further enhance its resilience, also from a systemic perspective. to date, the macroprudential policy framework has mainly focused on the banking sector, while the policy framework for non - bank financial institutions still needs to be enhanced. this means that there are fewer safeguards for non - banks, and risks can grow largely unchecked. with this in mind, let me highlight four areas where i see a need for further regulatory efforts in the nonbank financial sector. first, we need to reduce the risks of mismatch between funds ’ asset liquidity and their redemption policies. funds need to ensure that their redemption policies are closely aligned with the liquidity of their portfolio assets. for instance, funds that invest in illiquid assets, such as real estate or private debt, should have commensurate redemption notice periods to mitigate liquidity risk. at the same time, funds that offer daily redemptions should be required to invest in sufficiently liquid assets and maintain high liquidity management standards to enable them to meet redemption requests under both normal and stressed market conditions. this should be complemented by enhancing the availability and use of anti - dilution liquidity management tools to pass on the costs of redemptions to redeeming investors. moreover, higher liquidity buffers would be useful to manage increased liquidity needs during periods of market stress, including from margin calls. second, we must renew our efforts to reform the mmf sector in the eu. after the market turmoil in march 2020, proposals to enhance the resilience of the mmf sector were developed at the international and european level. these focused on removing regulatory threshold effects, strengthening mmf liquidity requirements, and improving the availability and usability of liquidity management tools. [ 10 ] in the eu, however, reforms of the mmf regulation have not progressed to date. they should be pursued as a matter of priority, while ensuring a globally consistent approach. third, it is essential to address risks from non - bank leverage from various perspectives. a key priority should be to develop a globally consistent approach to addressing risk from both financial and synthetic leverage in the non - bank financial sector. further improving data quality and coverage and information sharing are central to assessing leverage - related risks across non - bank financial sector entities and activities. this work should be complemented by identifying gaps in policy frameworks globally, especially where financial entities are not subject to adequate leverage rules. fourth, there is a need to enhance margining practices and

ong chong tee : life insurance industry - riding the technology wave address by mr ong chong tee, deputy managing director ( financial supervision ) of the monetary authority of singapore, at the lia annual luncheon, singapore, 7 march 2018. * * * mr patrick teow, president of lia singapore distinguished guests ladies and gentlemen thank you for inviting me to join the 2018 lia annual luncheon. allow me to first congratulate the new lia management committee. i last spoke at this event in 2015 on a theme of confidence and resilience of the industry. last year, my assistant managing director lee boon ngiap spoke on the importance of strong culture and ethics as key drivers of good conduct. today, i like to build on these themes with the backdrop of the technological wave sweeping our shores. for those of you who have visited london and taken its underground trains, you will be familiar with the rather famous broadcast in the tube stations repeatedly telling commuters to “ mind the gap ”. in an analogous way, as technology innovation and business model disruptions impact various economic areas including the insurance sector, it is worthwhile to remind ourselves to “ mind the gap ” as we ride the technology wave. let me elaborate. my remarks will cover three aspects : ( a ) bridging the protection gap ; ( b ) leveraging fintech ( or more specifically, insurtech ) ; and ( c ) doing more to eliminate ‘ conduct gaps ’. protection gap many studies have found sizeable insurance protection gaps across countries. this can be described as the difference between what a family will need to maintain its level of consumption should a breadwinner, or one of the breadwinners, passes away, versus the amount of financial resources including life insurance coverage. a geneva association report1 in 2014 estimated that for the us alone, the life protection gap was a staggering us $ 20 trillion. in 2012, the lia estimated the gap in singapore to be about s $ 460 billion2. patrick mentioned this as one of the priorities for lia and highlighted that a follow - up “ attitudinal study ” will be conducted. i understand that lia ’ s 2017 protection gap study will be released later this month. the case for adequate life insurance protection is a strong one. so why is there such a large protection gap? let me highlight a few possible reasons. 1 / 5 bis central bankers'speeches ( 1 ) one factor is that life insurance involves the rather unpleasant topic of death, a