Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Systemically important financial institution

A systemically important financial institution (SIFI) is a bank, insurance company, or other financial entity whose distress or disorderly failure, owing to its size, complexity, interconnectedness, lack of substitutability, or cross-jurisdictional activity, would trigger substantial disruption to the broader financial system and real economic activity.^[1] These institutions emerged as a focal point of post-2008 financial crisis reforms, with international bodies like the Financial Stability Board (FSB) and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision developing frameworks to identify and regulate them, primarily to mitigate the "too big to fail" risks that amplified the crisis through interconnected defaults and liquidity freezes.^[2] Global SIFIs, particularly banks designated as global systemically important banks (G-SIBs), undergo annual assessments based on indicators such as total exposures, leverage, and substitutability, resulting in enhanced prudential standards like higher loss-absorbing capital buffers that increase with systemic footprint.^[3] As of end-2023 data published in 2024, the FSB identified 29 G-SIBs, including institutions like JPMorgan Chase and HSBC, with no net change in the total number but adjustments in risk buckets for two banks, reflecting ongoing evolution in measured systemic importance.^[4] National authorities similarly designate domestic SIFIs, imposing tailored oversight to prevent localized spillovers. While these measures aim to internalize systemic externalities and facilitate orderly resolution without taxpayer-funded bailouts—via tools like bail-in mechanisms that convert debt to equity—the SIFI framework has faced criticism for potentially perpetuating moral hazard, as implicit government guarantees may still incentivize excessive risk-taking by shielding shareholders and creditors from full consequences.^[5] Empirical analyses post-reform indicate mixed results, with some evidence of reduced leverage but persistent interconnectedness vulnerabilities, underscoring debates over whether designations truly diminish the incentive distortions rooted in causal chains of crisis propagation.^[6]

Historical Development

Pre-2008 Concepts of Systemic Risk

Prior to the 2008 financial crisis, concepts of systemic risk in finance emphasized the potential for distress in individual institutions to propagate through interconnected markets, primarily via contagion mechanisms such as liquidity shortages, common asset exposures, and confidence erosion. Theoretical models, notably the Diamond-Dybvig framework introduced in 1983, formalized bank runs as self-fulfilling equilibria where depositors' rational panic leads to forced asset liquidation, amplifying illiquidity across the banking system and potentially contracting real economic activity. This liquidity mismatch—banks holding illiquid long-term assets against demandable short-term liabilities—was seen as inherent to fractional-reserve banking, heightening vulnerability to coordinated withdrawals that could cascade beyond a single entity.^[7] Empirical manifestations emerged in the 1980s, exemplified by the Continental Illinois National Bank crisis in 1984, the largest U.S. bank failure up to that point with $40 billion in assets. Regulators, including the FDIC, extended full protection to all creditors and depositors—beyond the insured $100,000 limit—citing the bank's extensive interbank exposures (over 2,000 correspondent relationships) and potential for widespread panic if allowed to fail.^[8] This intervention crystallized the "too big to fail" doctrine, later termed by Congressman Stewart McKinney during congressional hearings, underscoring how size and centrality in payment systems could necessitate extraordinary support to avert broader instability. Similarly, the Savings and Loan (S&L) crisis from 1986 to 1995 saw over 1,043 institutions fail, representing one-third of the industry, due to moral hazard from fixed-rate deposit insurance amid rising interest rates and risky real estate lending; the eventual taxpayer cost exceeded $124 billion, highlighting systemic undercapitalization and regulatory forbearance as amplifiers of sector-wide distress.^[9] By the late 1990s, attention shifted to non-bank entities amid financial innovation and globalization. The 1998 near-collapse of Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM), a hedge fund with $4.8 billion in equity but leveraged positions totaling $125 billion, illustrated risks from high leverage (up to 30:1) and opaque derivatives exposures shared across counterparties. The Federal Reserve facilitated a $3.6 billion private consortium bailout by 14 major banks to prevent fire sales of illiquid assets, which could have triggered margin calls and liquidity evaporation in global funding markets, as LTCM's models failed to account for extreme correlations during the Russian debt default.^[10] Pre-2008 thinking thus relied on qualitative assessments of interconnectedness and market fragility rather than standardized metrics, with central banks acting as lenders of last resort on a discretionary basis, often prioritizing stability over strict market discipline. These episodes informed informal recognition of systemically vital institutions but lacked proactive designation frameworks, leaving responses reactive to acute threats.

The 2008 Global Financial Crisis

The 2008 global financial crisis intensified scrutiny on large, interconnected financial institutions, whose failures threatened widespread economic disruption due to their size, leverage, and linkages across the financial system. The crisis stemmed from excessive risk-taking in the U.S. subprime mortgage market, where institutions bundled and securitized high-risk loans into complex derivatives like collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), amplifying losses when housing prices declined starting in 2007. By early 2008, major investment banks such as Bear Stearns, with $395 billion in assets, faced liquidity shortfalls from exposure to these securities, leading to a forced sale to JPMorgan Chase on March 16, 2008, backed by $29 billion in Federal Reserve non-recourse loans to avert immediate systemic contagion. This intervention highlighted the emerging "too big to fail" doctrine, where policymakers deemed certain firms' collapse would impair broader credit markets and economic stability.^[11]^[12] The crisis escalated dramatically with the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers on September 15, 2008, the largest in U.S. history at $613 billion in assets, triggered by its $85 billion in subprime-related writedowns and inability to secure funding amid frozen interbank lending. Unlike Bear Stearns, U.S. authorities declined a bailout, citing moral hazard concerns, but Lehman's failure precipitated a sharp contraction in global credit, with the TED spread—a measure of credit risk—spiking to 365 basis points by September 17 and equity markets plunging, as counterparties faced $600 billion in potential exposures. This event exposed the fragility of short-term funding markets, such as the $3.4 trillion commercial paper sector, where prime funds like the Reserve Primary Fund "broke the buck" on September 16, prompting investor flight and amplifying liquidity strains across systemically linked entities. Lehman's collapse underscored how non-bank financial institutions, through derivatives and repo markets, could transmit shocks globally, contributing to a 50% drop in global stock indices by year-end.^[11]^[13] In response to cascading risks, the Federal Reserve orchestrated the bailout of American International Group (AIG) on September 16, 2008, providing an initial $85 billion credit facility—later expanded to $182 billion in total support—due to AIG's $441 billion in credit default swaps (CDS) guaranteeing mortgage-backed assets, which exposed insurers and banks worldwide to potential defaults. AIG's failure risked triggering a domino effect among counterparties, including major banks holding $75 billion in CDS, as its securities lending program alone involved $20 billion in illiquid collateral, threatening the broader insurance and funding ecosystems. These interventions, totaling over $700 billion in U.S. government commitments via the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) authorized on October 3, 2008, revealed the systemic importance of non-traditional institutions like insurers and investment banks, whose interconnections via over-the-counter derivatives markets—valued at $600 trillion globally—magnified tail risks beyond deposit-taking banks.^[14]^[15] The crisis demonstrated that failures among highly leveraged firms with cross-border operations could overwhelm resolution mechanisms, as evidenced by the 40% contraction in global trade finance and GDP declines averaging 5% in advanced economies by mid-2009. Empirical analyses post-crisis confirmed that institutions with assets exceeding 1% of GDP, coupled with high connectivity, posed outsized threats, prompting international recognition of the need to designate and supervise such entities to mitigate moral hazard from implicit guarantees. This realization, drawn from the $10 trillion in global asset writedowns between 2007 and 2009, laid the groundwork for frameworks targeting systemically important financial institutions, emphasizing higher capital buffers and resolvability to internalize externalities from interconnected risks.^[2]^[12]

Establishment of Post-Crisis Frameworks

In response to the 2008 global financial crisis, G20 leaders at the Pittsburgh Summit on September 24-25, 2009, mandated the Financial Stability Board (FSB) to develop a framework for identifying and regulating systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs) to mitigate moral hazard and "too big to fail" risks.^[16] This included enhanced oversight, resolution powers, and higher capital requirements for institutions whose failure could threaten global financial stability. The FSB, in coordination with the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS), established the initial Global Systemically Important Banks (G-SIB) identification process in November 2011, publishing the first list of 29 G-SIBs based on indicators of size, interconnectedness, complexity, substitutability, and cross-jurisdictional activity.^[17] The BCBS complemented this by issuing, in November 2011, an assessment methodology for G-SIBs under Basel III, which required designated banks to hold additional loss-absorbing capital buffers starting at 1% of risk-weighted assets, escalating to 3.5% by 2019, to internalize systemic externalities.^[18] These measures aimed to ensure resolvability without taxpayer bailouts, drawing on empirical analysis of crisis-era failures like Lehman Brothers.^[18] Nationally, the United States enacted the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act on July 21, 2010, creating the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) with authority to designate nonbank financial institutions as SIFIs if their distress could pose risks to U.S. financial stability, subjecting them to Federal Reserve supervision and enhanced prudential standards.^[19] FSOC's framework emphasized activities-based analysis over entity size alone, though initial designations like American International Group in 2013 faced legal challenges, highlighting tensions between systemic risk prevention and market competition.^[20] Internationally, the European Union incorporated similar provisions via the Capital Requirements Directive IV in 2013, aligning with Basel III while adapting to regional banking structures.^[21] These frameworks evolved iteratively; for instance, the FSB extended SIFI policies to insurers (G-SIIs) in 2013 and introduced total loss-absorbing capacity (TLAC) standards in 2015 to facilitate orderly resolutions.^[22] Empirical evaluations post-implementation, such as BCBS studies, indicate reduced leverage and improved resolvability scores among G-SIBs, though critics argue persistent interconnectedness via derivatives markets underscores ongoing vulnerabilities.^[23]

Conceptual and Methodological Foundations

Defining Systemic Importance

Systemic importance in financial institutions refers to the characteristic where the distress or disorderly failure of such an entity, due to its size, complexity, and interconnections, could trigger significant disruptions across the broader financial system and real economy.^[2] This concept emerged prominently after the 2008 financial crisis to identify entities whose collapse might propagate shocks via direct exposures, confidence effects, or operational interdependencies, amplifying losses beyond the institution itself.^[24] Unlike idiosyncratic risk confined to a single firm, systemic importance emphasizes externalities where one failure cascades, potentially halting credit flows or liquidity, as evidenced by historical events like the Lehman Brothers collapse on September 15, 2008, which intensified global market turmoil.^[25] Operationally, global systemic importance is assessed through a standardized indicator-based approach developed by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) and coordinated by the Financial Stability Board (FSB).^[18] The methodology aggregates five categories of indicators: cross-jurisdictional activity (weighting 10%), size (20%), interconnectedness (25%), substitutability (20%), and complexity (25%), with banks reporting data annually to supervisors for scoring against a cutoff threshold of 2% of aggregate indicator values from the sample.^[21] Scores determine higher loss absorbency requirements, such as additional capital buffers ranging from 1% to 3.5% of risk-weighted assets, calibrated to the institution's bucket placement; for instance, the 2024 FSB list maintained 29 global systemically important banks (G-SIBs) with no net changes in designations.^[3] These metrics aim to quantify potential systemic impact empirically, though they rely on observable balance sheet and activity data rather than forward-looking stress simulations, limiting capture of dynamic network effects.^[18] Challenges in defining systemic importance include distinguishing true externalities from correlated failures and addressing non-bank institutions, where the FSB extends frameworks to global systemically important insurers (G-SIIs) using similar but adapted criteria like premium income and asset size.^[22] Empirical studies validate the approach by correlating scores with market-based measures like marginal expected shortfall, yet critics note potential procyclicality, as growing interconnectedness during booms may understate risks until crises reveal them.^[26] Ultimately, the definition prioritizes institutions where failure probabilities, even if low, carry outsized costs, justifying enhanced oversight to mitigate moral hazard from implicit bailouts observed pre-2008.^[24]

Indicators and Scoring Methodologies

The identification of global systemically important banks (G-SIBs) relies on an indicator-based methodology developed by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS), which assesses banks' contributions to systemic risk through five categories reflecting size, interconnectedness, substitutability, complexity, and cross-jurisdictional activity.^[21] This approach uses 14 higher-level indicators derived from banks' regulatory reporting data, aggregated annually from a sample of approximately 70-80 large, internationally active banks selected based on Basel III leverage ratio exposures.^[21] Banks report these indicators to national supervisors by mid-year, with data validated and submitted to the BCBS for scoring; the methodology was initially established in 2011, refined in 2013 to incorporate bucketing, and updated as recently as November 2024 to address issues like window dressing through averaged reporting requirements.^[21]^[27] The five categories and their constituent indicators are as follows:

