In a lengthy blog post on regulation, Dragicevic suggested that “more regular and deeper insights and reviews” could better inform policy.
He posed this idea as a possible solution to the slow pace of more traditional, peer-reviewed research, which Dragicevic claims cannot always keep up in light of broader industry and economic changes.
“Frequent, deeper and repeatable” insights could add “tremendous value” to more thorough, independent studies, Dragicevic said.
The DAP member used Britain’s financial services sector as a case study, where he claims “proactive data-driven regulatory review” has proven effective.
“Because the banks all report risk data quarterly using a standard framework, the Prudential Regulatory Authority is able to proactively compare the risk profiles of similar banks and probe and ask questions where anomalies are found,” Dragicevic said.
“In the case of the gambling industry, the Commission in future could compare the risk profiles of operators to see whether player behaviours and risk profiles differ.”
Dragicevic went on to discuss the need for greater “openness and cooperation,” once again using Britain’s financial services sector as an example.
He stated: “If we compare the regulatory reporting requirements in financial services, banks are required to annually disclose information relating to their risks, capital adequacy and policies for managing risk under the Basel risk framework.
“This means that along with the regular data submissions there are also additional submissions around the risk processes and frameworks for each bank.
“A similar approach to the gambling industry could offer greater regulatory scrutiny, and as a result, more incremental improvements over the coming years in how the industry manages and reduces risk.”
