GRA · Financial Regulation Nexus

Spatial financeWhere capital meets hazard, exposure and transition

Cross-border supervision

Large banks, insurers and market infrastructures operate across many jurisdictions, but supervisory and resolution powers stop at national borders. International standards, supervisory colleges, memoranda of understanding and peer review try to close that gap. This page explains how cross-border gaps and arbitrage develop, why home and host authorities can pull in different directions, which records show the state of cooperation, and who decides how far authorities defer to each other.

01Canvas

How the work runs.

Systems · around this subjectIllustrative

Supervisory review console

Cross-border supervision · Bank supervision · Cycle 1

10 findings overdueGRA · Financial Regulation Nexus

Firms by risk rating

Bank BHigh34Enhanced
Bank DMedium23Standard
Insurer AlphaHigh33Enhanced
Fintech F1Low22Light

Findings

Open01
Model validation gapsBank B
Remediating01
Climate data qualityInsurer Alpha
Closed01
Liquidity reportingBank D

Climate expectations met

share of firms, thematic review

Governance, %81 of 100 requiredRisk management, %73 of 100 requiredScenario analysis, %33 of 100 requiredDisclosure, %69 of 100 required
Supervisory review console: the screen's structure, terms and states for Cross-border supervision.Example names and illustrative values; a design, not a record or a live system.

Fig.Supervisory review console: example names and illustrative values, not a record or a live system.

02The question

Cross-border supervision: how the risk develops.

International standards and cooperation. The dossier below sets out how the risk develops, what is measured, where the data come from, how it is modelled and who decides.

Mechanism

Home and host incentives diverge

A home supervisor looks at the whole group; a host supervisor looks at the local entity and its depositors. In calm times they cooperate, in stress each may ring-fence assets and liquidity, which can deepen the group's problem.

Mechanism

Information does not travel

Confidentiality laws, differing formats and slow processes limit what one authority can share with another. Risks that span entities in several countries can go unseen by each authority alone.

Mechanism

Booking models exploit borders

Firms can book activity where rules, taxes or supervision are lightest while serving clients elsewhere. Branches, back-to-back trades and remote booking move risk away from the authority that sees the client.

Mechanism

Standards rest on national will

International standard setters have no enforcement power. Implementation depends on peer pressure, market discipline and conditionality in IMF programmes, so gaps can persist for years.

03Spatial finance

Settlement dependencies, and what fails with a node.

How a failure at one financial centre can spread through settlement links. Design links, not real dependencies.

Sixteen financial centres, and how a failure at one spreads through settlement links.Design links, not the real dependencies of any infrastructure.
04Indicators

What is measured, and how well.

Each indicator carries its unit, its cadence, the kind of source behind it and the evidence label a value would carry. No values are shown: a programme supplies them under its own authority.

IndicatorUnitCadenceSource typeLabel
Signatories to the IOSCO multilateral MoUcount and status of signatoriesas updatedIOSCO signatory listPublished statistics
Crisis management groups for systemic firmspresence per global systemically important firmannualFSB resolution reportingPublished statistics
Cross-border bank claimscurrency amount by counterparty countryquarterlyBIS locational and consolidated banking statisticsPublished statistics
Equivalence and deference decisionscount by framework and third countryas adoptedEquivalence decision recordsPublished statistics
FSB peer review recommendations followed upstatus per recommendationper reviewFSB peer reviewsPublished statistics
FATF effectiveness ratings on international cooperationrating per immediate outcomeper evaluationFATF mutual evaluation reportsPublished statistics
Supervisory colleges establishedpresence per cross-border groupannualAuthority annual reportsREPORTED
05Twin and cascade simulator

Trace a shock in cross-border supervision to the balance sheet.

Assembled from the Nexus Standards area profile Central banks and financial supervisors: the shocks it names, the systems and sectors that carry the loss, the controls that dampen it and the data that observe it. Pick an initiating shock and step through the cascade to see which exposures it reaches and where losses could concentrate. The Map view places the run on an example geography with open data. Every weight is a stated assumption. An exercise, not a forecast, a valuation, a rating or investment advice. To model a place of your own choosing, open the full System Builder.