Size (one indicator): Total exposures as a measure of the institution's overall scale relative to the financial system.^[21]
Interconnectedness (four indicators): Intra-financial system assets, intra-financial system liabilities, securities outstanding (debt), and securities outstanding (equity), capturing the extent of linkages that could propagate distress.^[21]
Substitutability/financial institution infrastructure (four indicators): Assets under custody, payments made, values of underwritten transactions in equity and debt markets, assessing the difficulty of replacing the institution's services.^[21]
Complexity (two indicators): Notional amount of over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives for trading and hedging activities, and trading and available-for-sale (AFS) securities values, reflecting operational and resolution challenges.^[21]
Cross-jurisdictional activity (three indicators): Cross-jurisdictional claims, cross-jurisdictional liabilities, and cross-jurisdictional total exposures, highlighting potential for international spillovers.^[21]

Scores are calculated by first determining each bank's share for every indicator (its value divided by the sum across the sample, expressed as a percentage of the total), then averaging equally weighted indicator scores within each category to yield category scores.^[21] These category scores are combined using fixed weights—20% for size, 20% for interconnectedness, 20% for substitutability, 10% for complexity, and 30% for cross-jurisdictional activity—to produce a total systemic score, with higher weights on cross-border elements to emphasize global impact.^[21] The cutoff score for G-SIB designation is set annually as the score at or above which the systemic score distribution exhibits a material jump in importance (e.g., 2.5-3% of aggregate scores in recent years), while allocation to buckets (0-5) for determining additional loss absorbency requirements uses fixed thresholds established using end-2012 data, unchanged since 2014 to provide stability.^[21]^[3] For global systemically important insurers (G-SIIs), the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS) employs a distinct methodology with 17 indicators across similar categories (size, interconnectedness, substitutability, complexity, and lack of substitutability specific to insurance activities like policyholder protections), updated in 2016 to incorporate absolute reference values for certain metrics such as derivatives and reinsurance to better capture insurer-specific risks.^[28] Scoring follows a multi-phase process, including quantitative thresholds and supervisory judgment, with total scores determining designations; however, the IAIS has transitioned toward a broader Holistic Framework for systemic risk since 2019, reducing reliance on annual G-SII lists while maintaining indicator-based elements for monitoring.^[29] Non-bank non-insurer (NBNI) G-SIFIs lack a finalized indicator methodology, with FSB proposals from 2014 emphasizing asset size, interconnectedness, and complexity but resulting in no designations to date due to implementation challenges.^[30] National SIFI designations often adapt these global indicators but incorporate jurisdiction-specific adjustments, such as additional qualitative factors or domestic-focused metrics, leading to variations in scoring rigor.^[18]

Challenges in Measuring Systemic Risk

The measurement of systemic risk posed by systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs) faces inherent difficulties stemming from the opaque and interdependent nature of global financial networks, where shocks can propagate through nonlinear channels not easily captured by static models.^[31] Traditional indicator-based approaches, such as the Financial Stability Board's (FSB) framework for global systemically important banks (G-SIBs), aggregate metrics like size, interconnectedness, substitutability, complexity, and cross-jurisdictional activity into scores, but these rely heavily on backward-looking, bank-reported data that may understate tail risks or fail to predict novel crises.^[32] For instance, the G-SIB methodology's use of end-period balance sheet snapshots enables "window-dressing," where banks temporarily reduce reported exposures to lower scores, as evidenced by causal analyses showing score reductions of up to 10-20 basis points through such practices before assessment dates.^[32] A core limitation is the lack of a single, operational definition of systemic risk, with measures often conflating individual institution distress with broader contagion effects, leading to incomplete assessments of spillovers.^[33] Market-based indicators, like CoVaR or marginal expected shortfall, attempt to gauge tail dependencies but suffer from high sensitivity to market volatility and calibration assumptions, performing poorly during tranquil periods when systemic vulnerabilities build undetected.^[34] Stress testing, employed by regulators such as the Federal Reserve, addresses forward-looking scenarios but grapples with shock calibration challenges, including the need for internally consistent multi-risk factor perturbations that historical data rarely supports adequately.^[35] Empirical studies confirm that no single metric reliably proxies systemic importance, as size correlates imperfectly with failure impact; for example, pre-2008 analyses showed some large institutions contributing minimally to network centrality.^[36] Data opacity exacerbates these issues, particularly for non-bank SIFIs like central counterparties, where over-the-counter derivatives exposures remain partially unobserved despite post-Dodd-Frank reforms.^[37] Endogeneity in risk measures—where designation influences behavior, such as reduced lending to avoid higher capital surcharges—further distorts assessments, with evidence from syndicated loan data indicating G-SIB status curbs credit extension by 5-10% in affected segments.^[38] Moreover, rare-event dynamics mean models trained on limited crisis data, like the 2008 episode, overfit to specific triggers (e.g., subprime mortgages) while missing structural shifts, such as those from fintech integration or geopolitical tensions.^[31] These methodological gaps underscore the need for hybrid approaches combining granular network analysis with machine learning, though implementation lags due to computational demands and regulatory harmonization hurdles across jurisdictions.^[39]

Global Identification and Designation

Financial Stability Board Processes

The Financial Stability Board (FSB), established in 2009 by the G20, coordinates the identification of global systemically important financial institutions (G-SIFIs) to mitigate risks from their potential failure. For banks, the FSB designates global systemically important banks (G-SIBs) using an indicator-based methodology developed by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS). This process relies on data reported by banks to national authorities, aggregated at the global level, and assesses five categories: size (measured by total exposures), interconnectedness (intra-financial assets and liabilities), substitutability (assets under custody and payments), complexity (notional derivatives and trading volumes), and cross-jurisdictional activity (foreign claims and liabilities).^[21]^[18] Each category's indicators are weighted and scored relative to the global aggregate, producing a systemic score for candidate banks (typically the largest internationally active institutions). Banks exceeding a cutoff score of 2% (updated periodically based on score distribution) are designated G-SIBs and allocated to one of five buckets corresponding to escalating higher loss absorbency (HLA) requirements, ranging from 1% to 3.5% of risk-weighted assets.^[21] The FSB applies this annually in November, using end-of-year data from two years prior—for instance, the 2024 list, published on November 26, employed December 31, 2023, data—and maintains 29 G-SIBs, with adjustments like bucket shifts for institutions such as Bank of America and Morgan Stanley.^[3] National supervisors enforce the resulting capital surcharges, effective from January two years after designation.^[4] The FSB also oversees resolvability through the Resolvability Assessment Process (RAP), involving senior regulators from home and host jurisdictions who evaluate G-SIBs' resolution plans biennially, identifying shortfalls in credibility or feasibility and recommending improvements.^[17] For insurers, the FSB previously identified global systemically important insurers (G-SIIs) using an International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS) methodology similar to banks', but discontinued annual designations in December 2022 after endorsing the IAIS Holistic Framework. This shift prioritizes entity-wide and activity-based assessments of systemic risk over lists, integrating vulnerability factors like size, interconnectedness, and non-traditional activities, with FSB monitoring via IAIS global monitoring exercises using end-year data.^[40]^[41] These processes emphasize transparency, with public disclosure of G-SIB lists and scores (except confidential adjustments), and incorporate supervisory judgment to refine indicators, though critics note potential procyclicality in scores during stress periods and challenges in capturing dynamic risks like leverage provision.^[21] The FSB consults with standard-setting bodies and reviews methodologies periodically, as in the BCBS's 2018 updates to substitutability metrics.^[42]

G-SIB and G-SII Frameworks

The G-SIB framework, established by the Financial Stability Board (FSB) in coordination with the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS), identifies global systemically important banks whose distress or failure could significantly impact the broader financial system.^[22] Banks are assessed annually using end-year data submitted by national supervisors, with the process relying on a set of quantitative indicators aggregated into five equally weighted categories: size, interconnectedness, substitutability/financial institution infrastructure, complexity, and cross-jurisdictional activity.^[21] These indicators include metrics such as total exposures for size, intra-financial system assets and liabilities for interconnectedness, assets under custody and payments made for substitutability, notional amount of over-the-counter derivatives for complexity, and cross-border claims for cross-jurisdictional activity, all normalized against global aggregates to compute scores.^[18] Institutions exceeding a cutoff score of 350 basis points—updated from an initial 4.5% threshold based on historical data—are designated G-SIBs and allocated to buckets (0 through 5) corresponding to escalating levels of systemic importance, which dictate additional common equity tier 1 (CET1) capital requirements ranging from 1% to 3.5% of risk-weighted assets.^[21] Bucket assignments incorporate a supervisory judgment overlay to adjust scores by up to 250 basis points if indicators understate risks, ensuring the framework captures qualitative vulnerabilities beyond pure data.^[18] The 2024 G-SIB list, published on November 26 using end-2023 data, maintained 29 designated banks with no additions or removals, though two banks shifted buckets, reflecting stable but evolving systemic footprints amid post-crisis capital strengthening.^[4] Parallel to G-SIBs, the G-SII framework initially applied a similar indicator-based approach tailored to insurers, developed by the FSB in consultation with the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS), focusing on categories like size, interconnectedness, substitutability, complexity, and global activity to identify entities posing cross-border systemic threats.^[22] Designated G-SIIs faced enhanced oversight and loss absorbency measures, with annual lists published from 2013 onward.^[43] However, on December 9, 2022, the FSB discontinued routine G-SII identification, endorsing the IAIS's Holistic Framework as a more targeted tool for evaluating and mitigating insurance sector systemic risks without annual designations, citing evidence that traditional G-SII metrics inadequately captured insurer-specific risk profiles like long-term liabilities and non-bank interconnectedness.^[40] This shift prioritizes entity-specific assessments over list-based surcharges, aligning with empirical findings that insurance failures, unlike banking crises, rarely trigger widespread contagion due to lower leverage and asset-liability matching.^[41]

Annual Updates and Recent Designations

The Financial Stability Board (FSB) updates its list of global systemically important banks (G-SIBs) annually in November, using end-year data from the previous calendar year to recalculate scores based on the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision's methodology, which incorporates indicators such as size, interconnectedness, complexity, substitutability, and cross-jurisdictional activity.^[4] These updates determine higher loss absorbency requirements, with banks assigned to buckets from 1 to 5, implying additional common equity tier 1 capital surcharges ranging from 1% to 3.5% of risk-weighted assets.^[21] The 2024 G-SIB list, released on November 26, 2024, and based on end-2023 data, maintained 29 institutions, with no additions or removals from the 2023 list.^[3] Groupe Crédit Agricole S.A. advanced to bucket 2 from bucket 1, increasing its surcharge to 1.5%, while Bank of America Corporation dropped to bucket 3 from bucket 2, reducing its surcharge to 2%.^[4] This stability in the overall number reflects gradual evolution in indicator scores rather than abrupt shifts in systemic footprints, though mergers like the UBS Group AG acquisition of Credit Suisse in 2023 influenced individual scores without triggering list changes.^[44] Regarding global systemically important insurers (G-SIIs), the FSB discontinued annual identification and publication of a global list in December 2022, determining that the existing framework, combined with sector-specific reforms, sufficiently addressed insurances' lower systemic risk profile compared to banks.^[43] Jurisdictions now handle G-SII designations domestically under Basel-aligned guidelines, with entities subject to enhanced supervision and recovery/resolution planning. In December 2024, the FSB issued its inaugural list of insurers requiring resolution planning standards aligned with the Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes, focusing on those with potential cross-border impact, though specific names remain confidential pending national implementation.^[45] These annual processes underscore the dynamic nature of systemic risk assessment, incorporating post-crisis data refinements to capture evolving financial interdependencies without frequent list volatility, as evidenced by the consistent 29 G-SIBs since 2018.^[46]

