Systemic Risk Score: A Suggestion
AbstractWe identify a potential bias in the methodology disclosed in July 2013 by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) for identifying systemically important financial banks. Contrary to the original objective, the relative importance of the five categories of risk importance (size, cross-jurisdictional activity, interconnectedness, substitutability/financial institution infrastructure, and complexity) may not be equal and the resulting systemic risk scores are mechanically dominated by the most volatile categories. In practice, this bias proved to be serious enough that the substitutability category had to be capped by the BCBS. We show that the bias can be removed by simply standardizing each input prior to computing the systemic risk scores.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by HAL in its series Working Papers with number halshs-00867063.
Date of creation: 27 Sep 2013
Date of revision:
Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00867063
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/
Systemic risk ; score ; G-SIFIs;
Other versions of this item:
- G21 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - Banks; Other Depository Institutions; Micro Finance Institutions; Mortgages
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2013-10-11 (All new papers)
- NEP-BAN-2013-10-11 (Banking)
- NEP-CBA-2013-10-11 (Central Banking)
- NEP-RMG-2013-10-11 (Risk Management)
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Michal Skorepa & Jakub Seidler, 2014. "Capital Buffers Based on Banks' Domestic Systemic Importance: Selected Issues," Research and Policy Notes 2014/01, Czech National Bank, Research Department.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (CCSD).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.