Discussions on financial stability often focus on capital buffers, liquidity requirements and the scope of regulatory authority. While these tools remain essential, recent episodes of market stress suggest that an equally important dimension of macroprudential policy has received less attention: the institutional architecture through which data are collected, shared and transformed into supervisory action.
In today’s financial system, risk no longer accumulates primarily within banks. It migrates across non-bank financial institutions, derivatives markets, collateral chains and payment infrastructures. These dynamics unfold at a pace that challenges supervisory frameworks still organised around periodic reporting, institutional silos and delayed aggregation of information.
In many jurisdictions, market regulators, central banks, macroprudential councils and financial intelligence units operate with distinct mandates and separate data systems. Each authority may have a partial view of emerging vulnerabilities, yet no single institution has a comprehensive, real-time picture of leverage, liquidity stress and interconnected exposures across the system. As a result, supervisory responses tend to be reactive, with interventions occurring after risks have already materialised.
This is not primarily a problem of insufficient legal powers. In most advanced economies, regulators already possess broad authority to request information and intervene when systemic risks arise. The constraint lies in the design of institutional interfaces: how data flow between agencies, how quickly signals are escalated and how fragmented information is converted into coordinated decisions.
Rethinking how we treat data architecture
From a macroprudential perspective, data architecture should be treated as critical infrastructure. Just as payments systems, clearing houses and market utilities are designed to support financial stability, supervisory data systems must be structured to capture events rather than static balance sheets. Margin calls, liquidity shocks, concentration of exposures and sudden changes in funding conditions are often the earliest indicators of systemic stress, yet they are not consistently shared across authorities in real time.
Central banks have already moved in this direction in some areas. Investments in real-time payments, enhanced market surveillance and forward-looking stress testing reflect an understanding that speed and integration matter. By contrast, financial supervision of non-bank intermediaries often remains tied to quarterly or annual disclosures that are ill-suited to fast-moving markets.
A more integrated approach does not require the creation of new regulatory bodies or a significant expansion of mandates. It requires rethinking how existing institutions interact. Data standards, interoperability between supervisory systems and clear protocols for information sharing can substantially improve the effectiveness of oversight without increasing regulatory burden.
Core elements of financial resilience
Importantly, financial intelligence units and anti-money laundering authorities should not remain isolated from macroprudential discussions. Patterns of financial behaviour that raise integrity concerns may also signal systemic vulnerabilities, particularly in markets where leverage, opacity and cross-border flows intersect. Integrating these perspectives can strengthen both market integrity and financial stability.
For emerging markets, the stakes are even higher. Limited supervisory capacity, dependence on external funding and exposure to global financial cycles amplify the costs of delayed or fragmented oversight. In this context, institutional coordination and data integration are not administrative luxuries; they are core elements of financial resilience.
As non-bank finance continues to grow and market structures become more complex, macroprudential policy must evolve beyond its traditional toolkit. Capital and liquidity rules remain necessary, but they are no longer sufficient on their own. Without robust institutional technology – data architectures and coordination mechanisms designed for speed and complexity – regulators will continue to address symptoms rather than causes.
Financial stability in the next cycle will depend not only on the strength of regulatory rules, but on the quality of the systems that allow authorities to see, share and act on risk when it emerges.
Gustavo Pessoa is an Economist and Finance Researcher at Escola de Administração de Empresas de São Paulo da Fundação Getulio Vargas.
Interested in this topic? Subscribe to OMFIF’s newsletter for more.