National and Regional Variations

United States Implementation

The United States framework for identifying and regulating systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs) was established under Title I of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, enacted on July 21, 2010, which created the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) to monitor risks to financial stability. The FSOC, chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury and comprising regulators such as the Federal Reserve, FDIC, and SEC, has authority to designate nonbank financial companies as SIFIs if their material financial distress or the nature of their activities could pose a threat to U.S. financial stability. Such designations subject nonbanks to Federal Reserve supervision, including enhanced prudential standards like capital requirements, liquidity rules, and resolution planning. For nonbank designations, FSOC evaluates six statutory criteria: leverage, liquidity risk, off-balance-sheet exposures, interconnectedness with other financial firms, complexity, and the extent of substitutability for their services.^[19] In November 2023, FSOC finalized updated guidance introducing a two-stage process: Stage 1 screens for vulnerabilities using quantitative and qualitative indicators, while Stage 2 involves deeper analysis of potential risks, with opportunities for company engagement and mitigation before final designation.^[47] Historically, FSOC designated four nonbanks as SIFIs between 2013 and 2014—AIG, GE Capital, Prudential Financial, and MetLife—but all were subsequently de-designated: GE Capital in June 2016 after restructuring, MetLife in March 2017 following a federal court ruling that the designation was arbitrary, AIG in September 2017 after repaying bailout funds and reducing risk, and Prudential's designation effectively lapsed without formal rescission amid legal challenges.^[48] As of October 2025, no nonbank financial companies remain designated as SIFIs, reflecting FSOC's cautious application of the authority amid criticisms of overreach and lack of transparency in earlier processes.^[49] Banking organizations, primarily supervised by the Federal Reserve, face SIFI-like enhanced prudential standards under Dodd-Frank Section 165, applied to U.S. global systemically important banks (G-SIBs) identified annually by the [Financial Stability Board](/page/Financial Stability Board) (FSB) using Basel Committee methodology. The 2024 FSB list includes eight U.S. G-SIBs—Bank of America, Bank of New York Mellon, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, State Street, and Wells Fargo—requiring them to hold additional loss-absorbing capital buffers calibrated to their systemic risk scores, ranging from 1.0% to 3.5% of risk-weighted assets as of end-2023 data.^[3] These standards were tailored in 2014 and updated periodically; for instance, the asset threshold for enhanced supervision was raised from $50 billion to $250 billion in May 2018 under the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, exempting smaller institutions while retaining rigorous oversight for G-SIBs. U.S. G-SIBs also undergo annual stress testing under the Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test (DFAST) and Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR), with results informing capital planning; the June 2025 stress tests projected aggregate losses of $170 billion under baseline scenarios for large banks, including G-SIBs.^[50] Implementation emphasizes resolution readiness, with SIFIs required to submit annual resolution plans ("living wills") demonstrating orderly failure without taxpayer bailouts, subject to FSOC and Fed review.^[51] Tailored requirements differentiate based on systemic footprint: Category I firms (U.S. G-SIBs) face the strictest rules, including higher liquidity coverage ratios and single-counterparty credit limits, while non-G-SIB large banks (over $100 billion in assets) receive scaled standards. Critics, including industry groups, argue the framework imposes disproportionate costs on designated entities without commensurate risk reduction, prompting ongoing debates over de-designation paths and activity-based alternatives to entity-focused regulation.^[52] As of 2025, FSOC's analytic framework shifts toward monitoring broader financial stability risks, potentially influencing future designations amid evolving market conditions like nonbank lending growth.^[47]

European Union and Basel Alignment

The European Union aligns its regulatory framework for systemically important financial institutions with the Basel Committee's global standards, primarily through the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) and Capital Requirements Directive (CRD), which transpose Basel III reforms including the G-SIB framework.^[53] The initial implementation occurred via CRR/CRD IV, effective January 1, 2014, establishing higher loss-absorbency requirements for G-SIBs based on Basel indicators such as size, interconnectedness, complexity, and cross-jurisdictional activity.^[53] Subsequent updates in CRR2/CRD5 (2019) and the ongoing CRR3/CRD6 package, agreed in 2021 and set for phased implementation from 2025, incorporate final Basel III elements like the leverage ratio buffer for G-SIBs and an output floor limiting internal models' risk-weight reductions to 72.5% of standardized approaches.^[54] Identification of G-SIBs in the EU follows the Basel Committee's annual methodology, with the European Banking Authority (EBA) collecting and disclosing end-2024 data on indicators for EU institutions, enabling the Financial Stability Board (FSB) to score and designate banks into buckets requiring additional common equity tier 1 (CET1) capital surcharges from 1% to 3.5% of risk-weighted assets.^[55] As of the 2024 FSB list, 29 global banks were designated, including EU-headquartered institutions like BNP Paribas, Crédit Agricole, and Deutsche Bank, subject to these buffers atop the Basel III minimums of 4.5% CET1 plus conservation and countercyclical buffers.^[3] The European Central Bank (ECB), under the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) established in 2014, directly supervises all significant EU banks—including G-SIBs—defined by criteria such as consolidated assets exceeding €30 billion, or economic importance representing over 0.02% of EU GDP, ensuring consistent application of these standards across the euro area.^[56] Complementing G-SIB rules, the EU mandates national designations of Other Systemically Important Institutions (O-SIIs) under EBA guidelines, which adapt Basel domestic SIB principles using scores from size (up to 35 points), importance (up to 25), complexity/cross-border activity (up to 20), and interconnectedness (up to 20), with buffers calibrated from 0.25% to 3% CET1 based on systemic impact assessments.^[57] National authorities notify the EBA annually; for instance, the 2025 EBA update listed over 200 O-SIIs across member states, with buffers applied to mitigate domestic risks not captured globally.^[58] A separate systemic risk buffer (SRB) addresses structural vulnerabilities, set nationally up to 3% but coordinated via the European Systemic Risk Board to avoid excessive layering with G-SIB/O-SII requirements.^[53] While the EU's framework achieves material compliance with Basel G-SIB standards—as assessed "compliant" in the 2016 Regulatory Consistency Assessment Programme (RCAP)—it permits national discretions in O-SII/SRB calibration and phase-ins, potentially introducing variations from pure Basel uniformity, such as delayed full Basel III adoption until 2030 for some elements.^[59]^[60] The ECB's targeted reviews and stress tests further enforce alignment, focusing on resolvability and liquidity for SIFIs to internalize failure costs.^[61]

Other Jurisdictions

In other jurisdictions, national authorities typically identify domestic systemically important banks (D-SIBs) using methodologies aligned with the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision's (BCBS) framework, which emphasizes indicators such as size, interconnectedness, substitutability, and complexity to assess domestic systemic risk.^[62] These D-SIBs face enhanced prudential requirements, including higher capital buffers and resolution planning, to mitigate failure risks without relying solely on global designations from the Financial Stability Board (FSB).^[63] Implementation varies by country, incorporating local factors like economic structure and financial sector concentration, with annual reviews to reflect evolving risks. Canada's Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) designates six D-SIBs—Bank of Montreal, Bank of Nova Scotia, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, National Bank of Canada, Royal Bank of Canada, and Toronto-Dominion Bank—which collectively hold over 90% of domestic banking assets.^[64] These institutions must maintain a Domestic Stability Buffer (DSB) of common equity tier 1 capital at 3.50% as of June 2025, in addition to standard capital requirements, to address system-wide vulnerabilities such as housing market exposures.^[65] OSFI also mandates individualized resolution strategies, including bail-in powers under the Bank Act, to ensure orderly failure without taxpayer costs.^[66] Australia's Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) classifies its four major banks—Australia and New Zealand Banking Group (ANZ), Commonwealth Bank (CBA), National Australia Bank (NAB), and Westpac—as D-SIBs, given their dominance in lending and deposits exceeding 75% of system totals.^[67] These banks are subject to a higher loss-absorbing capacity (HLAC) requirement finalized in December 2021, mandating issuance of long-term debt instruments convertible to equity in resolution, phased in from 2023 to 2025, alongside stricter liquidity and capital standards tailored to domestic mortgage risks.^[68] Switzerland's Swiss National Bank (SNB) and Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) designate systemically important institutions under the Too Big to Fail (TBTF) regime, including UBS AG, PostFinance AG, the Raiffeisen group, and select cantonal banks, with UBS representing the largest systemic threat due to its size relative to GDP.^[69] FINMA annually reviews recovery and resolution plans for these entities, enforcing additional capital surcharges up to 10% of risk-weighted assets for UBS and requiring gone-concern loss-absorbing capacity (GLAC) to facilitate bail-in over liquidation, as reinforced post-2023 Credit Suisse events.^[70] In Japan, the Financial Services Agency (FSA) identifies D-SIBs primarily among the three megabanks—Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group, and Mizuho Financial Group—using revised indicators updated in 2022 to incorporate cross-border activities and complexity.^[71] These banks face elevated capital requirements under Basel III alignment, including systemic risk buffers, and must submit resolution plans emphasizing single-point-of-entry strategies to contain contagion, reflecting Japan's emphasis on interconnectedness with global markets.^[72] The United Kingdom's Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) applies a D-SIB-like approach to major banks such as HSBC, Barclays, Lloyds Banking Group, and NatWest Group, designating them as other systemically important institutions (O-SIIs) with buckets for higher loss absorbency starting at 1% and scaling to 3% of risk-weighted assets based on impact scores. Post-Brexit, PRA enforces ring-fencing for retail activities and mandates resolution packs with bail-in tools, prioritizing creditor hierarchies to minimize moral hazard.^[73]

Regulatory Requirements for SIFIs

Enhanced Capital and Loss-Absorbency Rules

Under the Basel III framework, global systemically important banks (G-SIBs) are subject to higher loss absorbency (HLA) requirements to enhance their resilience against failure and reduce systemic spillovers.^[74] These rules mandate an additional Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) capital buffer, termed the G-SIB surcharge, which ranges from 1% to 3.5% of risk-weighted assets (RWA) depending on the institution's systemic footprint.^[21] The surcharge is determined annually by the Financial Stability Board (FSB) using an assessment methodology that scores banks on five categories—size, interconnectedness, complexity, cross-jurisdictional activity, and substitutability—weighted by factors such as total exposures and assets under custody.^[75] Banks exceeding a cutoff score of 130 basis points are designated G-SIBs and allocated to one of five buckets, with each higher bucket imposing a progressively larger surcharge: Bucket 1 (1%), Bucket 2 (1.5%), Bucket 3 (2%), Bucket 4 (2.5%), and Bucket 5 (3.5%).^[17] For the 2023 assessment (using end-2022 data), 29 banks were identified as G-SIBs, with scores published in November 2023 and surcharges effective from January 1, 2025, for any bucket changes.^[76] Complementing the HLA capital buffer, the FSB's Total Loss-Absorbing Capacity (TLAC) standard requires G-SIBs to maintain a minimum stock of external loss-absorbing instruments, including CET1 capital, Additional Tier 1 (AT1) instruments, Tier 2 capital, and eligible long-term senior debt that can be written down or converted into equity during resolution.^[77] Adopted in 2015 and effective from January 1, 2019, for G-SIBs with RWA over €100 billion, the baseline TLAC requirement is the greater of 16% of RWA or 6% of the Basel III leverage exposure measure, plus applicable buffers such as the G-SIB surcharge.^[78] This ensures sufficient "gone-concern" loss absorption in resolution scenarios, distinct from the "going-concern" focus of HLA capital, with instruments required to have a minimum residual maturity of one year and no contractual bail-in exclusions.^[77] By end-2018, initial compliance data showed all relevant G-SIBs meeting or exceeding these targets, though ratios have since been stress-tested amid events like the COVID-19 market disruptions.^[79] For global systemically important insurers (G-SIIs), the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS) applies analogous enhanced capital standards under the Insurance Capital Standard (ICS), including a systemic risk charge that increases loss absorbency based on size, interconnectedness, and resolvability, though implementation remains more varied across jurisdictions than for banks.^[21] In the United States, G-SIBs face additional leverage constraints via the enhanced supplementary leverage ratio (eSLR), requiring a 3% minimum plus a 2% buffer for holding companies, calibrated to align with Basel's 50% of the G-SIB surcharge applied to the leverage ratio.^[80] These rules collectively aim to internalize systemic externalities by raising funding costs for larger institutions, with empirical analyses indicating reduced default probabilities but potential procyclical effects during stress.^[81]

