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
Previous ArticleBundesbank Updates Derivation Rules for Completeness Check Under SSM
OSFI proposed revisions to the Basel Capital Adequacy Reporting (BCAR) and leverage requirements returns for the 2023 reporting, with the comment period ending on July 09, 2021.
EBA published a discussion paper on review of the standardized nonperforming loans (NPL) transaction data templates, along with the proposed revised NPL data templates.
Bundesbank updated AnaCredit reporting requirements for banks, with reference to the Notice 8001/2020.
CBUAE has issued a regulation that introduces the licensing and supervision framework for low-risk, specialized banks.
APRA is consulting on CPG 511—the draft Prudential Practice Guide on remuneration for banks, insurers, and superannuation licensees—with the comment period ending on July 23, 2021.
MAS announced a new RegTech grant scheme and an enhancement of the Digital Acceleration Grant (DAG) scheme to accelerate technology adoption in the financial sector.
PRA published a letter that sets out findings from the 2020 Internal Audit Review of the Collections function of a sample of non-systemic banks and building societies.
EIOPA launched a consultation on the Interbank Offered Rate (IBOR) transitions, in context of the EU Benchmarks Regulation.
The Trustees of the IFRS Foundation proposed amendments to the Constitution of the IFRS Foundation to accommodate the potential formation of the new International Sustainability Standards Board within the governance structure of the organization.
BCB amended the resolution that establishes technical requirements and operational procedures for the implementation of open banking in Brazil, with the amended resolution entering into force on its publication date.