With that in mind, policymakers should follow the general principle of “same business, same risks, same rules”. That is important. As banking supervisors, we focus on risks related to banks. In that regard, we are working on a number of projects. Take bank licences, for example. We see a rising number of applications related to fintechs. In response to this, we have teamed up with the national supervisors to work on a joint policy approach. It will ensure that applications are treated in the same manner across the entire euro area. Risks that are specific to fintechs will be assessed appropriately and proportionately. We are also seeing more and more supervisors exploring and setting up mechanisms to facilitate the authorisation process for fintech banks. Innovation hubs and sandboxes are two of the key words here. And we too are seeking to implement a euro area-wide hub for fintechs. We are also assessing the risks that might arise when banks or fintechs outsource data or even entire IT systems. We already carried out some work in this regard; in 2015, we did a cybercrime survey, which was a unique project at the global level. As a follow-up we implemented a data base to track and analyse cyber incidents in large euro area banks. And last but not least, concerning the business models of banks, we will explore potential 2/3  BIS central bankers' speeches  risks that emanate from fintechs and other non-bank competitors. In that regard, fintechs are among our supervisory priorities.
And, anyway, repapering contracts helps to convey to counterparties that there will be continuity in resolution and so reduce incentives to break for the exit. FSB has published guidance in this space for operational continuity in resolution and continuity of access to FMIs. 5  Perhaps the most notable effort has been FSB’s work with industry to agree a protocol to International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) and other master netting agreements that addresses close-out 6  risk in over-the-counter (OTC), derivative and repo transactions. Agreement in 2014 of the universal protocol amongst G-SIBs, and subsequently of jurisdictional modular protocols for individual jurisdictions to bring in buy-side and non-G-SIB counterparties, is another major landmark in ensuring big international firms 7  are resolvable. The protocol is built around the premise that entry into resolution should not be classed as an event of default as long as a firm continues to perform. This underscores the importance of funding to making resolution credible. FSB set out principles on funding in resolution in 2016 and just last week published for consultation guidance for use in CMGs on the liquid resources and liquidity management capabilities firms require to be adequately resolvable and how liquidity 8  in firms might be bolstered in adverse cases by public backstops. CMGs will use the guidance to draw up resolution funding plans setting out how, in order to achieve resolvability, liquidity and collateral should be held in a group across legal entities, currencies and locations.