Resolution Planning and Living Wills

Resolution planning mandates systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs) to develop and maintain comprehensive strategies for their orderly resolution in the event of material financial distress or failure, aiming to minimize systemic risk and avoid taxpayer-funded bailouts. These plans, commonly known as living wills, detail the institution's structure, operations, and potential resolution pathways under applicable legal frameworks, such as bankruptcy proceedings, to ensure continuity of critical functions while absorbing losses internally. Established through post-2008 financial crisis reforms, living wills address the "too-big-to-fail" dilemma by requiring institutions to demonstrate resolvability without relying on government support, thereby reducing moral hazard.^[82]^[83] Internationally, the Financial Stability Board's Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for Financial Institutions, finalized in October 2011 and updated periodically, set core standards for recovery and resolution planning applicable to global systemically important financial institutions (G-SIFIs). These attributes mandate ongoing planning processes, including resolution strategies, resolvability assessments, and coordination among home and host authorities to handle cross-border failures. Jurisdictions must implement these through national laws, with plans covering recovery actions to restore viability and resolution actions to wind down non-viable entities, supported by credible loss-absorption mechanisms like bail-in powers.^[84]^[85] In the United States, Section 165(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act, enacted on July 21, 2010, requires U.S. G-SIBs and other covered companies with consolidated assets of $100 billion or more to submit resolution plans to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Plans must map legal entities, core business lines, critical operations, and shared services; outline strategies for funding, liquidity, and capital during stress; and address cross-border issues, including qualified financial contracts to mitigate close-out risks. Submissions occur biennially for G-SIBs as of 2019, alternating between full plans and targeted updates, with regulators conducting joint reviews and issuing public or confidential feedback; deficiencies identified in 2012, 2013, and 2014 cycles prompted plan resubmissions and remedial actions for firms like five major banks in 2018.^[82]^[86] A prominent resolution strategy in U.S. plans is the single point of entry (SPE) model, finalized by the FDIC in December 2013, which centralizes loss absorption and recapitalization at the top-tier holding company level using total loss-absorbing capacity (TLAC) instruments, protecting subsidiaries' viability and franchise value. This approach facilitates parent-level bail-in before subsidiary actions, tested through annual resolvability assessments. Globally, similar strategies align with FSB guidance, though implementation varies; for instance, the EU's Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) of 2014 requires minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL) to support resolution, with plans reviewed by the Single Resolution Board for eurozone banks. Empirical reviews, such as FDIC analyses through 2024, indicate iterative improvements in plan credibility, though challenges persist in data quality and cross-border cooperation.^[87]^[86]

Supervision, Stress Testing, and Oversight

SIFIs face intensified supervisory scrutiny compared to non-systemic institutions, with regulators imposing tailored oversight programs that emphasize continuous monitoring of risk profiles, governance structures, and operational resilience. This enhanced supervision, mandated under frameworks like the Basel III accords and national implementations such as the U.S. Dodd-Frank Act, involves frequent on-site examinations, off-site surveillance of key metrics, and requirements for institutions to maintain robust internal controls and reporting mechanisms.^[88]^[89] Supervisory authorities, including national central banks and international bodies like the Financial Stability Board (FSB), coordinate to address the cross-jurisdictional complexities of global SIFIs, ensuring that failures do not propagate systemically.^[90] Stress testing serves as a primary tool for evaluating SIFI resilience, simulating severe but plausible economic shocks to assess capital adequacy, liquidity positions, and loss absorption capacity. Globally, the FSB and Basel Committee promote standardized stress testing practices, with supervisors using both firm-specific and macro-prudential scenarios to identify vulnerabilities in interconnected portfolios.^[91] In the United States, the Federal Reserve's annual Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) integrates supervisory stress tests for bank holding companies with assets exceeding $100 billion, including all G-SIBs, projecting losses under baseline, adverse, and severely adverse scenarios; the 2025 exercise, for instance, demonstrated that participating firms maintained sufficient capital ratios post-stress, with methodologies detailed in July 2025 publications.^[92]^[93] These tests inform capital planning, dividend restrictions, and potential supervisory actions, having evolved since 2011 to incorporate forward-looking models for credit, market, and operational risks.^[94] In the European Union, the European Central Bank (ECB), as part of the Single Supervisory Mechanism, conducts biennial solvency stress tests coordinated with the European Banking Authority (EBA), targeting significant institutions that include G-SIB subsidiaries; the 2025 test encompassed 51 euro area banks, revealing varying capital depletion under adverse conditions but overall sector solvency above minimum requirements.^[95]^[96] ECB oversight integrates stress results into the Supervisory Review and Evaluation Process (SREP), which assigns pillar 2 capital add-ons based on institution-specific risks, with G-SIBs facing additional scrutiny for cross-border exposures.^[97] Oversight extends to resolution preparedness, where stress test outcomes feed into recovery planning and bail-in capability assessments, though empirical evidence indicates that such tests have prompted internal enhancements in forecasting and risk modeling at G-SIBs without fully eliminating moral hazard concerns.^[90] International oversight emphasizes college structures for G-SIBs, where host and home supervisors collaborate on consolidated supervision, sharing stress test data to mitigate arbitrage opportunities.^[97] The FSB's annual assessments track implementation effectiveness, noting in 2015 reviews that while supervisory intensity has increased post-crisis, gaps persist in harmonizing liquidity stress testing across jurisdictions.^[90] Empirical analyses of stress test impacts, such as those from U.S. CCAR exercises between 2011 and 2015, show they impose market discipline by influencing stock returns and risk-taking, though critics argue over-reliance on models may understate tail risks in non-bank SIFIs.^[98] Overall, these mechanisms aim to enforce causal linkages between institutional health and systemic stability, with regulators retaining discretion for tailored interventions.^[91]

Empirical Assessments

Evidence of Reduced Systemic Risk

Post-crisis reforms, including higher capital surcharges for global systemically important banks (G-SIBs), have been associated with substantial increases in capital buffers, enhancing loss absorbency and reducing the potential for distress to propagate through the financial system. The average risk-weighted capital ratio for G-SIBs rose from 6-9% in 2012 to approximately 14% by 2019, while leverage ratios improved from 2.5-4% to 5-6.5% over the same period, reflecting stricter Basel III requirements and G-SIB-specific buffers that compel these institutions to internalize externalities from potential failure.^[99] These changes have lowered overall leverage and improved resilience, as evidenced by market-based systemic risk measures such as SRISK and ΔCoVaR, which declined post-reform compared to pre-crisis levels in major jurisdictions like Europe and the United States.^[99] Resolution planning and total loss-absorbing capacity (TLAC) requirements have further mitigated systemic risk by facilitating orderly failure without taxpayer backstops. By 2020, most G-SIBs met TLAC minima of 18% of risk-weighted assets and 6.75% of leverage exposure, enabling bail-in of creditors and reducing reliance on public funds during stress.^[99] Empirical assessments indicate progress in resolvability, with credit default swap (CDS) spreads for holding companies rising relative to operating entities since 2014, signaling market perceptions of credible bail-in mechanisms and diminished too-big-to-fail subsidies. Funding cost advantages for G-SIBs narrowed from around 120 basis points pre-reform to 55 basis points post-reform, as measured by contingent claims models, alongside declining support rating uplifts from agencies like Fitch.^[99] Behavioral responses to G-SIB surcharges provide additional evidence of risk reduction, as institutions adjusted activities to avoid threshold breaches. A Federal Reserve study found that G-SIBs proximate to surcharge thresholds curtailed growth in systemic risk contributors, including intra-financial liabilities, underwriting, trading securities, and short-term wholesale funding, particularly among international banks and U.S. G-SIBs under certain methodologies.^[100] This window-dressing effect, while potentially leading to some capital misallocation, aligns incentives toward lower systemic footprints. Real-world stress events underscore these gains. During the COVID-19 pandemic, elevated capital and liquidity positions—built through SIFI regulations—enabled banks to absorb shocks without widespread failures or contagion, as higher-quality capital and buffers supported lending continuity amid market turmoil.^[101] Aggregate common equity tier 1 (CET1) ratios for large banks reached 12.5% by mid-2023, well above minima, contributing to systemic stability absent the acute vulnerabilities of 2008.^[102] Overall, regulatory evaluations estimate net societal benefits from these reforms at 0.30% of GDP annually, outweighing compliance costs of 0.09%, though full cross-border implementation remains key to sustained risk mitigation.^[99]

Impacts on Institution Behavior and Markets

Designation as a systemically important financial institution (SIFI) imposes enhanced prudential standards, including higher capital surcharges, which prompt institutions to adjust their balance sheets toward greater loss absorbency and reduced leverage ratios. Empirical analyses indicate that global systemically important banks (G-SIBs) respond by increasing capital buffers and curtailing activities that elevate systemic risk scores, such as short-term wholesale funding reliance.^[100] This behavioral shift manifests in lower risk-weighted assets and diminished exposure to volatile trading activities, as banks optimize against surcharge methodologies that penalize complexity and interconnectedness.^[32] On lending practices, G-SIB requirements correlate with moderated credit extension, particularly to higher-risk borrowers, with studies estimating an average reduction in lending volumes of 5.9% post-designation, escalating to 7.2% for riskier counterparties.^[103] While aggregate credit supply remains largely unaffected in some European contexts due to offsetting adjustments by non-G-SIBs, designated institutions exhibit selectivity, favoring lower-risk loans and widening pricing spreads for riskier ones, thereby altering portfolio compositions toward stability over yield maximization.^[104] This caution extends to corporate lending relationships, where surcharges elevate the probability of terminating commitments, constraining borrower access to finance and impeding asset growth, sales, and investment for affected firms.^[105] Market-wide effects include diminished systemic risk propagation, as G-SIB surcharges have empirically lowered the risk contributions from these institutions' activities, evidenced by reduced volatility spillovers in global banking networks.^[100] ^[106] However, these regulations introduce frictions, such as year-end balance sheet window-dressing to minimize scores, which temporarily distorts funding markets and elevates short-term borrowing costs.^[32] Profitability faces pressure from elevated capital costs, with SIFI status linked to subdued returns on equity, though enhanced resilience mitigates failure probabilities during stress events like the 2023 regional banking turbulence.^[107] Overall, while fostering prudence, SIFI frameworks may amplify market concentration risks by disadvantaging growth for designated entities relative to smaller peers, potentially hindering competitive dynamics.^[108]

Comparative Studies Pre- and Post-Designation

Empirical analyses employing difference-in-differences methodologies around the 2011 initial G-SIB designations by the Financial Stability Board have generally found that designated institutions increased capital and leverage ratios while curtailing balance sheet expansion. For instance, a study of 97 large banks across 22 countries from 2005 to 2016 revealed that G-SIBs reduced balance sheet growth by 5.8 percentage points post-2012 compared to non-G-SIB peers, with leverage ratios rising by 0.59 percentage points, though return on equity fell by 3.1 percentage points due to deleveraging.^[109] Similarly, the FSB's 2021 evaluation of too-big-to-fail reforms documented leverage ratios for G-SIBs improving from 2.5-4% in 2012 to 5-6.5% by 2019, alongside meeting total loss-absorbing capacity requirements by 2022, contrasting with pre-crisis leverage vulnerabilities that amplified the 2007-2008 downturn.^[99] On risk-taking and lending behavior, evidence indicates a shift toward safer activities without broad credit contraction. Using syndicated loan data from 683 banks in 80 countries spanning 2010-2018, researchers found no significant change in G-SIB lending volumes post-2012, but a decline in borrower risk profiles, with loans directed to higher-rated firms and greater collateralization, alongside narrowed pricing gaps relative to non-G-SIBs.^[104] The FSB assessment corroborates this, noting G-SIBs' reduced exposure to riskier syndicated loans and derivatives post-2011, with non-performing loan ratios declining and z-scores (inverse risk measures) improving, though complexity remains elevated versus smaller banks; aggregate credit-to-GDP growth persisted unimpeded as non-G-SIBs filled any gaps.^[99] However, a contrasting analysis of domestic systemically important banks in India from 2010-2020 using bank-firm-year data showed designation associated with 1.4 percentage point higher loan delinquency rates, linked to diminished monitoring and moral hazard incentives like loan evergreening, particularly for opaque borrowers.^[107] Market discipline and systemic risk metrics exhibit partial enhancements post-designation. Funding cost advantages for G-SIBs diminished after 2012—evidenced by CDS spreads widening for holding companies versus subsidiaries since 2014 and a 20 basis point bail-in risk premium emerging by 2016-2018—yet persisted above pre-2008 levels in jurisdictions with incomplete resolution frameworks.^[99] Systemic risk indicators, such as ΔCoVaR and SRISK-to-GDP ratios, trended downward for G-SIBs relative to pre-crisis baselines through 2019, with interconnectedness volatility lower than during 2007-2008 peaks, though the COVID-19 episode revealed residual vulnerabilities without reverting to crisis-era spikes.^[99] These outcomes stem from event-study and regression designs controlling for parallel reforms, underscoring causal links to enhanced supervision, though critics note potential window-dressing in G-SIB indicators to minimize surcharges.^[32] Overall, while designations bolstered resilience, incomplete subsidy elimination raises questions about enduring too-big-to-fail perceptions.

