An Assessment Methodology for Domestic Systemically Important Banks in Australia

2013 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 140-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Brämer ◽  
Horst Gischer
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 230-242
Author(s):  
Oleksandra Hirna ◽  
Vira Druhova ◽  
Lidiia Dudynets ◽  
Olha Vernei ◽  
Dariusz Wawrzyniak

The indicator-based method recommended by the Basel Committee is one of the most common approaches to identifying systemically important banks. National authorities often establish their own methodology by adding modern tools that, in their opinion, adequately capture systemic risk in their domestic economy. The paper shows that the updated methodology for assessing systemically important Ukrainian banks can be verified on publicly available data. The analysis confirms that the updated version of the National Bank’s assessment methodology is in line with those recommended by international banking institutions, but does not fully capture the current systemic risk factors. Systematization of literary and statistical sources indicates that one of the main sources of systemic risk in Ukraine is the establishment of a state monopoly in the banking market. Thus, the assessment methodology should be supplemented by instruments to evaluate the performance of the banking business. The indicator-based method and the minus one bank Z-score approach were tested to identify Ukrainian systemically important banks from 2010 to 2017.The loss of the leading role of PrivatBank in ensuring banking stability after the transition to state ownership since 2016, as well as the equalization of the systemic risk contribution of banks with state, foreign and domestic capital, was discovered. The study empirically confirms that Z-index, which combines the positive characteristics of the static asset return ratio and bankruptcy probability, can be used to determine the methodology as an indicator of the performance of systemically important banks, primarily state-owned banks.


2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael D. Gossett ◽  
Graham E. C. Bell ◽  
Steven R. Fox ◽  
Keith R. Bushdiecker ◽  
Richard Pousard, Jr.

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 1071-1085
Author(s):  
E.B. Starodubtseva ◽  
◽  
M.B. Medvedeva ◽  
O.M. Markova ◽  
◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. 1399-1408 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catalin Cioaca ◽  
Cristian-George Constantinescu ◽  
Mircea Boscoianu ◽  
Ramona Lile

2013 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 387-391
Author(s):  
Michaela Bianca Vac Soporan ◽  
Vasile Filip Soporan ◽  
Gheorghe Batrinescu ◽  
Emanuela Cocis

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael H. Azarian

Abstract As counterfeiting techniques and processes grow in sophistication, the methods needed to detect these parts must keep pace. This has the unfortunate effect of raising the costs associated with managing this risk. In order to ensure that the resources devoted to counterfeit detection are commensurate with the potential effects and likelihood of counterfeit part usage in a particular application, a risk based methodology has been adopted for testing of electrical, electronic, and electromechanical (EEE) parts by the SAE AS6171 set of standards. This paper provides an overview of the risk assessment methodology employed within AS6171 to determine the testing that should be utilized to manage the risk associated with the use of a part. A scenario is constructed as a case study to illustrate how multiple solutions exist to address the risk for a particular situation, and the choice of any specific test plan can be made on the basis of practical considerations, such as cost, time, or the availability of particular test equipment.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document