by Don Alexander, MBA
Associate, RSD Solutions Inc.
Recently, a number of financial institutions along with the International Institute of Finance (IIF), an industry association owned by financial institutions, have raised concerns about the economic costs for a capital cushion for global systemically important banks (GSIB). The BIS has answered some of these questions in a recent report Assessment of the Macroeconomic Impact of Higher Loss Absorbency for Global Systemically Important Banks (BIS Macroeconomic Assessment Group, October 10th).
Weakness in large financial institutions has often played a central role in the triggering and propagation of systemic financial crises. The Financial Stability Board (FSB) and the Basel Committee on Banking have made a number of proposals for improving the loss absorbency of the GSIB and put together a Macroeconomic Assessment Group (MAG) to investigate the macroeconomic costs and benefits of these proposals.
The GSIB proposal costs stem from the adverse impact on economic activity, bank policies to increase rate spreads and reduced lending to build up their capital buffers. The 30 potential GSIBS, for the study, were based on their domestic market lending share and share of financial assets in their domestic economy.
The initial result showed a 1% increase in the capital requirement reduced GDP by 0.06% over 8 years, or a little less than 0.01% per year. The primary driver of this macroeconomic impact was the increase in lending spreads by 5-6 basis points. The overall results conceal differences across countries related to role of the domestic financial system, existing capital buffers and international spillover effects. It was found that by varying key assumptions: such as asset size, a larger bank list, a shorter implementation period or authorities altering only had a limited impact of growth.
The MAG group looked at the full impact of implementation of all the Basel proposals and increased the capital buffer by an additional 2% for the GSIBs implemented over 8 years. The actual results of the two components indicate reduced GDP growth by 0.04% per year while lending spreads rise by 31 basis points. As noted earlier, different assumptions lead to different effects, while faster implementation or a weaker monetary response increasing the impact on GDP.
The benefits for the GSIB framework relate primarily to the reduction in the exposure of the financial system to systemic crises that can have long-lasting effects on the economy and financial markets.
For more on this follow the link to the BIS: http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs202.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment