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
ECB finalized the guide on assessment methodology for the internal model method for calculating exposure to counterparty credit risk (CCR) and the advanced method for own funds requirements for credit valuation adjustment (A-CVA) risk.
EBA published an Opinion addressed to EC to raise awareness about the opportunity to clarify certain issues related to the definition of credit institution in the upcoming review of the Capital Requirements Directive and Regulation (CRD and CRR).
APRA is consulting on updates to ARS 210.0, the reporting standard that sets out requirements for provision of information on liquidity and funding of an authorized deposit-taking institution.
FED released hypothetical scenarios for a second round of stress tests for banks.
PRA published updates in relation to the 2021 Supervisory Benchmarking Portfolio exercise.
FED adopted a proposal to extend for three years, with revision, the capital assessments and stress testing reports (FR Y-14A/Q/M; OMB No. 7100-0341).
HKMA revised the Supervisory Policy Manual module CR-G-14 on margin and other risk mitigation standards for non-centrally cleared over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives transactions.
EBA issued a revised list of validation rules with respect to the implementing technical standards on supervisory reporting.
EBA published its response to the call for advice of EC on ways to strengthen the EU legal framework on anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT).
NGFS published a paper on the overview of environmental risk analysis by financial institutions and an occasional paper on the case studies on environmental risk analysis methodologies.