Criticisms and Debates

Moral Hazard from Implicit Guarantees

Implicit guarantees for systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs) arise from market perceptions that governments will intervene to prevent their failure due to potential systemic contagion, leading to moral hazard where these institutions undertake excessive risks knowing losses may be socialized.^[20] This dynamic, rooted in the "too big to fail" doctrine, distorts incentives by reducing the cost of funding for SIFIs compared to non-SIFIs, as creditors anticipate bailouts, evidenced by persistently lower credit default swap spreads and borrowing costs for global systemically important banks (G-SIBs).^[110] Empirical analysis of U.S. bank holding companies from 2009–2013 confirms that larger institutions continued to benefit from too-big-to-fail effects, with funding advantages persisting post-crisis reforms.^[99] Studies indicate that SIFI designation exacerbates moral hazard through heightened loan growth and riskier lending, as banks exploit perceived safety nets to expand balance sheets without commensurate prudence. For instance, research on U.S. systematically important banks (SIBs) shows that post-designation, these entities exhibited increased non-performing loans, suggesting implicit guarantees induced riskier credit allocation rather than improved stability.^[107] Cross-country evidence further links government guarantees to higher leverage and lower capital quality, as banks prioritize short-term gains over long-term resilience, amplifying fragility during downturns.^[111] The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision notes that such guarantees amplify moral hazard costs, potentially offsetting regulatory enhancements like higher capital requirements.^[112] Critics argue that post-2008 reforms, including resolution frameworks under Dodd-Frank, have failed to fully eliminate these distortions, as markets still price in subsidies for SIFIs, evidenced by a 20-50 basis point yield advantage on their debt relative to peers.^[110] This persistence fosters interconnectedness and herd behavior, where SIFIs underinvest in private risk mitigation, relying instead on expected public backstops, as seen in elevated interbank exposures pre-crisis.^[113] While proponents of designation claim reduced systemic risk, empirical assessments reveal trade-offs, with moral hazard contributing to procyclical lending booms that heighten vulnerability to shocks.^[114] Addressing this requires credible commitments to bail-in mechanisms, though political economy constraints often undermine enforceability, perpetuating the cycle.^[115]

Economic Costs and Barriers to Competition

Designating financial institutions as systemically important imposes substantial compliance costs, including enhanced capital requirements, resolution planning, and ongoing stress testing, which elevate operational expenses for affected entities. For instance, the implementation of Dodd-Frank Act provisions led to a decline in average cost efficiency across U.S. banks from 63.3% to 56.1% between pre- and post-enactment periods, reflecting increased non-salary expenses tied to regulatory adherence.^[116]^[117] These burdens often manifest in higher fees for consumers, such as a drop in free checking account availability from 61% to 28% of bank accounts, alongside nearly doubled average monthly maintenance fees, as banks pass on regulatory overhead.^[118] SIFI-specific rules exacerbate these costs through assessments and fees funding supervisory activities, potentially reducing investor returns by imposing bank-like capital mandates on nonbanks, with estimates suggesting up to several percentage points in foregone yields for designated funds.^[119]^[120] Inappropriately designated banks face further penalties, resulting in curtailed services and elevated pricing for communities, as resources shift from lending to regulatory fulfillment.^[121] Empirical analyses indicate that such designations do not always yield proportional stability benefits, with costs including distorted resource allocation and reduced market efficiency, particularly when applied to entities lacking true systemic scale.^[122]^[123] These regulatory impositions create barriers to entry for smaller competitors, as the fixed costs of SIFI-level oversight—such as living wills and annual stress tests—disproportionately burden non-designated firms aspiring to scale, fostering market concentration among incumbents.^[99] Post-Dodd-Frank, banking sector concentration has risen, with top institutions capturing larger shares due to compliance moats that deter new entrants and mergers by mid-sized players unable to absorb similar mandates.^[124]^[125] This dynamic entrenches "too big to fail" entities, limiting innovation and credit intermediation, as evidenced by disintermediation where lending migrates to unregulated shadows, amplifying risks without competitive checks.^[126]^[127] Critics argue that SIFI frameworks inadvertently subsidize large players via implicit guarantees while imposing asymmetric burdens, reducing overall sector dynamism; studies show regulatory escalation correlates with fewer small-bank formations and heightened oligopolistic tendencies in core markets like deposits and loans.^[128]^[129] While proponents claim heightened scrutiny curbs excessive risk-taking, evidence from pre- and post-designation periods reveals persistent concentration without commensurate efficiency gains, underscoring how designation thresholds can protect established franchises at the expense of broader contestability.^[99]^[130]

Political and Institutional Biases in Designation

The designation of systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs) by bodies like the U.S. Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) has faced accusations of political influence, with critics contending that the process prioritizes administrative agendas over objective risk assessment. Established under the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, FSOC comprises voting members from federal agencies, including the Treasury Secretary as chair, whose political appointments can introduce partisan considerations into decisions. For instance, a 2017 analysis described FSOC as "a political body masquerading as an analytical one," arguing that its structure enables subjective judgments masked as technocratic evaluations, potentially favoring entities aligned with prevailing regulatory philosophies.^[131] This view is echoed in congressional oversight, where hearings revealed concerns over opaque deliberations that sidelined sector-specific expertise, such as insurance regulators' input during evaluations of non-bank firms.^[132] A key case illustrating procedural and potential institutional biases is the FSOC's 2014 designation of MetLife, Inc. as the first nonbank SIFI, which subjected the insurer to enhanced Federal Reserve supervision. MetLife challenged the ruling in federal court, and in March 2016, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia vacated the designation, finding FSOC's analysis arbitrary and capricious for failing to adequately evaluate MetLife's resolvability, vulnerability to distress, and overall threat to financial stability, in violation of its own interpretive guidance.^[133] The court's decision underscored institutional shortcomings, including FSOC's disregard for dissenting opinions from its insurance expert member, who argued the designation lacked sufficient evidence of systemic risk posed by MetLife's business model.^[134] Similar pushback occurred with Prudential Financial, where FSOC's process was criticized for overriding insurance-specific risk assessments, suggesting a bias toward applying bank-centric standards to diverse institutions.^[132] These episodes highlight how FSOC's multi-agency composition, born from political negotiations, may embed regulatory turf biases, disadvantaging non-banks relative to traditional deposit-taking institutions.^[135] Internationally, the Financial Stability Board's (FSB) identification of global systemically important banks (G-SIBs), coordinated with the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, relies on a methodology weighted heavily toward indicators like size, interconnectedness, and complexity, which critics argue introduces institutional biases favoring multinational incumbents. A 2017 U.S. Office of Financial Research analysis found that size alone inadequately captures systemic importance, potentially leading to over-designations of large asset holders irrespective of actual failure contagion risks, thus entrenching "too big to fail" status for politically influential entities.^[36] The process depends on data from national supervisors, raising concerns of home-country leniency; for example, designations of state-linked banks in jurisdictions with opaque reporting may understate true risks due to institutional incentives to protect domestic champions.^[136] Empirical studies suggest lobbying influences outcomes, with designated G-SIBs adjusting activities to minimize capital surcharges, indicating that political economy factors shape both initial labels and subsequent compliance.^[137] While the FSB framework aims for consistency, variations in national implementation—such as Switzerland's handling of its G-SIBs—reveal persistent institutional divergences that can amplify biases toward preserving economic powerhouses over pure risk mitigation.^[138]

Alternative Perspectives and Reforms

Market-Based Discipline Mechanisms

Market-based discipline refers to the incentives created by private market participants, such as depositors, bondholders, shareholders, and rating agencies, who monitor financial institutions' risks and adjust their behavior accordingly, demanding higher returns or withdrawing support from riskier entities to curb excessive risk-taking.^[139] For systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs), this mechanism operates through pricing signals in securities markets, where elevated credit default swap (CDS) spreads, bond yield premiums, or equity price declines reflect perceived vulnerabilities, prompting institutions to strengthen capital buffers or reduce leverage to maintain access to funding.^[140] Empirical studies indicate that uninsured depositors and subordinated debt holders exert stronger discipline than insured deposits, as their funds are at direct risk, evidenced by deposit outflows and yield spreads widening during periods of heightened bank-specific risk, such as in the lead-up to the 2008 financial crisis.^[141] However, the too-big-to-fail (TBTF) perception undermines this discipline for SIFIs, as investors anticipate government bailouts, leading to artificially low funding costs—estimated as a subsidy of up to $50-100 billion annually for U.S. megabanks pre-reform—and reduced sensitivity to risk signals.^[142] Post-2008 reforms, including Dodd-Frank's designation process and resolution planning, have partially restored discipline by signaling credible loss absorption for creditors, with evidence of narrower TBTF discounts in bond yields for designated SIFIs compared to pre-crisis levels, though residual subsidies persist due to incomplete credible commitments against bailouts.^[143]^[99] To enhance market-based mechanisms as an alternative to expansive supervision, proposals include mandating bail-in-able long-term debt that converts to equity during stress, providing automatic discipline without taxpayer intervention, as demonstrated in simulations where such instruments increased market sensitivity to capital shortfalls by 20-30% in European banks.^[144] Transparent disclosure requirements and independent rating agencies, less prone to regulatory capture than pre-2008 models, further amplify signals, with studies showing analyst scrutiny—evidenced by a post-crisis rise in regulation-focused questions during earnings calls—correlating with tighter credit spreads for SIFIs exhibiting risk overhangs.^[145] A universal bankruptcy regime applicable to all financial firms, rather than SIFI-specific carve-outs, would equalize incentives, fostering competition and reducing moral hazard, as advocated in analyses of merger-driven concentration where TBTF protections erode discipline across the sector.^[146]

Structural Remedies like Breakups

Structural remedies for systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs) entail regulatory interventions aimed at reducing their size, complexity, or interconnectedness through forced divestitures, spin-offs, or separations of business lines, thereby diminishing the potential for widespread financial contagion upon failure. Proponents argue that such measures directly counteract the "too big to fail" dynamic by ensuring no single entity dominates the system, potentially lowering moral hazard incentives for excessive risk-taking. However, implementation has been limited, with historical precedents like the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933—enacted post-Great Depression to separate commercial and investment banking—serving as a functional analog rather than a outright breakup, which was repealed in 1999 via the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.^[147] No major SIFI has faced compulsory breakup under modern antitrust or systemic risk frameworks, as U.S. authorities have prioritized resolution planning and capital surcharges over structural dissolution.^[20] Post-2008 financial crisis proposals for breakups gained traction among some policymakers and academics, exemplified by the 2016 Minneapolis Plan, which recommended either dramatically higher equity requirements or outright size caps for banks exceeding $250 billion in assets to end implicit government guarantees. Similarly, elements of the Volcker Rule under Dodd-Frank (enacted 2010) imposed partial separations by prohibiting proprietary trading in certain entities, though critics note it fell short of comprehensive restructuring and was later diluted. Empirical assessments of these milder remedies, such as Financial Stability Board evaluations of global systemically important bank (G-SIB) reforms, indicate that enhanced capital and liquidity standards—rather than size reductions—have measurably lowered default probabilities and funding costs for designated institutions, with G-SIB surcharges implemented from 2016 onward correlating to reduced leverage ratios from 25:1 pre-crisis averages to under 15:1 by 2020.^[148]^[99] Yet, direct evidence on full breakups remains scarce, as antitrust actions in banking have historically targeted mergers rather than divestitures, with no verified instances of forced SIFI fragmentation yielding systemic stability gains.^[149] Critiques of structural breakups emphasize their potential inefficiencies and unintended consequences, grounded in economic analyses showing that SIFI scale enables diversification and intermediation efficiencies that smaller entities cannot replicate at equivalent cost. A Brookings Institution review of breakup arguments concluded that such remedies impose higher operational costs—estimated at 10-20% of assets in divestiture expenses—without proportional risk reductions, as interconnectedness persists via market linkages regardless of firm size. Bank Policy Institute research further posits that large banks enhance overall stability through shock absorption, citing data from the 2008-2009 period where diversified giants like JPMorgan Chase facilitated orderly resolutions of failing peers, unlike smaller institutions that amplified localized failures. Empirical studies on bank consolidation trends from 2000-2010 reveal no causal link between asset size and heightened systemic vulnerability when controlling for capital adequacy, suggesting breakups might fragment liquidity provision and elevate credit costs economy-wide by 0.5-1% annually.^[150]^[151]^[147] Alternative structural approaches, such as ring-fencing deposit-taking from trading activities—as implemented in the UK's 2013 Vickers reforms or EU's 2014 structural measures—offer partial remedies without full dissolution, aiming to isolate retail operations while preserving global capabilities. These have shown modest success in limiting spillover risks, with UK ring-fenced banks reporting 20-30% lower funding premiums post-2019 implementation, though full SIFI breakups remain politically and operationally untested, with Dodd-Frank explicitly eschewing mandatory separations in favor of orderly liquidation authority established in Title II (effective 2011). Causal analysis underscores that while size correlates with designation, risk transmission stems more from leverage and opacity than scale alone, rendering breakups a blunt instrument unlikely to address root causes like inadequate resolution tools, as evidenced by pre-crisis failures of non-SIFIs like Lehman Brothers propagating via contractual chains rather than entity magnitude.^[152]^[99]

