means to compensate for lack of sound culture risk governance.

“Recurrent breakdowns — in conduct, governance and stability — demonstrate that resilience is not achieved through capital alone. Resilience depends on decision-making. And decision making is shaped by the norms, incentives and behaviours that define how institutions operate. It is shaped by culture.”

How do supervisors need to adapt in order to accelerate progress in culture supervision?

3.4.2b Participants note that supervisors should build trust into their approaches.

“We need to protect supervisory judgment, and we can do this by reinforcing it with more rigour and reliability. This will require investing in the skills and tools necessary to advance efficacy. As with monetary policy, trust in the consistency of supervision will determine its effectiveness.”

What systems and structures are needed to help supervisors and firms alike to find, evaluate, and easily adopt new technologies and methods as they come available?

4.3.1a Participants discuss the need to establish a common evidentiary basis for culture assessment, among firms and within their own agencies alike.

“A shared framework, interoperable tools, and a common evidentiary basis… yields the best result for the least regulatory burden.”