Consultation on Revised SPM Module CA-B-2 Systemically Important Banks

This module should be read in conjunction with the Introduction and with the Glossary, which contains an explanation of abbreviations and other terms used in this Manual. If reading on-line, click on blue underlined headings to activate hyperlinks to the relevant module. ————————— Purpose To set out the MA’s assessment methodology for identifying systemically important AIs in Hong Kong and for calibrating the level of any higher loss absorbency (“HLA”) capital requirements to which such Als incorporated in Hong Kong will be subject; to set out other policy and supervisory measures to be applied to Als identified as being systemically important in order to address the risks they pose. Classification A statutory guideline issued by the MA under the Banking Ordinance, §7(3). Previous guidelines superseded CA-B-2 “Systemically Important Banks” (V1V2) dated 18.02.201523.04.2021 Application To all AIs. Structure 1 Introduction
1.1 Terminology
1.2 Background
1.3 Legal basis
2 Overview of the D-SIB framework in Hong Kong
2.1 Objective
2.2 Scope of application
2.3 Application to foreign bank branches

3 Assessment methodology to identify D-SIBs
3.1 General
3.2 Size
3.3 Interconnectedness
3.4 Substitutability / financial institution infrastructure
3.5 Complexity
3.6 QualitativeAncillary indicators
3.7 Assessment approach
3.8 Data reporting
4 HLA requirement for locally incorporated AIs designated as D-SIBs under the BCR
4.1 General
4.2 Allocation to HLA buckets
4.3 Regulatory capital instruments used to meet HLA requirement
4.4 Interaction with Pillar 2
4.5 Application to locally incorporated AIs
5 Supervisory approach for D-SIBs
6 Recovery and Resolution Planning 7 Announcement of D-SIBs 8 Disclosure requirement for D-SIBs 9 Approach to designating G-SIBs
9.1 General
9.2 Assessment methodology
9.3 HLA requirement
9.4 Disclosure requirement
—————————

1. Introduction
   1.1 Terminology
   1.1.1 Unless otherwise specified, abbreviations and terms used in
   this module follow those used in the Banking (Capital) Rules (“BCR”) (Cap. 155L) and Banking (Disclosure) Rules (“BDR”). (Cap. 155M).
   1.2 Background
   1.2.1 To address the negative externalities posed by systemically
   important institutions, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (“Basel Committee”) established a framework in November 2011 (subsequently updated in July 2013 and July
   2018) to identify global systemically important banks 2
   (“G￾SIBs”), and calibrate a capital surcharge or HLA capital requirement (expressed in terms of Common Equity Tier 1, or “CET1”, capital) that would apply to each identified G-SIB according to its perceived degree of systemic importance. Subsequently the Basel Committee moved from the global to the domestic domain and issued “A framework for dealing with domestic systemically important banks” (“D-SIBs”) in October 2012. The D-SIB framework provides a complementary perspective to the G-SIB framework, focussing on the impact that the distress of banks (including international banks) may have on a jurisdiction’s domestic economy. Similar The G-SIB and D-SIB frameworks are now also set out in chapters SCO40, SCO50 and , respectively,RBC40 of the consolidated Basel Framework. launched in December 2019.
   1.2.2 Under the Basel Committee’s D-SIB framework, national
   authorities are responsible for establishing a methodology for assessing the degree to which banks are systemically It should be noted however that the terms D-SIB and G-SIB and their derivations are not confined to those locally incorporated AIs designated under the BCR for the purposes of applying HLA capital requirements. 2 See “Global systemically important banks: revised assessment methodology and the higher loss absorbency requirement,”, issued in July 2018: https://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d445.pdf. 3 http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs233.pdf 4 https://www.bis.org/basel_framework/index.htm

