A recently published BIS paper explores an alternative, enhanced implementation of the expected impact framework for global systemically important bank (G-SIB) capital surcharges. As developed by the BCBS, the expected impact framework is the theoretical foundation for calibrating the capital surcharge applied to G-SIBs. The alternative framework has the potential to improve the empirical basis of these surcharges and eliminate uneven incentives for G-SIB growth. The paper concludes with some thoughts about the use of these two capital surcharge functions for monitoring the capital adequacy of G-SIBs.
This paper describes four improvements to the current implementation of the BCBS expected impact framework. In this paper, the authors introduce a theoretically sound and an empirically grounded approach to estimating a probability of default (PD) function and apply density-based cluster analysis to identify the reference bank for each G-SIB indicator. They also recalibrate the systemic loss-given-default (LGD) function that determines G-SIB scores, using both the current system based on supervisory judgment and using an alternative system based on CoVaR, to finally derive a continuous capital surcharge function to determine G-SIB capital surcharges.
The authors find that these empirically-based alternative implementations of the expected impact framework would result in minor declines in G-SIB surcharges in the aggregate, but would result in the removal of some of the smaller G-SIBs from the list of G-SIBs. Adopting the "supervisory" surcharge function, which is calibrated to maintain the general level of capital surcharges based on the current supervisory consensus, would result in changes of less than 30 bps in individual G-SIB scores, and in moderate changes in G-SIB surcharges. Adopting a surcharge function that uses CoVaR as a measure of LGD would result in both more significant increases in capital and more significant declines in G-SIB scores and surcharges. These findings suggest that these functions could be used to monitor current G-SIB surcharges, particularly by highlighting gains from the cap on the substitutability score and from cliff effects.
The approach presented in this paper would strengthen the empirical and theoretical foundation of the G-SIB surcharge framework. Moreover, the continuous surcharge function would reduce banks' incentive to manage their balance sheets to reduce systemic capital surcharges, mitigate cliff effects, allow for the lifting of the cap on the substitutability score and penalize growth in the category for all G-SIBs. In addition, the two capital surcharge functions might be used to monitor G-SIBs' capital adequacy and distortions induced by G-SIB surcharges.
Keywords: International, Banking, G-SIBs, Systemic Risk, G-SIB Surcharge, Loss Given Default, Regulatory Capital, Basel, BIS
Previous ArticleBCBS Issues Principles for Operational Resilience and Risk
A Consultative Group on Risk Management (CGRM) at the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) published a report that examines incorporation of climate risks into the international reserve management framework.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published the final guidelines on liquidity requirements exemption for investment firms, updated version of its 5.2 filing rules document for supervisory reporting, and Single Rulebook Question and Answer (Q&A) updates in July 2022.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) is seeking comments, until October 21, 2022, on the introduction of CPS 230, which is the new cross-industry prudential standard on operational risk management.
The European Commission published a Delegated Regulation 2022/1301 on the information to be provided in accordance with the simple, transparent, and standardized (STS) notification requirements for on-balance-sheet synthetic securitizations.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) is announced revisions to the capital framework for authorized deposit-taking institutions to implement the "unquestionably strong" capital ratios and the Basel III reforms.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published a report that examines the use of certain exemptions included in the large exposures regime under the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR).
The Bank of England (BoE), the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA), and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published a joint discussion paper that sets out potential measures to oversee and strengthen the resilience of services provided by critical third parties to the financial sector in UK.
The Bank of England (BoE) issued a communication to firms to provide an update on the progress of the joint data transformation program—which is being led by BoE, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), and the industry—for the financial sector in UK.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published the draft methodology, templates, and template guidance for the European Union-wide stress test in 2023.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) and the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) jointly published the final guidelines on common procedures and methodologies for the supervisory review and evaluation process (SREP) for investment firms.