Example collocations logo

Regulatory in sentence

1413 examples of Regulatory in a sentence

Southeast Asian policymakers are not the only people responsible for paying insufficient attention to establishing institutions necessary for a free-market financial system and the neglect of the danger of regulatory capture.
On the other hand, Europe does have a qualified responsibility in the area of security, where we still can promote an international regulatory and institutional framework that would discipline states and bring about greater transparency where global risks like nuclear power are concerned.
Traditional banking is subject to intense oversight, and regulations have only become more onerous in recent years, as regulatory authorities reacted to the 2008 global financial crisis by tightening rules on leveraging ratios and know-your-customer requirements.
Many upstarts in the sector have carved out a competitive advantage by avoiding thresholds beyond which they would face substantial regulatory scrutiny and requirements.
As the digital revolution evolves, much of the financial terrain in which technology companies are making the deepest inroads will come into much sharper regulatory focus.
But the shelter that national markets provide is illusory: the only way to increase the resilience of financial markets and to ensure that recurrence of this kind of crisis becomes less likely is to build a regulatory framework that is commensurate with integrated markets.
New projects are more market-driven, with donors’ focus gradually shifting to building the capacity of domestic regulatory and technical institutions, and to strengthening the position of existing private-sector firms to serve the market.
Though China’s domestic regulatory regime remains subject to severe constraints, China’s leaders could use the G-20 summit to change the narrative, highlighting the failure of the US and Europe to complete their regulatory agendas.
It not only put financial markets and currencies at risk; it also exposed serious regulatory and governance shortcomings that have yet to be fully addressed.
Worse, because the partial fixes to the financial system will enable even more globalization, they will end up making matters worse, as strain on already-inadequate governance and regulatory frameworks increases, not only in finance, but also in other economic and technological fields.
Meanwhile, enormous financial investments focused on securing a higher rate of return are likely to fuel technological innovation, further stressing regulatory systems in finance and beyond.
Complicating matters further, the systems affected by today’s crises extend well beyond any one regulatory body’s jurisdiction.
Despite common goals with regard to data privacy and cyber-security, the US and China have very different regulatory regimes, shaped, yet again, by conflicting ideas about the state’s appropriate role.
Examples include competition between welfare states to deter economic migrants, the race to the bottom in taxation, and regulatory rivalry in the banking and insurance sectors.
No chance of a regulatory revolution here.
Yes, more prudent policies and better regulatory frameworks have allowed local-currency bond markets to flourish in recent years.
Already, regulatory tightening, combined with the PBOC’s macroprudential tools, has caused stock prices to slide.
But the truth is that a regulatory crackdown, while necessary to mitigate financial risk, will not resolve China’s monetary conundrum, much less protect China’s economy from the consequences of a financial crisis in the long run.
India’s tax and regulatory regime is widely regarded as unfriendly to business; but Modi’s track record in government suggests that he is sensitive to this problem and will be able to make significant improvements.
They point to election results “bought” by special interests, and to arcane legal and regulatory frameworks that seem rigged to benefit the rich, such as banking regulations that only large institutions can navigate and investment treaties negotiated in secret.
But new financial regulatory frameworks – such as Basel III, which aims to reduce risk in the banking sector, and Solvency II, the European Union’s equivalent for insurance companies – are inadvertently discouraging such investment.
Indeed, regulatory agencies like the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) arose because common-law fiduciary duties failed to protect distant owners.
More fundamentally, creating the regulatory institutions conducive to ownership separation may be impossible unless a society's political orientation towards labor and capital is more favorable to capital.
By one estimate, with a long term, predictable, and equitable post-2012 global regulatory framework for curbing greenhouse gas emissions (when the Kyoto protocol expires), carbon markets could develop exponentially and deliver financial flows to developing countries of anywhere between $20 and $120 billion dollars/year.
Banks maneuvered to get the best position to take advantage of financial globalization, which usually meant locating themselves where the regulatory regime was least restrictive.
It is no longer best to be subject to the most favorable regulatory regime, but to be where the state has the deepest pockets.
What this means is not just competence in setting interest rates, but also competence in regulatory policy.
Despite these additional dangers, none of the major multilateral development institutions could easily argue today that developing countries should not formulate a development strategy that envisions sector-specific sources of economic growth, priorities for industrial development, and government support of such development with fiscal, financial, and regulatory measures.
At the same time, they should focus on those IP measures that run the least risk of clashing with international obligations: regulatory facilitation rather than restrictions, investment in infrastructure rather than in specific economic activities, and fiscal incentives that are accessible to all.
Avoiding a global race to the bottom in regulatory standards, a race to the top in incentives, or a return to protectionism, will require better global coordination.
BackNext