important locally, and calibrating the level of an appropriate corresponding HLA requirement, as well as for applying other policy/supervisory measures appropriate to address the risks posed by a D-SIB.
1.2.3 This module sets out the MA’s framework for assessing the
systemic importance of AIs, and for determining the HLA capital requirements to which any locally incorporated AI designated as a D-SIB or G-SIB under the BCR should be subject.
1.2.4 The full HLA requirement became effective from 1 January
2019.
1.3 Legal basis
1.3.1 The BCR, issued pursuant to §97C of the Banking Ordinance,
(“BO”), empower the MA to designate locally incorporated AIs as D-SIBs or G-SIBs and to apply an HLA requirements to the Als so designated. An AI would be considered a D-SIB if in the opinion of the MA the risks associated with the AI are such as to render the AI capable of having a significant impact on the effective working and stability of the banking or financial system of Hong Kong were the AI to become non-viable. An AI would be considered a G-SIB if in the opinion of the MA the risks associated with the AI are such as to render the AI capable of having a significant impact on the effective working and stability of the global financial system were the AI to become non-viable.
1.3.2 The BDR, issued pursuant to §60A of the Banking Ordinance,
willBO, empower the MA to require designated AIs to make additional disclosures as a result of their designation.
2. Overview of the D-SIB framework in Hong Kong
2.1 Objective
2.1.1 The overarching objective of the D-SIB framework is to
identify AIs whose impact, in the event of distress or failure, could cause significant disruption to the financial system and economic activity locally. To address the negative

externalities posed by such Als, regulatory and supervisory measures will be taken with the aim of:

• reducing their probability of failure, by increasing their
  going-concern loss absorbency in the case of locally incorporated AIs designated as D-SIBs under the BCR, requiring early recovery planning, and increasing the intensity of their supervision; and
• reducing the extent or impact of any failure, by improving
  the resolvability of these AIs.
  2.1.2 As noted in paragraph 2.1.1, theThe implementation of a D￾SIB framework is particularly important for Hong Kong, given
  focuses on the impact that the distress or failure of an Al may have on the domestic economy. Given that the size of the Hong Kong banking sector is large in comparison to the local economy and that the local banking sector is diversified with extensive links to both the domestic and global economies, there is potential for shocks affecting AIs and the banking sector to pose significant risks to financial stability more broadly and to spill-over into the “real economy”. These risks have not been fully addressed in the Basel III framework, which focuses primarily on addressing the risks faced by individual AIs rather than the risks such AIs pose to the system as a whole. The D-SIB framework is specifically intended to address the system-wide perspective, and hence complement Basel III.spillover into the real economy.

Chart 1: Key components of the D-SIB framework in Hong Kong
2.2 Scope of application
2.2.1 All licensed banks (“LBs”) will automatically be within the
scope of the MA’s regular assessment for the purpose of identifying D-SIBs. In contrast, restricted licence banks (“RLBs”) and deposit-taking companies (“DTCs”) other AIs will generally not automatically be within scope, because the individual failure of these types of AIAIs would generally be expected to create limited systemic externalities for the domestic economy. Nevertheless, AIs can be brought within the D-SIB assessment process on a case-by-case basis, in those instances where the externalities potentially associated with an individual RLB or DTCsuch AIs may be of systemic concern, such institutions can be brought within the D-SIB assessment process on a case-by-case basis.

1. Identification
2. Reducing probability
   of failure
3. Reducing impact of
   failure
   Assessment approach
   HLA requirement for locally incorporated AIs designated as D-SIBs under the BCR Intensive supervision Improving resolvability

