We investigate whether financial markets reacted to the regulatory changes implied by the publication of the list of systemically important financial institutions (SIFI) and the new rules designed to address the too-big-to-fail problem of systemic banks. By applying event study methodology to a sample of 70 of the world’s largest banks, we assess whether the stock prices of SIFIs reacted significantly and differently from those of other large banks not deemed to be systemically important following the release of information regarding the methodology used to identify SIFIs and their new capital requirements; the disclosure of the first list of 29 SIFIs; and the publication of the updated list of 28 SIFIs. Overall, we determine that financial markets did not univocally react to the new regulation regarding SIFIs. However markets discriminated between high and low capitalized banks and they correctly estimated the probable effects of the additional capital requirements.

This paper investigates the accuracy of internal rating based (IRB) models in measuring credit risk. We contribute to the growing debate on the current prudential regulatory framework by investigating the use of validated IRB models in promoting efficient risk management practices. Our empirical analysis is based on a novel panel data set of 177 Western European banks observed from 2008 to 2015, in the aftermath of the financial and economic crisis. We find that IRB banks were able to curb the increase in credit risk driven by the macroeconomic slowdown better than banks under the standardized approach. This suggests that the introduction of the internal ratings based approach by Basel II has promoted the adoption of stronger risk management practices among banks, as meant by the regulators.