SARB published a discussion paper on developing a methodology to determine which banks are systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs) in the South African context, in line with the requirements set out in the Financial Sector Regulation Act 9 of 2017 (FSR Act). The methodology will be reviewed annually, or when there is a significant change in the international guidance or in the information made available to SARB. The paper also includes international comparison of methodologies in which methodologies of other countries with a similar banking and regulatory structure are compared to those of South Africa. The regulatory bodies that have disclosed information on their methodologies include PRA, EBA, Bank of Japan, APRA, Bank of Canada, and RBNZ.
Even though no measurement criteria could fully capture systemic importance, BCBS proposed the use of an indicator-based measurement to reflect the various dimensions of negative externalities and contributions to systemic risk. BCBS approach for the identification of global systemically important banks (G-SIBs) consists of selected indicators with equal weights, including size, interconnectedness, the lack of readily available substitutes, global activity, and complexity, while the BCBS methodology for domestic systemically important banks (D-SIBs) proposes the customization of indicators and weightings to reflect the characteristics of the domestic financial system. The South African approach is broadly based on the BCBS approach and utilizes similar indicators, but it has been enhanced for domestic use by adding indicators and criteria that better reflect the South African conditions.
The indicators that are used to identify potential banking SIFIs in South Africa are size, interconnectedness and substitutability, global activity, and complexity. Each indicator has various sub-indicators that are used to calculate the relative systemic importance of each bank. No quantitative methodology is able to capture all potential risks. There will be a possibility that institutional risks are more systemic than indicated by the methodology. Regulators often have qualitative information available that cannot be quantified in a methodology. Therefore, there should be room for judgment to be applied by the Governor to ensure that all areas and risks are sufficiently considered. The methodology merely serves as a basis for decision making. Section 29 of the FSR Act provides the Governor with the ability to use his/her discretion when making the determination. Additional elements that might be considered when applying judgment on whether to designate an institution as a SIFI include, but are not limited to, the following:
- Reaction of investors, depositors, and the broader financial markets in the event of a failure
- Geographical area serviced and the possibility of a suitable substitute
- Products provided and the possibility of a suitable substitute
- Services provided and the possibility of a suitable substitute
- Number of clients and employees of the institution
- Possible negative perception from an international market perspective
Related Link: Discussion Paper
Keywords: Middle East and Africa, South Africa, Banking, Systemic Risk, G-SIBs, D-SIBs, FSR Act, BCBS, SARB
Previous ArticleBaFin Consults on AFS Recommendation to Increase CCyB for Banks
Next ArticleCNB Publishes Financial Stability Report for 2018–19
BIS Innovation Hub published the work program for 2021, with focus on suptech and regtech, next-generation financial market infrastructure, central bank digital currencies, open finance, green finance, and cyber security.
In an article published by SRB, Mairead McGuinness, the European Commissioner for Financial Services, Financial Stability, and Capital Markets Union, discussed the progress and next steps toward completion of the Banking Union.
EBA finalized the two sets of draft regulatory technical standards on the identification of material risk-takers and on the classes of instruments used for remuneration under the Investment Firms Directive (IFD).
EC published, in the Official Journal of the European Union, a notification that the European Court of Auditors (ECA) has published a special report on resolution planning in the Single Resolution Mechanism.
BoE published a scenario against which it will be stress testing banks in 2021, in addition to setting out the key elements of the 2021 stress test, guidance on the 2021 stress test, and the variable paths for the 2021 stress test.
PRA published a consultation paper (CP3/21) proposes rules regarding the timing of identity verification required for eligibility of depositor protection under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS).
FSB published the work program for 2021, which reflects a strategic shift in priorities in the COVID-19 environment.
FCA announced that 50% firms have started using the new data collection platform RegData, which is slated to replace the existing platform known Gabriel.
Bundesbank published Version 5.0 of the derivation rules for completeness check at the form level, with respect to the data quality of the European harmonized reporting system.
FED finalized a rule that updates capital planning requirements to reflect the new framework from 2019 that sorts large banks into categories, with requirements that are tailored to the risks of each category.