In this paper, we identify several shortcomings in the systemic-risk scoring methodology currently used to identify and regulate Systemically Important Financial Institutions (SIFIs). Using newly-disclosed regulatory data for 119 US and international banks, we show that the current scoring methodology severely distorts the allocation of regulatory capital among banks. We then propose and implement a methodology that corrects for these shortcomings and increases incentives for banks to reduce their risk contributions.

Abstract We show how to reverse-engineer banks’ risk disclosures, such as value-at-risk, to obtain an implied measure of their exposures to equity, interest rate, foreign exchange, and commodity risks. Factor implied risk exposures are obtained by breaking down a change in risk disclosure into a market volatility component and a bank-specific risk exposure component. In a study of large US and international banks, we show that (i) changes in risk exposures are negatively correlated with market volatility and (ii) changes in risk exposures are positively correlated across banks, which is consistent with banks exhibiting commonality in trading.

Abstract We review the extensive literature on systemic risk and connect it to the current regulatory debate. While we take stock of the achievements of this rapidly growing field, we identify a gap between two main approaches. The first one studies different sources of systemic risk in isolation, uses confidential data, and inspires targeted but complex regulatory tools. The second approach uses market data to produce global measures which are not directly connected to any particular theory, but could support a more efficient regulation. Bridging this gap will require encompassing theoretical models and improved data disclosure.