Deregulatory Arguments and Empirical Support

Proponents of deregulation contend that SIFI designations under frameworks like the Dodd-Frank Act impose substantial compliance burdens that stifle competition and innovation without proportionally mitigating systemic risk, as market discipline and private risk management historically suffice for stability. Empirical analyses estimate that post-2008 regulatory reforms, including SIFI-specific requirements for stress testing, living wills, and enhanced capital rules, have elevated compliance costs across the financial sector, with U.S. firms incurring annual regulatory burdens equivalent to about 1% of GDP by 2014, growing steadily in real terms thereafter.^[153] These costs disproportionately affect mid-sized institutions near designation thresholds, potentially entrenching larger incumbents by raising barriers to entry, as evidenced by reduced lending activity and consolidation trends observed in regulated segments.^[154] The 2018 Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (EGRRCPA) raised the asset threshold for enhanced prudential standards from $50 billion to $250 billion, de-designating numerous regional banks without precipitating systemic instability, as capital ratios and liquidity metrics improved industry-wide through voluntary measures amid post-crisis reforms. No major bank failures attributable to eased oversight have disrupted broader markets since this adjustment, contrasting with pre-2018 fears of contagion and supporting claims that rigid designations amplify rather than alleviate risks by signaling implicit guarantees.^[20] Studies of bank deregulation episodes, such as interstate branching relaxations, further indicate that reduced regulatory constraints enhance on-balance-sheet stability for liquidity-constrained institutions by optimizing loan structures and deposit funding, thereby lowering vulnerability to deposit runs.^[155] Critics of the "too big to fail" doctrine underlying SIFI rules argue it overstates size as a proxy for systemic threat, with empirical evidence from resolutions like Washington Mutual's 2008 collapse—the largest U.S. bank failure at $307 billion in assets—demonstrating orderly wind-downs via FDIC receivership without cascading failures, as depositors and counterparties absorbed losses through market mechanisms rather than bailouts.^[156] Analyses from the Bank Policy Institute refute TBTF funding advantages, showing large banks do not consistently borrow at lower rates due to perceived guarantees, per GAO assessments, implying designations foster moral hazard by diverting focus from genuine interconnectedness risks.^[151] In non-bank contexts, such as insurance, rescinding SIFI labels for firms like Prudential Financial in 2018 has not elevated measured systemic exposure, as sector-specific diversification buffers persist absent federal overlays.^[52] Overall, deregulatory evidence highlights that pre-crisis frameworks tolerated firm failures without global contagion, and post-2018 easing correlates with sustained profitability and resilience metrics, such as Tier 1 capital ratios exceeding 12% for major banks by 2023, suggesting over-regulation crowds out efficient capital allocation.^[157] While academic sources often emphasize regulatory benefits amid biases toward interventionism, first-hand resolution data and cost-benefit imbalances underscore that targeted, activity-focused oversight—over entity-wide labels—better aligns incentives for prudence without distorting markets.^[158]