2.2.2 AIs incorporated in Hong Kong will be assessed on a
consolidated basis. to the extent possible. 5 If the consolidated position is not available, then it will be based on the combined position (if the AI has overseas branches). Otherwise, the Hong Kong office position will be used. Overseas incorporated Als will be assessed on the position of their Hong Kong offices.
2.3 Application to foreign bank branches
2.3.1 Since the primary responsibility for supervising capital
adequacy in respect of foreign bank branches rests with the home supervisory authority, such branches are not subject to local branch capital adequacy requirements in Hong Kong and hence will not be formally designated as D-SIBs under the BCR for the purposes of applying HLA requirements to them. However, where a foreign bank branch is considered to be so systemically important in Hong Kong as to be identified as a D-SIB, the MA will examine whether there is a need to adopt a more intensive regulatory and supervisory approach in relation to it.
2.3.2 In determining the most appropriate supervisory and
regulatory approach for foreign bank branches that are identified as D-SIBs, the MA will take into account a number of factors, including the extent and character of the local operations of the branch and the home authority’s supervision and regulation of the group (and therefore the extent to which the MA can rely on the home authority), in order to assess the risks posed by the branch to financial stability in Hong Kong. As withfor foreign bank subsidiaries, the MA will seek to coordinate and cooperate with the home authority in making such assessments focussing, among other things, on the adequacy of capital and liquidity levels at the parent group, and the parent group’s relationship with the foreign bank branch in Hong Kong.
2.3.3 In cases where, notwithstanding more intensive supervisory
measures, the MA still considers it needs greater ability to If consolidated position is not applicable, then it will be based on the combined position (if the AI has overseas branches). Otherwise, the Hong Kong office position will be used.

regulate and supervise the branch more closely in order to promote the general stability and effective working of the banking system in Hong Kong, the MA may consider whether there is a case for the AI to be required to operate locally through a subsidiary rather than a branch (e.g. whether the AI has such extensive retail operations in Hong Kong that its potential failure would significantly impair the normal functioning of the domestic economy).
3. Assessment methodology to identify D-SIBs
3.1 General
3.1.1 According to paragraph 14 of the Basel Committee’s D-SIB
frameworkConsistent with SCO50.7 of the Basel Framework, D-SIBs should be assessed in terms of the potential impact of their failure on the reference system. This can be interpreted as a “loss given default” concept rather than a “probability of default” concept. On this basis, the indicators to be used in the D-SIB identification process are focussed primarily on measures of the “impact of failure”, as opposed to measures of “risk of failure”.
3.1.2 The D-SIB framework in Hong Kong aims to assess the
degree to which AIs are systemically important in a domestic context by reference to the financial system and domestic economy in Hong Kong. This means that the assessment focuses on addressing the externalities that the distress or failure of an AI could generate at a local level.
3.1.3 The D-SIB assessment is based on the following four factors
drawn from the Basel Committee’s D-SIB framework:
(i) size (subsection 3.2);
(ii) interconnectedness (subsection 3.3); (iii) substitutability / financial institution infrastructure (subsection 3.4); and (iv) complexity (subsection 3.5).
3.1.4 D-SIBs are identified using a two-stepholistic approach. The
first stepA quantitative assessment process is used to draw up a preliminary indicative list of D-SIBs, based on the

quantitativesystemic scores calculated using a set of factors/indicators. The second step involves the exercise ofFollowing that, a supervisory judgement thatoverlay may serve as a complement to the quantitative assessment process, i.e.be applied before finalising the list of AIs identified as D-SIBs and their respective bucketsto refine the preliminary indicative list by either (i) removing AIs from the list; or (ii) including other AIs onto the list. Please see subsection 3.7 for details of the two-step assessment approach.
3.1.5 The MA’s approach to using each of the four factors drawn
from the Basel Committee’s framework is discussed below.
3.2 Size
3.2.1 Size is a key measure of systemic importance. The larger the
AI, the more widespread the effect of a sudden withdrawal of its services and therefore the greater the chance that its distress or failure would cause disruption to the financial markets and systems in which it operates, and to the broader functioning of the economy. The size factor broadly measures the volume of a D-SIB’s banking activities within Hong Kong’s banking system and economy and therefore provides a good measure of the potential systemic impact in case the AI should fail.
3.2.2 The quantitative indicator used in the D-SIB framework to
measure an AI’s size is the AI’s “total assets”, as disclosed in the balance sheet. This proved to be the most suitable indicator based on analysis undertaken by the MA.
3.3 Interconnectedness
3.3.1 This measure captures the extent of an AI’s interconnections
with other financial institutions that could give rise to externalities affecting the financial system and domestic economy in Hong Kong.
3.3.2 The quantitative indicators used to capture
interconnectedness are:

