BCBS released further information on the 2020 assessment of global systemically important banks (G-SIBs) to enhance understanding of G-SIB scores, based on end-2019 bank data. The methodology of the Basel Committee assesses the systemic importance of global banks, using indicators that are calculated based on data for the previous fiscal year-end supplied by banks and validated by national authorities. The final scores are mapped to corresponding buckets, which determine the higher loss-absorbency requirement for each G-SIB.
BCBS published the following:
- Denominators of each of the 12 high-level indicators used to calculate banks' scores
- Twelve high-level indicators for each bank in the sample, used to calculate these denominators
- Cut-off score used to identify the G-SIBs in the updated list and the thresholds used to allocate G-SIBs to buckets for the purpose of calculating the specific higher loss absorbency requirements
- Updated links to public disclosures of all banks in the sample
In parallel to these updates, FSB also published the list of G-SIBs for 2020, based on the assessment methodology of the Basel Committee. The methodology for G-SIB identification is described in the technical summary published by BCBS in November 2014. However, in July 2018, BCBS published a revised version of its assessment methodology, which is expected to be implemented in member jurisdictions by 2022 (based on end-2021 data); the resulting higher capital buffer requirement will be applied in January 2024, one year later than originally scheduled.
- Press Release
- High-Level Indicators
- Cut-Off Score
- List of G-SIBs (PDF)
- Revised Assessment Methodology
Keywords: International, Banking, Basel, Regulatory Capital, Systemic Risk, G-SIBs, Assessment Methodology, BCBS
Previous ArticleFINMA Revises Circular on Liquidity Risks for Banks
APRA issued a letter on the loss-absorbing capacity (LAC) requirements for domestic systemically important banks (D-SIBs) and published a discussion paper, along with the proposed the prudential standards on financial contingency planning (CPS 190) and resolution planning (CPS 900).
The European Commission (EC) launched a call for evidence, until March 18, 2022, as part of a comprehensive review of the macro-prudential rules for the banking sector under the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) and Directive (CRD IV).
The Financial Stability Board (FSB) published a report that sets out good practices for crisis management groups.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) found that Heritage Bank Limited had incorrectly reported capital because of weaknesses in operational risk and compliance frameworks, although the bank did not breach minimum prudential capital ratios at any point and remains well-capitalized.
The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) released the annual report for 2020-2021.
Through a letter addressed to the banking sector entities, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) announced deferral of the domestic implementation of the final Basel III reforms from the first to the second quarter of 2023.
EIOPA recently published a letter in which EC is informing the European Parliament and Council that it could not adopt the set of draft regulatory technical standards for disclosures under the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) within the stipulated three-month period, given their length and technical detail.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published the third in a series of policy statements that set out rules to introduce the UK Investment Firm Prudential Regime (IFPR), which will take effect on January 01, 2022.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) published, along with a summary of its response to the consultation feedback, an information paper that summarizes the finalized capital framework that is in line with the internationally agreed Basel III requirements for banks.
The Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI) and the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) issued a consultative report focusing on access to central counterparty (CCP) clearing and client-position portability.