Yet there is no equivalent of a World Trade Organisation to deal effectively with the problems that inevitably would spring up, even though the degree of complexity and time criticality of international finance far exceed that of international trade. There is, of course, the IMF, and the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). They perform useful roles respectively in providing assistance to individual economies in difficulty, and in setting international regulatory and supervisory standards, and they have done a good job in these areas. But, as very much part of the international financial architecture, they need to evolve to cope with the rapidly changing nature of international finance. They need to ensure that they are able to play the roles required of them in prudently managing the risks, and limiting the destabilising impact, of the increasing freedom of international finance. There is much catching up to do, and much international effort has been devoted to this task. But, presumably because of the difference of opinion on what exactly needs to be done, we now have a rather confusing picture of where all this effort might lead us to. There have been many new international forums created to look at the relevant issues and, together with the existing forums, everybody seem to be involved in this work - G3, G7, G10, G22, G26, APEC, EMEAP, etc., with multiples of working groups formed under each. More recently, there is the more authoritative Financial Stability Forum formed, in which the HKMA participates.

The fourth principle is creating regulatory framework that promotes agility and innovation while preserving financial stability. Regulators must continually review and ensure that their governing frameworks remain relevant in the context of the fast-changing digital world. Outdated and inflexible laws and regulations need to be amended accordingly. With the advancement of technology, financial innovations usually start off small and scale up quickly. Regulators must therefore keep in mind the concept of proportionality, allowing themselves to be more tolerant towards low-risk financial activities and more scrutinizing towards activities that might pose risks to the financial system. We also need to keep in mind that financial products and activities are expanding across jurisdiction of different agencies. Regulatory framework must shift from entity-based regulations, which have formed the core of our regulatory framework, to activity-based ones. Most importantly, the regulations must be agile and able to adapt to the everchanging environment of the digital world. To give you an example, our regulatory sandbox scheme that was introduced less than two years ago might be too slow and out of sync with market requirements today. In response, we have decided to allow financial institutions to develop their own sandbox and move from the approval concept to registration concept, with a view to reducing time-to-market and increasing flexibility for innovation and investments. We have also amended our regulations governing banks’ IT-related services with the aim to facilitating 4  partnerships between banks and tech companies, and enhancing connectivity between banks and the digital world.