|
||||
ARTICLE V, SECTION 2(b) |
||||
Technical and Financial Services | ||||
Technical Services | ||||
Financial Sector Assessment Program and G-20 Mutual Assessment | ||||
2021 Financial Sector Assessment Program Review—Integrating Stability Assessments Under the Financial Sector Assessment Program into Article IV Surveillance Decision No. 14736-(10/92), adopted September 21, 2010, as amended by Decision No. 15495-(13/111), December 6, 2013, is hereby further amended to reflect the changes set forth in the Annex to this Decision (SM/21/52, 04/16/21). Decision No. 17041-(21/46), May 12, 2021 Annex Integrating Stability Assessments Under the Financial Sector Assessment Program into Article IV Surveillance: Text of Amended Decision This Decision sets out the scope and modalities of bilateral surveillance over the financial sector policies of members with systemically important financial sectors and of multilateral surveillance over the spillovers arising from such policies in accordance with Article IV, Sections 3(a) and (b) of the Fund’s Articles and the Fund’s Decision on Bilateral and Multilateral Surveillance - 2012 Integrated Surveillance Decision (Decision No. 15203-(12/72), adopted July 18, 2012 (the “ISD”). Introduction
Scope and modalities of financial stability assessments
Miscellaneous
Attachment2 Paragraphs 23 to 27 in SM/10/235 (8/31/2010)
27. The results identify 25 jurisdictions with the most systemically important financial sectors (Table 1). They cover almost 90 percent of the global financial system and represent almost 80 percent of global economic output. The group contains 15 of the G-20 countries and advanced economies are heavily represented. The United Kingdom’s financial sector has the highest composite rank. The United States’ financial sector is ranked third despite being ranked first in size because of its relatively lower level of cross-border connections. Several euro area economies are also highly ranked because of the high degree of interconnectedness of their financial sectors. Although these connections are largely within the euro area, for the purposes of this exercise they have been treated as all other cross-border flows because first, they may give rise to cross-border systemic risk affecting the domestic stability of the individual countries, as well as the external stability of the euro area as a whole; second, the authorities in these countries still have considerable independence in their domestic financial sector policies; and third, comprehensive cross-border resolution mechanisms are yet to be established. Moreover, Article IV consultations (and FSAPs) with these members are still conducted separately. Given the degree of financial integration of the euro area countries and the gradual move toward a more integrated system of regulation and supervision in the European Union, this treatment of cross-border exposures of these countries could be reconsidered in the future. 1 Ed. Note: The texts of paragraphs 23 to 27 of SM/10/235 (8/31/2010) are reproduced in the attachment below. 2 Ed. Note: These paragraphs, which are referred to in paragraph 4 of the Annex to Decision No. 15495-(13/111), December 6, 2013, are included for the reader’s convenience. 3 IMF/BIS/FSB, (2009), “Guidance to Assess the Systemic Importance of Financial Institutions, Markets and Instruments: Initial Considerations.” 4 Ed. Note: The following text is footnote 14 in the original text: “14 The network analysis is based on von Peter (2007), International Banking Centres: A Network Analysis, BIS Quarterly Review, and Kubelec and Sá (2010), The Geographical Composition of National External Balance Sheets: 1980–2005, Bank of England Working Paper No. 384.” |
||||
|
Prepared by the Legal Department of the IMF
Note
- Page number references in the text are to the Forty-Second issue hard copy volume.