Big banks need culture more than capital to prevent potential collapse
One of the prescriptions of the FSB’s G-SIFI definition is to recommend more capital, but regulators like the FSA want a more holistic approach. January 04, 2012 | Peter HoflichWith the publication of a definition of what makes a bank a globally systemically important financial institution (G-SIFI), the Financial Stability Board (FSB) and the G-20 are systematically moving closer to establishing ideas on how to treat these institutions so that they do not come into danger. The definition takes into account size, cross-jurisdictional activity, interconnectedness, substitutability and complexity and lists an initial 29 banks as G-SIFIs, including 17 from Europe, eight from the US, three from Japan and one from China. Please login to read the complete article. If you already have an account, you can login now or subscribe/register.
Categories: Capital & Strategic Issues, Regulation, Risk and RegulationCapital & Strategic Issues,riskregulation,Risk and Regulation, Capital & Strategic Issues,Regulation,Risk and Regulation, Keywords:Financial Stability Board, G-SIFI, G-20, GDP, Financial Services Authority, Colin Lawrence, David Millar, Basel 1, Basel II, 2008 Financial Crisis Financial Stability Board, G-SIFI, G-20, GDP, Financial Services Authority, Colin Lawrence, David Millar, Basel 1, Basel II, 2008 Financial Crisis
|