Hazards

  • Tropical cyclone
  • Earthquake
  • Ice-jam flood
  • Wildfire
  • Storm surge (set off downstream)
  • Intense rainfall (set off downstream)
  • River flood (set off downstream)
  • Flash flood (set off downstream)
  • Dangerous surf (set off downstream)
  • Widespread power outage (set off downstream)
  • Mass displacement (set off downstream)
  • Coastal flood (set off downstream)
  • Aftershock sequence (set off downstream)
  • Fault surface rupture (set off downstream)
  • Soil liquefaction (set off downstream)
  • Slope slide (set off downstream)
  • Rockfall (set off downstream)
  • Tsunami (set off downstream)

Controls

  • NS-0 Constitution and principles
  • NS-3 Risk record UNIs (grammar, legacy crosswalk, allocation authority)
  • NS-9 Contextual UNIs (deployments, instances, programme instances)
  • NS-10 Policies and clauses (machine-readable obligations: definition, binding, evaluation and enforcement)
  • NS-11 Verification and monitoring (evidence, attestations, zero-trust conformance observation)
  • NS-14 Conformance and crosswalk to external standards
  • NRS-H113 Hazard family: Financial-system fragility (NHS-1 soc.financial-system)
  • NRS-H59 Hazard family: Economic shocks and governance failure (NHS-1 soc.economic)
  • NRS-H62 Hazard family: Compound and multi-hazard events (NHS-1 sys.compound)
  • NRS-C5 Scenarios and stress testing
  • NRS-H94 Hazard family: Systemic cyber events (NHS-1 cyber.systemic-cyber)
  • NRS-H118 Hazard family: Organised crime and illicit economies (NHS-1 soc.crime)

Observation

  • IMF data services (IFS, FSI, WEO, GFS) (listed for reference)
  • BIS statistics (banking, credit, debt securities, property prices) (listed for reference)
  • ECB Data Portal (listed for reference)
  • NGFS Scenario Explorer (listed for reference)
  • Bank nonperforming loans to total gross loans (%)
  • Bank capital to assets ratio (%)
  • Macroeconomic Dashboard

Example geography

  • Western Europe: 152 hexagonal cells
  • Rain rate, last half hour (IMERG), NASA GIBS
  • Night lights tonight, outages (VIIRS Day/Night Band), NASA GIBS
  • Surface water through cloud, 30 m (OPERA DSWx-S1 radar), NASA GIBS
  • Carbon monoxide, smoke transport (AIRS), NASA GIBS
06Sources

Where the evidence comes from.

Named public datasets and institutional records, each with its licence class. Sources by agreement are used only under their terms and never republished.

SourceWhat it givesLicence class
BIS locational and consolidated banking statisticsCross-border claims and liabilities of internationally active banksPublic, BIS terms of use with attribution
IOSCO multilateral MoU signatory listSecurities regulators committed to enforcement cooperation and information exchangePublic, terms per IOSCO
FSB peer reviews and annual implementation reportCountry and thematic peer reviews and the status of G20 reformsPublic, terms per FSB
FATF mutual evaluation reports and consolidated ratingsTechnical compliance and effectiveness ratings, including international cooperationPublic, terms per FATF
European Commission equivalence decisionsThird-country equivalence decisions under EU financial lawPublic, EU reuse policy with attribution
IMF Financial Sector Assessment Program reportsAssessments of cross-border cooperation and home-host arrangementsPublic, IMF copyright and terms
07Exposure, loss and capital

What cross-border supervision means for exposure, loss and capital.

The exposure, loss, scenario and capital views a risk officer, supervisor or ministry of finance would ask for, with the frameworks they report against. Structures follow supervisory and actuarial practice. Values are illustrative: never prices, ratings or advice.

Disclosure crosswalk

Where evidence on cross-border supervision fits the disclosure and prudential frameworks institutions report against.

PillarTCFDISSB IFRS S2Prudential (BCBS, IAIS)Evidence this page can hold
GovernanceBoard oversight of climate-related risksGovernance requirementsGovernance and risk appetite principlesWho owns the risk and how it is escalated
StrategyRisks, opportunities and resilienceScenario analysis and resilienceStrategy and business model principlesScenario design and transmission paths
Risk managementIdentify, assess, manageRisk management processesInternal control and ICAAP or ORSAExposure maps and loss views
Metrics and targetsMetrics used and targets setCross-industry and industry metricsData, metrics and reporting principlesIndicator definitions and units
Sources: the TCFD recommendations, ISSB IFRS S2 and the BCBS and IAIS principles, cited by name; the framework texts are the authority. A crosswalk by pillar. It is not a compliance assessment.
NGFS climate scenarios · Network for Greening the Financial SystemIFRS S2 Climate-related Disclosures · ISSBTCFD recommendations · Financial Stability Board TCFDPrinciples for the effective management of climate-related financial risks · Basel Committee on Banking Supervision
08Decisions

Who decides, and what the evidence serves.

Financial Regulation Nexus prepares evidence. The decisions below are taken by the authorities named, under their own rules, and never by the platform.

