An examination of initial experience with the global systemically important bank framework

This paper presents a first analysis of the experience to date with the global systemically important bank (G-SIB) framework, the methodology for assessing the systemic importance of G-SIBs. Several issues are examined. First, we investigate whether G-SIBs and non-G-SIBs have behaved differently since the implementation of the G-SIB framework and if observed differences in behaviour are in accordance with the framework's aims. Next, we ask whether there are regional differences in the behaviour 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 G-SIB framework's aims. 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 (GB) and the United States (US) have reduced their systemic importance for most indicators, Chinese and Japanese G-SIBs have shown relatively positive growth rates for all indicators, and particularly high ones for indicators in the substitutability category.