• interbank activities (represented by balances and
  placement with banks 6 and deposits and balances from banks 7 ); and
• loans to financial concerns 8
  .
  “Balances and placement with banks” and “deposits and balances from banks” provide a broad sense of the extent of each AI’s interconnectedness within the banking sector at an aggregate level, whereas “loans to financial concerns” is intended to provide some indication of an AI’s exposure to (and interconnectedness with) the wider financial system.
  3.4 Substitutability / financial institution infrastructure
  3.4.1 The concept underlying substitutability / financial institution
  infrastructure as a factor for assessing systemic importance is the recognition that the greater the role of an AI in a particular business line or in acting as a service provider in relation to market infrastructure, the more difficult it will be to swiftly replace that AI and the extent of the products and services it offers, and therefore the more significant the risk of disruption in the event that the AI becomes distressed.
  3.4.2 Obviously assessmentsAssessments of substitutability /
  financial institution infrastructure will need to recognise local conditions within the banking industry including the intensity of domestic competition and the homogeneity of product offerings. In identifying the indicators to capture this factor, the MA has sought to identify aspects/elements which are susceptible to some degree of “measurement” or “assessment” (in the sense, for example, that information and data is relatively readily available) for incorporation into the assessment process. 6 Represent amounts placed with other banks in the form of cash and deposits, and loans and advances. Balances with central banks will be excluded. 7 Represent amounts owed by the AI to other banks which arise out of banking transactions. Balances from central banks will be excluded. 8 Financial concerns mean investment companies (including companies in the business of investment in commodity futures; foreign currencies; gold bullion; shares; funds and securities; unit trusts; retirement funds; and investment holding companies); insurance companies; futures brokers and finance companies and other persons engaged in the financial sector which are not AIs or banks.

3.4.3 There are certain functions performed by certain AIs in Hong
Kong that would obviously be difficult, if not impossible, to substitute at short notice. These critical and specialised functions include acting as the settlement institutions for local payment and settlement systems and Hong Kong DollarHKD banknote issuance. The MA will review the functions deemed critical from time to time and will incorporate them into the assessment as appropriate. AIs that perform these critical and difficult-to-substitute functions are likely to qualify as D-SIBs.
3.4.4 Whilst the provision of more commonbasic services and
functions, such as deposit taking and, lending and payment processing to customers, may be seen as more readily substitutable given that virtually all AIs perform these roles and the products may be considered largely homogenous, it may nevertheless be the case that, an AI with a certain “critical mass” in terms of higher market share may in reality make itbe more difficult to substitute a significant market player.
3.4.53.4.4 In identifying a “critical mass” in the more common but yet
essential services offered by AIs. As such, “deposits from customers”9 , and “loans and advances to customers”10 and “turnover in the Real Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) system and the Faster Payment System (FPS)” are used as the quantitative indicators for substitutability. This is based on the logic that the higher the market share of an AI, the more difficult it will be to substitute the extent and level of service it provides. / financial institution infrastructure.
3.5 Complexity
3.5.1 The degree of complexity of an AI is generally expected to be
proportionately related to the systemic impact of the AI’s distress, since the less complex an AI is, the more “resolvable” it will likely be, and in turn the more likely the impact of its failure could be contained. 9 Represent all deposit liabilities due to parties other than AIs/banks. “Deposit” is defined in §2 of the Banking Ordinance. 10 Represent all loans and advances (in gross amount) to customers other than the Exchange Fund, banks and other AIs.