References

[1]
https://www.fsb.org/uploads/r_140108.pdf
[2]
Ending Too-Big-To-Fail - Financial Stability Board
Systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs) are financial institutions whose distress or disorderly failure, because of their size, complexity and ...
[3]
2024 List of Global Systemically Important Banks (G-SIBs)
Nov 26, 2024 · List of G-SIBs remains at 29, with one bank moving into a higher bucket and another moving into a lower bucket.
[4]
FSB publishes 2024 G-SIB list - Financial Stability Board
Nov 26, 2024 · The Financial Stability Board (FSB) today published the 2024 list of global systemically important banks (G-SIBs) using end-2023 data.
[5]
[PDF] Reducing the moral hazard posed by systemically important ...
Oct 20, 2010 · This report recommends a policy framework for addressing the systemic and moral hazard risks associated with systemically important financial ...
[6]
Systemic Risk Regulation and the "Too Big to Fail" Problem
But creating such a powerful entity could reinforce the moral hazard problem resulting from the idea that some firms are too big to fail. The financial crisis ...
[7]
[PDF] Bank Runs, Deposit Insurance, and Liquidity Douglas W. Diamond
Our model demonstrates three important points. First, banks issu- ing demand deposits can improve on a competitive market by provid- ing better risk sharing ...
[8]
Continental Illinois: A Bank That Was Too Big to Fail
May 15, 2023 · Continental was the highest-profile bank to experience a crisis between 1933 and 2008. ... "Too Big to Fail: Origins, Consequences, and Outlook." ...Missing: pre- | Show results with:pre-
[9]
Savings and Loan Crisis | Federal Reserve History
In the 1980s, the financial sector suffered through a period of distress that was focused on the nation's savings and loan (S&L) industry.
[10]
Near Failure of Long-Term Capital Management
In September 1998, a group of 14 banks and brokerage firms invested $3.6 billion in LTCM to prevent the hedge fund's imminent collapse.
[11]
The Great Recession and Its Aftermath - Federal Reserve History
For traditional banks, there are significant increases in the amount of required capital overall, with larger increases for so-called "systemically important" ...
[12]
Financial Regulation: Systemic Risk - Congress.gov
Feb 1, 2022 · Before the financial crisis, no regulator was explicitly tasked with mitigating systemic risk or maintaining financial stability, although the ...Systemic Risk Policy Since the... · Too Big to Fail · Historical Perspective on...
[13]
The Global Financial Crisis | Explainer | Education | RBA
Financial stresses peaked following the failure of the US financial firm Lehman Brothers in September 2008. Together with the failure or near failure of a ...
[14]
Government Assistance for AIG: Summary and Cost - Congress.gov
Because AIG was primarily an insurer, it was largely outside of the normal Federal Reserve (Fed) facilities that lend to thrifts (and banks) facing liquidity ...
[15]
[PDF] SEPTEMBER 2008: THE BAILOUT OF AIG
Sep 19, 2008 · Without the bailout, AIG's default and collapse could have brought down its counterparties, causing cascading losses and collapses throughout ...
[16]
Post-2008 Financial Crisis Reforms
The SIFI Framework aims to address the systemic risks and the associated moral hazard problem for institutions that are seen by markets as too-big-to-fail.
[17]
2023 List of Global Systemically Important Banks (G-SIBs)
Nov 27, 2023 · 2023 List of Global Systemically Important Banks (G-SIBs) ; 1, 1.0%, Bank of Communications. Bank of New York Mellon. Groupe BPCE. Groupe Crédit ...
[18]
[PDF] Global systemically important banks: assessment methodology and ...
This document sets out the measures developed by the Basel Committee on the assessment methodology for global systemic importance, the magnitude of additional ...
[19]
Designations | U.S. Department of the Treasury
The Dodd-Frank Act also authorizes the Council to designate a Financial Market Utility (FMU) as “systemically important” if the Council determines that the ...
[20]
Systemically Important or “Too Big to Fail” Financial Institutions
Sep 24, 2018 · The Dodd-Frank Act also allowed FSOC to designate payment, clearing, and settlement systems as systemically important "financial market ...Context · Do TBTF Firms Enjoy a... · Policy Options and the Policy...
[21]
Global systemically important banks: assessment methodology and ...
Nov 26, 2024 · The Basel Committee's assessment methodology for G-SIBs requires a sample of banks to report a set of indicators to national supervisory ...
[22]
Global Systemically Important Financial Institutions (G-SIFIs)
Mar 18, 2025 · The FSB began identifying global systemically important insurers (G-SIIs), in consultation with the International Association of Insurance ...
[23]
Playing it safe: global systemically important banks after the crisis
Sep 22, 2019 · Post-crisis reforms aim to mitigate the systemic risks that arise from global systemically important banks (G-SIBs).
[24]
Systemic risk: how to deal with it? - Bank for International Settlements
Feb 12, 2010 · Following the work of the IMF, FSB and BIS for the G20, 1 systemic risk can be defined as "a risk of disruption to financial services that is ...
[25]
[PDF] Guidance to Assess the Systemic Importance of Financial Institutions ...
Oct 28, 2009 · All types of financial intermediaries, markets and infrastructure can potentially be systemically important to some degree. The assessment of ...
[26]
The Fed - Measuring the systemic importance of large US banks
Sep 30, 2021 · The Basel Committee publishes yearly G-SIB scores for five measures of systemic importance ... Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (2018).
[27]
Policy options to address window dressing in the G-SIB framework
The G-SIB assessment is carried out once a year and is based on banks' annual data reporting. On 27th November 2023 the Financial Stability Board published the ...
[28]
[PDF] Updated Assessment Methodology 16 June 2016
Jun 16, 2016 · The 2016 Methodology outlines a five-phase approach to the G-SII assessment process that includes fact-based qualitative and quantitative ...
[29]
[PDF] Holistic Framework for Systemic Risk in the Insurance Sector Global ...
The IAIS initially developed a methodology for identifying global systemically important insurers (G-SIIs) in 2013. As stated therein, the assessment ...
[30]
[PDF] Assessment Methodologies for Identifying NBNI G-SIFIs
We are submitting this comment letter to outline briefly a few principles that we believe should be key in establishing any NBNI G-SIFI framework.
[31]
[PDF] Challenges in Identifying and Measuring Systemic Risk
In this essay I draw on experiences with other measurement agendas to place in perspective the challenge of quantifying systemic risk, or more generally, of ...
[32]
[PDF] Banks' window-dressing of the G-SIB framework: causal evidence ...
Mar 7, 2024 · The G-SIB framework assigns regulatory capital requirements to banks based on their global systemic importance. Banks report data across 13.
[33]
Systemic risk measures and regulatory challenges - ScienceDirect
Regulators face challenges with systemic risk due to lack of a single definition, most measures focusing on individual institutions, and the need to understand ...
[34]
Measuring Systemic Risk | The Review of Financial Studies
We present an economic model of systemic risk in which undercapitalization of the financial sector as a whole is assumed to harm the real economy.
[35]
[PDF] Systemic Risk Monitoring (―SysMo‖) Toolkit—A User Guide
Key challenges in using stress test models include the calibration of appropriate and internally consistent sets of shocks (across risk factors), and ...
[36]
[PDF] Size Alone is Not Sufficient to Identify Systemically Important Banks
Oct 26, 2017 · The Basel methodology applies G-SIB capital surcharges to banks with systemic importance scores of 130 basis points or higher. In a recent ...
[37]
[PDF] Systemic Risk from Global Financial Derivatives: A Network Analysis ...
May 31, 2012 · This paper is novel in proposing a systemic risk measure directly related to the stability of the financial network topology and a corresponding ...
[38]
The impact of G-SIB identification on bank lending - ScienceDirect.com
This paper uses granular data on syndicated loans to analyse the impact of international reforms for Global Systemically Important Banks (G-SIBs) on bank ...
[39]
[PDF] A Survey of Systemic Risk Analytics - Office of Financial Research
Jan 5, 2012 · We provide a survey of 31 quantitative measures of systemic risk in the economics and finance literature, chosen to span key themes and ...Missing: difficulties | Show results with:difficulties
[40]
The FSB endorses an improved framework for the assessment and ...
Dec 9, 2022 · The FSB endorses an improved framework using the IAIS Holistic Framework, discontinuing annual G-SII identification, and will use IAIS ...
[41]
FSB endorses the IAIS Holistic Framework and discontinues ...
Dec 9, 2022 · The Holistic Framework provides a more effective basis for assessing and mitigating systemic risk in the insurance sector than G-SII identification.
[42]
SCO40 - Global systemically important banks
Nov 9, 2021 · This chapter describes the indicator-based measurement approach for assessing the systemic importance of global systemically important banks (G-SIBs).
[43]
G-SII - International Association of Insurance Supervisors
Based on the initial years of implementation of the Holistic Framework, the FSB decided to discontinue the G-SII identification in December 2022 and endorsed ...<|separator|>
[44]
FSB and Basel Committee publish 2024 G-SIB list and additional ...
Nov 29, 2024 · On 26 November 2024, the Financial Stability Board (FSB) published the 2024 list of global systemically important banks (G-SIBs) and the Basel Committee on ...
[45]
IAIS welcomes the release of the FSB's first list of insurers subject to ...
Dec 5, 2024 · IAIS welcomes the release of the FSB's first list of insurers subject to resolution planning standards consistent with the FSB Key Attributes.
[46]
Basel Committee publishes more details on global systemically ...
Nov 26, 2024 · The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision today published further information related to its 2024 assessment of global systemically important banks (G-SIBs).
[47]
FSOC Approves Analytic Framework for Financial Stability Risks and ...
Nov 3, 2023 · Under the Nonbank Designations Guidance, the Council's designation process is built on transparency and engagement with a company under review ...
[48]
And Then There Was One: US FSOC Rescinds AIG's SIFI Designation
Oct 6, 2017 · When FSOC was established in 2010, a great deal of attention was focused on its authority to make SIFI designations for nonbank financial ...
[49]
FSOC Finalizes Guidance on Nonbank Systemically Important ...
Nov 15, 2023 · FSOC Finalizes Guidance on Nonbank Systemically Important Financial Institution Designations.<|separator|>
[50]
[PDF] 2025 Federal Reserve Stress Test Results
Jun 30, 2025 · Under the exploratory market shock scenario, trading losses at U.S. global systemically important banks (G-SIBs) are expected to be about $17 ...
[51]
FDIC Releases Comprehensive Report On Orderly Resolution of ...
Apr 10, 2024 · The Overview explains how the FDIC would use authorities under Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act, with a particular focus on how it expects to ...
[52]
[PDF] Revisiting FSOC's Power to Designate Nonbank SIFIs
In addition, FSOC has failed to apply a consistent approach to nonbank SIFI designation, vacillating between entity-based and activity-based schemes, creating ...<|separator|>
[53]
[PDF] Basel Committee on Banking Supervision
This RCAP assessment, published in June 2016, covers the Basel III G-SIB framework and review of D-SIB frameworks for the European Union.
[54]
Outline CRR III / CRD VI - Final Basel III Standards - Mayer Brown
Jun 21, 2024 · The final Basel III standards introduced a leverage buffer for global systemically important banks (G-SIBs) and refinements to the leverage ...
[55]
The EBA updates data used for the identification of global ...
Aug 26, 2025 · This end-2024 data will assist competent authorities to identify a subset of banks as global systemically important institutions (G-SIIs), ...
[56]
What makes a bank significant? - ECB Banking Supervision
European banking supervisors contribute to keeping the banking system safe and sound. European banking supervision comprises the ECB and national ...
[57]
Other Systemically Important Institutions (O-SIIs)
The list of institutions included in this section follows the EBA Guidelines on the criteria for the assessment of Other Systemically Important Institutions ...
[58]
The EBA updates list of other systemically important institutions
May 15, 2025 · The EBA Guidelines define the size, importance, complexity and interconnectedness as the criteria to identify O-SIIs. They also provide ...
[59]
Systemically important banks: Basel Committee publishes ...
Jun 16, 2016 · The implementation of the Basel G-SIB framework is found to be "compliant" in all five of the jurisdictions where G-SIBs are currently based.
[60]
[PDF] The implementation of Basel III: progress, divergence and policy ...
Basel III is a global standard for banks' capital requirements. As of September 2025, only 8 of 20 members have fully implemented it, with some countries not ...
[61]
List of supervised banks
The ECB maintains a list of all significant banks under its direct supervision (Part A) and less significant banks under its indirect supervision (Part B).
[62]
[PDF] A framework for dealing with domestic systemically important banks
The purpose of an HLA requirement for D-SIBs is to reduce further the probability of failure compared to non-systemic institutions, reflecting the greater ...
[63]
https://www.bis.org/basel_framework/chapter/SCO/50.htm
[64]
OSFI maintains the level of the Domestic Stability Buffer at 3.50%
Jun 26, 2025 · The following federally regulated financial institutions are designated as D-SIBs: Bank of Montreal, Bank of Nova Scotia, Canadian Imperial Bank ...
[65]
Domestic stability buffer - Office of the Superintendent of Financial ...
Jun 26, 2025 · The domestic stability buffer allows Canada's largest banks to easily adjust to key vulnerabilities and system-wide risks.
[66]
Resolution of large banks - CDIC
Canada currently has six D-SIBs (Bank of Montreal, Bank of Nova Scotia, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, National Bank of Canada, Royal Bank of Canada and ...
[67]
[PDF] Information Paper Domestic systemically important banks in Australia
ADI. Authorised deposit-taking institution. APRA. Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. APS 110. Prudential Standard APS 110 Capital Adequacy.
[68]
Finalising loss-absorbing capacity requirements for domestic ...
Dec 2, 2021 · ... APRA is finalising loss-absorbing capacity requirements for domestic systemically important banks (D-SIBs). This requirement will be set as ...
[69]
Too Big To Fail
Jun 6, 2025 · In Switzerland, four financial institutions have been designated as systemically important banks (SIBs) by the SNB: UBS, Postfinance ...<|separator|>
[70]
FINMA assesses the recovery and resolution plans of systemically ...
Apr 26, 2023 · Every year FINMA assesses the progress made in recovery and resolution planning by the systemically important banks Credit Suisse, UBS, ...
[71]
FSA Weekly Review No.517 December 8, 2022
Dec 8, 2022 · " reflect the revisions on the assessment methodology for identifying D-SIBs (Domestic Systemically Important Banks) in Japan, following the ...
[72]
[PDF] Basel Committee on Banking Supervision
Observation. The stricter 15% limit is not applied to D-SIBs under the Japanese regulation. Page 18. 14. Regulatory Consistency Assessment Programme – Japan.<|separator|>
[73]
[PDF] Peer Review of the United Kingdom - Financial Stability Board
Apr 14, 2021 · At end-2018, about 9,000 MRTs were identified by the 15 UK domestic systemically important banks (D-SIBs), making up 1% of total employees of ...
[74]
[PDF] revised assessment methodology and the higher loss absorbency ...
The G-SIB framework forms part of a broader effort by the FSB to reduce the moral hazard of G-. SIFIs. Additional measures by the FSB on recovery and resolution ...
[75]
[PDF] Basel III: Finalising post-crisis reforms
... G-SIBs must meet the leverage ratio buffer with Tier 1 capital. 9. The leverage ratio buffer will be set at 50% of a G-SIB's higher-loss absorbency risk- ...
[76]
FSB publishes 2023 G-SIB list - Financial Stability Board
Nov 27, 2023 · The 2023 G-SIB list, published by the FSB, has 29 banks, one added and two removed, and requires higher capital buffers and TLAC standards.
[77]
Total Loss-Absorbing Capacity (TLAC) Principles and Term Sheet
The TLAC standard is designed to ensure that if a G-SIB fails it has sufficient loss-absorbing and recapitalisation capacity available in resolution.
[78]
[PDF] TLAC – Executive Summary - Bank for International Settlements
TLAC requirements can be met by instruments that are eligible for the minimum regulatory capital requirement, plus debt liabilities that meet certain criteria.
[79]
FSB publishes review of TLAC Standard
Jul 4, 2019 · all relevant G-SIBs meet or exceed the TLAC target ratios of at least 16% of risk-weighted assets and 6% of the Basel III leverage ratio ...
[80]
Modifications to the Enhanced Supplementary Leverage Ratio ...
Jul 10, 2025 · The proposal would modify the enhanced supplementary leverage ratio buffer standard applicable to GSIBs to equal 50 percent of the bank holding company's ...
[81]
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5074202
[82]