Who decidesThe questionEvidence this page serves
Financial Stability Board and international standard settersWhere cooperation arrangements need strengthening and how implementation is monitoredPeer review outcomes and documented gaps in cooperation
Home and host supervisorsWhat information to share and how to coordinate supervision and crisis actionCollege practice, MoU coverage and case histories of cooperation in stress
Legislatures and the European CommissionWhether to grant equivalence, require subsidiaries or allow branchesComparative branch and equivalence regimes and their effects
G20 leaders and finance ministersWhich reforms to mandate and reviewImplementation reports and peer reviews

Outputs this topic produces

  • Maps of cooperation agreements, colleges and crisis management groups
  • Comparative briefs on equivalence, deference and branch regimes
  • Supervisory learning material on home-host cooperation in stress
  • Guides to cross-border banking statistics and their gaps
09Core questions

What experts ask.

Cross-border supervision researchers ask how national authorities oversee international activity.

  • How are international standards developed, and how consistently are they implemented?
  • How do home and host supervisors share information and coordinate on cross-border groups?
  • What causes regulatory fragmentation, and what are its costs and benefits?
  • How are cross-border resolution and crisis management coordinated?
  • How do differences in rules create arbitrage opportunities?
10Mechanisms and drivers

Global institutions, national authority.

International standard setters develop standards through consensus among member authorities, but standards have no legal force until adopted nationally. Implementation varies in timing and detail. Cross-border groups are supervised by home authorities for the group and host authorities for local entities, coordinated through colleges and cooperation agreements.

Information sharing between authorities is a precondition for effective oversight of cross-border groups, but it is limited by confidentiality law, differing legal frameworks and trust. Memoranda of understanding and colleges help, yet authorities may still see only part of a group's risk.

In a crisis, national authorities face pressure to protect domestic depositors and taxpayers, which can lead to ring-fencing of assets and capital. Fragmentation can increase resilience locally while reducing efficiency and creating trapped liquidity. Balancing cooperation and national interest is a recurring theme.

11Methods and data

How the evidence is built, and where it stops.

  1. 01

    Implementation monitoring

    Comparing national adoption of standards using policy and institutional science. Assessments may lag.

  2. 02

    Game-theoretic analysis

    Modelling incentives for cooperation with game theory and mechanism design. Simplifies real behaviour.

  3. 03

    Case studies

    Studying cross-border failures and resolutions. Few cases exist.

  4. 04

    Legal analysis

    Comparing cooperation agreements. Many are confidential.

12Methods

How it is studied, and what the methods cannot say.

  1. Game theory and mechanism designHome-host cooperation in resolution · Regulatory competition between jurisdictionsApplied here
  2. Policy, institutional and decision scienceRegulatory impact assessment · Comparing supervisory architecturesApplied here
  3. Financial economics and macro-financeCosts and benefits of capital requirements · Tracing leakage of macroprudential measuresApplied here
  4. Data engineering, interoperability and stewardshipMapping templates to a common model · Entity resolution with identifiersApplied here
13Questions

Questions and answers.

What is a supervisory college?
A standing group of the supervisors of a cross-border firm, chaired by the home supervisor, that shares information and coordinates supervisory work. It does not transfer legal powers between members.
What does equivalence mean?
A decision that another jurisdiction's rules achieve outcomes comparable to one's own, allowing reliance on that regime. It can be granted, made conditional or withdrawn.
Why do host authorities ring-fence?
To protect local depositors and creditors if the group fails. The cost is that trapped capital and liquidity cannot support the group where it is needed.
Are international standards binding?
Not by themselves. They become binding when national authorities adopt them into their own law or rules.
Does the platform take part in standard setting?
No. It studies standards and their implementation. Standard setting belongs to the member authorities.
ReportsContribute

Contribute evidence from this page.

Reports is the Consortium's quarterly publication. What you know about this subject can become evidence, a case or a correction in the next edition, credited to you and published under CC BY 4.0 where it is your own work.

Global Risks AllianceFinancial Regulation NexusFinance and Insurance ReadinessMethods and Technical
Financial Regulation Nexus

Bring an exposure or capital question to the Alliance.

Information and enquiries are open today. An enquiry receives a reference and names the next step; applications, payments, compute allocations and registrations open only when their team, terms and review capacity exist.

The Global Risks Alliance

Finance · trust · precision

Not for profit

Our articles, maps and twins are free to read and free to republish. Readers and partners keep it that way.

Partner with us

Who funds us

GRA is a not-for-profit institution. To ask who funds a piece of work, use the funding questions form.

Independence

Editors and the expert reviewers named on each article decide what we publish. Funders and partners do not review or approve articles before publication.

Licence

Articles: CC BY 4.0. Figures, maps, twins and data: CC BY 4.0. Other uses: ask through the permissions form.