About a-team Marketing Services
The knowledge platform for the financial technology industry
The knowledge platform for the financial technology industry

A-Team Insight Blogs

Is There a Disconnect Between Basel III and the US FSOC on SIFI Criteria?

Subscribe to our newsletter

Chris Brummer, a senior fellow at the Milken Institute, reckons the current manner in which Basel III is taking shape may conflict with rules being developed by the US Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) regarding the criteria by which firms are categorised as “systemically important financial institutions” (SIFIs). FSOC, the European Financial Stability Board (FSB) and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) have all recently been discussing SIFI designation guidelines, but Brummer highlighted the disconnect between the US and international regulation due to a lack of clarity.

Speaking at a conference held by his research institute in LA last week, Brummer said that due to this disconnect, a firm may receive the SIFI designation from Basel but not from the FSOC. Ergo it would be determined as systemically important by the global yardstick but not the US one and therefore would be subject to different levels of disclosure and transparency requirements, as well as different levels of direct risk management scrutiny and capital requirements.

Brummer highlighted the instance of a small hedge fund that is so interconnected to the rest of market that it could be determined as a SIFI by BCBS requirements. As noted by Reference Data Review last month, figures for non-banks (including hedge funds and corporates) that could fall under scrutiny by regulators have ranged from anywhere between a handful (fewer than 10) and a cartload.

This comment was set within the context of a discussion about the cross border challenges being faced by the regulatory community in light of the G20’s new “international agenda setting,” which has resulted in a high degree of “confusion” at the national level, said Brummer. A lack of a truly joined up approach to the global regulatory agenda could result in significant problems further down the line in terms of capital allocation and counterparty risk assessment. Regulatory arbitrage could be one such outcome.

Duncan Niederauer, CEO of NYSE Euronext, added that his own customers are facing a “wave of uncertainty” regarding regulatory change around risk management practices and capital management.

To be classified as a SIFI, according to FSOC, a firm should be engaged in financial activities of some sort and, under one proposal, have US$50 billion or more in total consolidated assets. However, the regulatory community is not limiting the classification to these criteria, judgements will also be made based on interconnectivity with regards to the rest of the financial market, ergo non-banks will be judged on the basis of the “extent and nature of the company’s transactions and relationships with other ‘significant’ non-bank financial companies and ‘significant’ bank holding companies,” according to the FSOC in its February draft paper on the subject. Vital criteria is lacking in these proposals to be able to determine whether the FSOC is on the same page as the BCBS.

The proposals are reflective of part 113 of the Dodd Frank Act, which gives the council the authority to require that a non-bank financial company be supervised by the Fed Board of Governors and be subject to enhanced prudential standards if FSOC determines that “material financial distress at such a firm, or the nature, scope, size, scale, concentration, interconnectedness, or mix of the activities of the firm, could pose a threat to the financial stability of the United States.”

FSOC is also working with the Office of Financial Research (OFR) on establishing a new legal entity identification standard for the market at large in order to facilitate this systemic risk tracking endeavour.

The video of the panel is available to view on the Milken Institute website.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Related content

WEBINAR

Recorded Webinar: Managing Non-Financial Misconduct Under SMCR

Non-financial misconduct – encompassing behaviours such as bullying, sexual harassment, and discrimination is a key focus of the Senior Managers and Certification Regime (SMCR). The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has underscored that such misconduct is not only unethical but also poses significant risks to a firm’s culture and operational integrity. Recognizing the profound impact on...

BLOG

Unfashionable ESG Risks Unearthed in RepRisk Supply Chain Report

ESG data can get under the skin of companies – sometimes literally. A European fashion retailer was accused of selling fur products despite repeated appeals and evidence highlighting the mistreatment and unethical slaughter of animals such as foxes, rabbits, and chinchillas. The incident was one of thousands included in a new RepRisk report for its...

EVENT

AI in Data Management Summit New York City

Following the success of the 15th Data Management Summit NYC, A-Team Group are excited to announce our new event: AI in Data Management Summit NYC!

GUIDE

The DORA Implementation Playbook: A Practitioner’s Guide to Demonstrating Resilience Beyond the Deadline

The Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) has fundamentally reshaped the European Union’s financial regulatory landscape, with its full application beginning on January 17, 2025. This regulation goes beyond traditional risk management, explicitly acknowledging that digital incidents can threaten the stability of the entire financial system. As the deadline has passed, the focus is now shifting...