Living Wills (or Resolution Plans) - Federal Reserve Board
Each plan, commonly known as a living will, must describe the company's strategy for rapid and orderly resolution in the event of material financial distress ...
[83]
[PDF] Living Wills for Systemically Important Financial Institutions
The Dodd-Frank Act requires systemically important financial institutions to create resolution plans, or “living wills,” that bankruptcy courts can follow.
[84]
[PDF] Guidance for recovery and resolution planning
The Key Attributes require an ongoing recovery and resolution planning process for G-SIFIs, including resolution strategies and resolvability assessments.
[85]
[PDF] Recovery and Resolution Planning for Systemically Important ...
Jul 16, 2013 · It aims to promote a common understanding of which functions and shared services are critical by providing shared definitions and evaluation ...
[86]
The Orderly Resolution of Global Systemically Important Banks - FDIC
Apr 10, 2024 · Turning to Title II resolution, the FDIC's development of the Single Point of Entry (SPOE) resolution strategy, which we announced in 2013, was ...Missing: post- | Show results with:post-
[87]
Resolution of Systemically Important Financial Institutions
Dec 18, 2013 · Title I requires all companies covered under it to prepare resolution plans, or “living wills,” to demonstrate how they would be resolved in a ...
[88]
Basel III: international regulatory framework for banks
Basel III is an internationally agreed set of measures developed by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision in response to the financial crisis of 2007-09.Missing: SIFI | Show results with:SIFI
[89]
Enhanced Prudential Regulation of Large Banks - Congress.gov
Dec 15, 2023 · Enhanced regulation includes stress tests, capital planning, living wills, liquidity, counterparty limits, risk management, and Basel III ...
[90]
[PDF] Thematic Review on Supervisory Frameworks and Approaches to SIBs
May 26, 2015 · ... supervision in the form of changes realised in G-SIBs' internal forecasting capabilities for stress-testing and related capital planning ...
[91]
https://www.fsb.org/uploads/r_140407.pdf
[92]
Stress Tests - Federal Reserve Board
Jun 22, 2022 · The Federal Reserve's stress test assesses whether banks are sufficiently capitalized to absorb losses during stressful conditions.CCAR · Dodd-Frank Act Stress Tests... · Annual Large Bank Capital...Missing: SIFIs | Show results with:SIFIs
[93]
2025 Supervisory Stress Test Methodology - Federal Reserve Board
Jul 22, 2025 · Introduction. This document provides details about the models developed or selected by the Federal Reserve for use in the 2025 stress test.Missing: enhanced SIFIs
[94]
Stress Testing 101 - Bank Policy Institute
Jan 8, 2025 · The Federal Reserve conducts an annual stress test to determine whether banks are adequately capitalized to withstand adverse economic conditions.
[95]
[PDF] 2025 stress test of euro area banks – Final results
ECB Banking Supervision has concluded its 2025 solvency stress test for euro area significant institutions.1 A total of 51 significant institutions directly.
[96]
Stress tests - ECB Banking Supervision
European banking supervision uses stress tests to assess how well banks are able to cope with financial and economic shocks.Missing: G- SIBs
[97]
[PDF] Supervisory and bank stress testing: range of practices
This report sets out a range of observed supervisory and bank stress testing practices.1 It aims to describe and compare these practices and highlight areas ...
[98]
Banking stress test effects on returns and risks - ScienceDirect.com
The Federal Reserve's CCAR exercises conducted in 2011–15 can be classified as micro-prudential supervisory stress tests. They are 'top down' in the sense that ...
[99]
[PDF] Evaluation of the Effects of Too-Big-To-Fail Reforms: Final Report
Apr 1, 2021 · This report evaluates the effects of too-big-to-fail reforms, including the problem, post-crisis reforms, implementation, and market ...
[100]
The Fed - Effect of the GSIB surcharge on the systemic risk posed by ...
Apr 16, 2025 · This study assesses whether the introduction of the GSIB surcharge requirement resulted in GSIBs reducing the systemic risk posed by their activities.
[101]
[PDF] Early lessons from the Covid-19 pandemic on the Basel reforms
The report finds that the increased quality and higher levels of capital and liquidity held by banks have helped them absorb the sizeable impact of the Covid-19 ...
[102]
[PDF] Supervision and Regulation Report, November 2023
Nov 30, 2023 · The industry's aggregate common equity tier 1 (CET1) capital ratio rose to 12.5 percent as of June 30, 2023, a fourth consecutive quarterly ...
[103]
GSIB status and corporate lending - ScienceDirect.com
The FSB issued its first official GSIB designations in November 2011, but only assigned GSIB-specific capital charges (and shared information about how to ...
[104]
[PDF] The impact of G-SIB identification on bank lending: evidence from ...
G-SIB reforms had no effect on overall credit supply, but reduced borrower risk, and the pricing gap between G-SIBs and other banks decreased.
[105]
[PDF] GSIB Surcharges and Bank Lending: Evidence from U.S. Corporate ...
GSIB surcharges decrease lending, reduce loan commitments, and increase the likelihood of terminating existing lending relationships. A 1% surcharge increase ...
[106]
The network and own effects of global-systemically-important-bank ...
This paper considers the network structure of listed depository institutions around the globe through volatility spillovers to assess the network and own ...
[107]
[PDF] Does Systemically Important Bank Status Affect Loan Performance?
Sep 1, 2025 · Our study builds upon this literature by investigating the effect of SIB designation on bank risk, which operates through three interconnected ...
[108]
The GSIB Surcharge, Distorted Incentives, and Reduced Lending ...
Dec 19, 2019 · Specifically, it penalizes a bank for growing its stock price and requires a bank that has reduced its risk to nonetheless increase its capital ...
[109]
[PDF] The Impact of the Designation of Global Systemically Important ...
We find that G-SIBs have reduced the expansion of their balance sheet, which further improved their leverage ratio. A downward pressure is noticed on their ...
[110]
[PDF] Resolving “Too Big to Fail” - Federal Reserve Bank of New York
Large financial institutions enjoy implicit government guarantees. Numerous studies have documented these “Too Big to Fail” (TBTF) subsidies, often by comparing ...
[111]
Bailouts and Moral Hazard: How Implicit Government Guarantees ...
Aug 19, 2014 · In this paper we show empirically that implicit guarantees lead to more leverage and to a lower quality of bank capital.Missing: important | Show results with:important
[112]
SCO40 - Global systemically important banks
Nov 8, 2023 · Moreover, the moral hazard costs associated with implicit guarantees derived from the perceived expectation of government support may amplify ...
[113]
[PDF] THE MORAL HAZARD PARADOX OF FINANCIAL SAFETY NETS
Moral hazard plays a central role in almost every narrative of the recent financial crisis: the government's implicit guarantees led to ex-.
[114]
Evaluation of the effects of too-big-to-fail reforms: consultation report
Jun 28, 2020 · The evaluation examines the extent to which the reforms are reducing the systemic and moral hazard risks associated with systemically important ...
[115]
[PDF] The Too-Important-to-Fail Conundrum: Impossible to Ignore and ...
May 27, 2011 · SIFIs have demonstrated great capacity to propagate distress and undermine the normal functioning of the broader financial system and the ...
[116]
The Relationship Between the Dodd–Frank Act and the Cost ...
Feb 24, 2025 · We find that the average cost efficiency across US banks decreased from 63.3% to 56.1% since the implementation of the Dodd–Frank Act.
[117]
Has Dodd-Frank Affected Bank Expenses?
Sep 3, 2016 · Non-salary expenses for both large and small banks show a one-time increase after Dodd-Frank, while salary expenses tend to increase with ...
[118]
Why the Dodd-Frank act has had a negative impact on consumers
Jul 17, 2023 · They found that the legislation reduced customer access to free checking from 61% of bank accounts to 28%, and almost doubled banks' average ...
[119]
The Investor Cost of Designating Investment Funds as Systemically ...
May 15, 2014 · SIFI designation of asset managers or funds will be costly for investors. In some cases, investors could see their returns reduced by as much as ...
[120]
How SIFI Designation Could Lead to a New Taxpayer Bailout
May 14, 2014 · If a fund is designated as a SIFI, that fund would face new regulatory fees and assessments, along with capital requirements.Missing: studies outcomes
[121]
[PDF] Designating Bank SIFIs: An Arbitrary Threshold for Risk
In a similar manner, if the threshold for designating a SIFI were increased to $250 billion or $500 billion, the Federal Reserve. Board could use its ...Missing: outcomes | Show results with:outcomes
[122]
Designating Systemically Important Financial Institutions: Balancing ...
There are no absolutes in SIFI designation—judgment is necessary;; Regulators must weigh the safety benefits of designating a firm as a SIFI versus the costs; ...
[123]
[PDF] Designating Systemically Important Financial Institutions
However, there are also costs to naming a firm as a SIFI when it does not really merit that designation. The additional level of regulation, and the higher ...
[124]
The Dodd-Frank Act's Effects on Financial Services Competition
Jul 10, 2012 · It is certain and universally agreed that Dodd-Frank has and will continue to significantly expand the regulatory burden on financial businesses, including ...
[125]
[PDF] Does regulation only bite the less profitable? Evidence from the too ...
Note: The left-hand panel shows the evolution of the concentration ratios (ie the combined market share of the 4 and respectively 8 banks with the highest ...
[126]
Financial Services Committee Examines Impacts of Dodd-Frank 15 ...
Jul 15, 2025 · Overregulation of the banking system has led to disintermediation of credit, pushing more lending outside of regulatory perimeter. Federal ...
[127]
Other Reforms to Boost Competition and Innovation in the Financial ...
Feb 4, 2025 · The US financial regulatory framework dampens innovation, protects incumbent firms from competition, and promotes taxpayer-financed bailouts.
[128]
Public Interest Comment on Laws and Regulations That Raise ...
May 28, 2025 · The Task Force highlights the importance of reducing the undue burden placed on small firms by regulation and of allowing small firms to compete.
[129]
[PDF] Background, Deregulation, Financial Innovation, and 'Too Big to Fail,'
Part V examines the growth of the "too big to fail" banks, the impact of too big to fail on competition and the creation of financial innovations. Finally ...
[130]
Regulatory oversight and bank risk - ScienceDirect.com
We investigate how a change in regulatory oversight affects bank risk, using the passage of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act ...<|separator|>
[131]
FSOC is too political to be taken seriously - American Banker
Apr 18, 2017 · The Financial Stability Oversight Council is a political body masquerading as an analytical one. A dubious creation of the Dodd-Frank Act.
[132]
[PDF] examining the dangers of the fsoc's designation process and its ...
Nov 7, 2014 · derstand more about the process and impact of SIFI designation. And ... bank is larger but engages in no risky behavior. The only thing.
[133]
Metlife: FSOC “Too-Big-to-Fail” Designation
May 2, 2016 · The court first determined that FSOC violated its own stated policy by failing to assess MetLife's vulnerability to material financial distress ...
[134]
[PDF] Views of the Council's Independent Member Having Insurance ...
I disagree with what in the vernacular is described as the “designation” of MetLife as a “systemically important financial institution” or “SIFI.” The ...Missing: controversy | Show results with:controversy
[135]
[PDF] Rethinking the Financial Stability Oversight Council
The outcome of the political compromise was the FSOC in its current structure, a multi- member body, housed and led by the Treasury Secretary, responsible for.<|separator|>
[136]
Three Hidden Issues in the List of Global Systemically Important Banks
Feb 3, 2020 · In order to designate a given institution as a G-SIB and to assess its level of systemic importance, the FSB relies on five indicators: size, ...
[137]
[PDF] The Effects of Bank Lobbying and Elections Surprises
GSIB is an indicator equal to one if the bank is listed as systemically important and zero otherwise. MCAP is the market capitalization, or price times shares ...
[138]
FSB recommends further strengthening of the framework for global ...
Feb 29, 2024 · FSB recommends further strengthening of the framework for global systemically important banks in Switzerland. 29 February 2024. Press enquiries:
[139]
[PDF] • Market discipline is the process by which market participants ...
Market discipline is when market participants monitor bank risks and take action to guide, limit, and price banks' risk-taking.
[140]
Market Discipline in the Secondary Bond Market
Their main objectives are twofold. First, they study how bond buyers reacted to elevation of SIB-specific and macroeconomic risk factors over the recent ...Missing: based institutions
[141]
[PDF] Unexpected Effects of Bank Bailouts: Depositors Need Not Apply ...
Feb 10, 2021 · For example, market discipline effects may be stronger for uninsured deposits, since these depositors have more of their own funds at risk, so ...
[142]
[PDF] Evidence from the Bond Market on Banks' “Too-Big-to-Fail” Subsidy
Investors discount risk for large banks, accepting lower credit spreads, giving them a competitive edge, and a "subsidy" due to "too-big-to-fail" status.
[143]
Has market discipline on banks improved after the Dodd–Frank Act?
Empirical examinations of banking market discipline have been important contributions in the academic and regulatory banking literatures (Cubillas et al., 2012; ...
[144]
[PDF] Credible Losers: A Regulatory Design for Prudential Market Discipline
Flannery, Market Discipline in the Governance of U.S. Credible losers can help discipline SIFIs both directly and indirectly. As explained by Constantinos ...
[145]
[PDF] Market discipline in banking: The role of financial analysts - SSRN
Oct 6, 2024 · We document a significant increase in regulation-related questions, especially towards systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs) ...
[146]
Charles I Plosser: Simplicity, transparency, and market discipline in ...
Apr 9, 2014 · President Plosser continues to advocate for a new bankruptcy mechanism suitable for all financial firms, whether systemically important or not, ...<|separator|>
[147]
Consolidation and Merger Activity in the United States Banking ...
Aug 8, 2012 · This study investigates trends in consolidation and merger activity in the United States banking industry from 2000 through 2010.Missing: historical breakups
[148]
[PDF] THE MINNEAPOLIS PLAN TO END TOO BIG TO FAIL
The Minneapolis Plan would raise equity requirements for banks with assets over $250 billion Page 16 | 13 | FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF MINNEAPOLIS THE MINNEAPOLIS ...
[149]
[PDF] Reviving Bank Antitrust - Duke Law Scholarship Repository
Nov 16, 2022 · It argues that policymakers' current approach to bank antitrust law fails to adequately address numerous societal harms from bank consolidation ...Missing: breakups | Show results with:breakups<|control11|><|separator|>
[150]
The Big Bank Theory: Breaking Down the Breakup Arguments
Proposals to break up major financial institutions entail greater costs than the benefits they would provide and are potentially outright counterproductive.
[151]
[PDF] “Too Big to Fail” -- Myth vs. Reality - Bank Policy Institute
Myth: The financial system is safer and better when large banks are broken up. Reality: Strong large banks support financial stability; banks of all sizes ...
[152]
[PDF] Too Big to Fail: Motives, Countermeasures, and the Dodd-Frank ...
There was little empirical evidence that substantial system-wide ... Congress foreswore the opportunity to break up the large, failing financial companies.
[153]
The Cost of Regulatory Compliance in the United States | Cato Institute
Jan 24, 2024 · Our research shows that regulatory compliance costs of US businesses have grown by about 1 percent each year from 2002 to 2014 in real terms.
[154]
[PDF] Assessing the Cost of Financial Regulation
The review of the existing empirical and theoretical literature provides relevant cost estimates and benchmarks for the major categories of financial reform.
[155]
Deregulation and Bank Stability: Evidence from Loan-to-Deposit ...
Sep 11, 2024 · In addition, such deregulation improves loan structure for LDR-constrained banks, and thereby leads to higher on-balance-sheet stability.
[156]
Why Too Big to Fail is a Myth by David G. Tarr :: SSRN
Jul 24, 2011 · The author argues that the US experience, shows that “too big to fail” is a myth. When Washington Mutual failed, it was 6-7 times larger than the previous ...Missing: SIFI designations
[157]
Deregulation in banking: A new paradigm and potential benefits for ...
Mar 7, 2025 · Increased capital levels and liquidity since the GFC have improved banks' financial footing, significantly reducing the risk of broader losses ...
[158]
Deregulation and the Financial Crisis | American Enterprise Institute
Accordingly, the banks that encountered financial problems got into trouble the old-fashioned way–by making imprudent loans or taking imprudent financial risks.