BCBS published a working paper that analyzes the initial experience with the global systemically important bank (G-SIB) framework. The paper investigates whether G-SIBs and non-G-SIBs have behaved differently since the implementation of the G-SIB framework and if observed differences in behavior are in accordance with the aims of the framework. It also examines the regional differences in the behavior of G-SIBs and non-G-SIBs.
The analysis reveals that G-SIBs and non-G-SIBs behave differently; however, both groups are heterogeneous, so that the indicator outcomes are often highly influenced by a few banks. Nevertheless, most G-SIBs have reduced their G-SIB scores during the period assessed, changing their balance sheets in ways that are consistent with the aims of the G-SIB framework. In contrast, non-G-SIBs have increased their relative G-SIB scores during the same period. Finally, the regional analysis indicates that trends in banks' G-SIB indicators, and the indicators that contribute most to the final G-SIB score, are heterogeneous across countries and regions. While G-SIBs from the euro area, Great Britain, and the United States have reduced their systemic importance for most indicators, Chinese and Japanese G-SIBs showed relatively positive growth rates for all indicators—and particularly high ones for indicators in the substitutability category.""
For this analysis, the sample of G-SIBs and non-G-SIBs were divided into six and 10 countries or regions. G-SIBs were grouped into United States, Euro area, non-euro area, Great Britain, China, and Japan. The non-G-SIBs were grouped into euro area (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain); non-euro area, United States, Canada, China, Australia, Japan, Korea, and Others (non-G-SIBs of Brazil, India, Russia, and Singapore).
Keywords: International, Banking, G-SIB, Systemic Risk, G-SIB Framework, Macro-prudential Assessment, BCBS
Sam leads the quantitative research team within the CreditEdge™ research group. In this role, he develops novel risk and forecasting solutions for financial institutions while providing thought leadership on related trends in global financial markets.
Previous ArticleBundesbank Updates Derivation Rules for Completeness Check Under SSM
EU published Directive 2021/338, which amends the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID) II and the Capital Requirements Directives (CRD 4 and 5) to facilitate recovery from the COVID-19 crisis.
The Standing Committee of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) recommended that a systemic risk buffer level of 4.5% for domestic exposures can be considered appropriate for addressing the identified systemic risks to the stability of the financial system in Norway.
In a recent statement, PRA clarified its approach to the application of certain EU regulatory technical standards and EBA guidelines on standardized and internal ratings-based approaches to credit risk, following the end of the Brexit transition.
In a recently published letter addressed to the G20 finance ministers and central bank governors, the FSB Chair Randal K. Quarles has set out the key FSB priorities for 2021.
EU published, in the Official Journal of the European Union, a corrigendum to the revised Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR2 or Regulation 2019/876).
ESAs published a joint supervisory statement on the effective and consistent application and on national supervision of the regulation on sustainability-related disclosures in the financial services sector (SFDR).
EC published a public consultation on the review of crisis management and deposit insurance frameworks in EU.
HKMA announced that enhancements will be made to the Special 100% Loan Guarantee of the SME Financing Guarantee Scheme (SFGS) and the application period will be extended to December 31, 2021.
EBA launched consultations on the regulatory and implementing technical standards on cooperation and information exchange between competent authorities involved in prudential supervision of investment firms.
BoE issued a letter to the CEOs of eight major UK banks that are in scope of the first Resolvability Assessment Framework (RAF) reporting and disclosure cycle.