The designation and stringent prudential regulation of systemically important banks in South Africa

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisor Van Heerden, C.M. (Corlia)
dc.contributor.postgraduate Lichaba, Mamofana Florina
dc.date.accessioned 2023-07-27T10:51:58Z
dc.date.available 2023-07-27T10:51:58Z
dc.date.created 2023-09-06
dc.date.issued 2023
dc.description Thesis (PhD (Banking Law))--University of Pretoria, 2023. en_US
dc.description.abstract The designation and regulation of systemically important banks is a recent subject of ongoing global research dedicated to analyse measures designed to address the “Too-Big-To-Fail” conundrum of systemically important financial institutions associated with systemic risk and moral hazard. This approach is incorporated in the Financial Stability Board SIFI Framework, which is well-recognised as part of financial stability reforms by the G-20 after the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. To implement the SIFI Framework in the context of banking regulation, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision issued the G-SIB Framework in 2011, updated it in 2013 and 2018, thereby establishing an assessment methodology for identification of banks that are systemically relevant at a global level and imposing an additional loss absorbency requirement. In 2012, the Basel Committee extended this Framework to a domestic financial system by issuing the Basel D-SIB Framework. An overhaul of legislative frameworks for the implementation of the Basel D-SIB Framework is in progress in G-20 jurisdictions. In South Africa, it was implemented in 2013 through the amendment of the Banks Act of 1990 and revised in 2019 to give effect to the relevant provisions of the Financial Sector Regulation Act 9 of 2017. Accordingly, this research reviews the consistent implementation of the Basel D-SIB Framework assessment methodology and the Higher Loss Absorbency requirement, as well as other appropriate prudential requirements, within South Africa’s financial sector specificities. Insights are drawn from the United States and also from the Netherlands as an EU Member State. Recommendations are accordingly made for South Africa in view of the guidance taken from best international practices and standards. The research further interrogates the available legal remedies for challenging SIFI-bank designation and prudential regulation. en_US
dc.description.availability Unrestricted en_US
dc.description.degree PhD (Banking Law) en_US
dc.description.department Mercantile Law en_US
dc.description.sponsorship Absa Chair in Banking Law in Africa en_US
dc.identifier.citation * en_US
dc.identifier.other S2023 en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/2263/91654
dc.language.iso en en_US
dc.publisher University of Pretoria
dc.rights © 2023 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of the University of Pretoria.
dc.subject UCTD en_US
dc.subject Too-Big-To-Fail financial institutions en_US
dc.subject Systemically important financial institutions en_US
dc.subject South African domestic systemically important banks en_US
dc.subject SIFI-bank designation/identification en_US
dc.subject Stringent prudential regulation en_US
dc.title The designation and stringent prudential regulation of systemically important banks in South Africa en_US
dc.type Thesis en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record