3.5.2 The quantitative indicator used in the D-SIB framework to
measure an AI’s complexity is the AI’s total notional amount of outstanding over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives reported to the trade repository of the Hong Kong Monetary AuthorityHKMA (HKTR). Other sources of complexity may be assessed qualitatively in the second step of the D-SIB assessment as described in subsection 3.6.
3.6 QualitativeAncillary indicators
3.6.1 To prevent the identification process from becoming overly
mechanistic, the MA will apply a supervisory judgemental overlay to the quantitative assessment process recognising that some of the most effective indicators for assessing systemic importance tend not to be of a quantitative nature, and hence not captured by a quantitative indicator-based measurement approach.The MA has identified a number of ancillary indicators relating to specific aspects of the systemic importance of an AI that may be considered in addition to the indicators used in the quantitative assessment process. The MA may refer to these ancillary indicators to support the application of the supervisory judgement overlay where appropriate.
3.6.2 To support the exercise of such supervisory judgement, the
MA has identified an indicative list of qualitative indicators that will typically be considered in the assessment process and these are set out in Annex 1. Because the exercise of judgement inevitably requires flexibility to take into account the individual characteristics of AIs and specific market developments, the list in Annex 1 contains a list of ancillary indicators. However, the list should not be regarded as exhaustive, because the exercise of judgement inevitably requires flexibility to take into account the individual characteristics of AIs and specific market developments. The list may change and will be updated periodically in light of implementation experience and market developments. In principle, an assessment will
3.6.33.6.2 To ensure that the qualitative indicators will be considered
in a consistent manner, the process should focus on factors and indicators pertaining to an AI’s domestic systemic impact,

i.e. the impact given the AI’s distress/failure and not the probability of distress/failure of the AI.
3.7 Assessment approach
3.7.1 As mentioned in paragraph 3.1.4, the D-SIB identification
process is uses a two-stepholistic approach. First, a score will be calculated for an AI based on the quantitative indicators of “size”, “interconnectedness”, “substitutability / financial institution infrastructure” and “complexity”.
3.7.2 For this purpose, a weight is assigned to each of the “size”,
“interconnectedness”, “substitutability / financial institution infrastructure” and “complexity” factors. The MA applies a 40% weight to “size”, a 25% weight to each of “interconnectedness” and “substitutability / financial institution infrastructure”, and 10% weight to “complexity”. Table 1 provides a summary of the quantitative indicators used for the assessment and their respective weights.
3.7.3 The highest weighting is assigned to “size” because, in
addition to being the single most dependable quantitative indicator in terms of data reliability and objectivity, size is genuinely a more important overall measure of systemic importance than other factors and indicators. Generally generally speaking, the larger the size of an AI, the greater its market share of critical financial services and the more interconnected it is to the banking sector and the domestic economy, and therefore the more difficult to substitute. In addition, in the event of any impairment or failure of an AI, the larger the AI, the more likely that it will have a damaging effect on the confidence in, and the stability of, the banking system as a whole.

Table 1: Factor / Indicator weighting
Factor (and weighting)
Quantitative Indicator Indicator weighting Size (40%) Total assets 40% Interconnected￾ness (25%) Interconnectedness within the banking system:
Balances with and from banks (both components weighted 6.25% each) 12.5% Interconnectedness with the financial system:
Loans to financial concerns
12.5%
Substitutability / financial institution infrastructure (25%) Deposits from customers 12.58.33% Loans and advances to customers 12.58.33% Turnover in the RTGS system and the FPS 8.33% Complexity (10%) Total notional amount of outstanding OTC derivatives 10%
3.7.4 The systemic score for each AI is calculated in a manner
similar to that in the Basel Committee’s G-SIB assessment methodology. Thus the score for a particular quantitative indicator is calculated by dividing the individual AI’s amount for that quantitative indicator by the aggregate amount for the quantitative indicator summed across all AIs in the assessment pool. The AI’s score for each quantitative indicator will then be weighted by the indicator weightings in
Table 1.(based on the weights shown under the “Indicator
weighting” column of Table 1). The overall systemic score for the AI equals the sum of its weighted scores for all the quantitative indicators.
3.7.5 Once the overall systemic scores have been calculated, the
MA will first determine a cut-off threshold above which AIs are

putatively considered systemically important. The establishment of the cut-off threshold will Each AI’s systemic score will be compared to a cut-off threshold determined by the MA and take into consideration the overall distribution of scores. and cluster analysis.
3.7.63.7.5 AIs whose score exceeds the threshold could be
considered as systemically important. The MA willmay then overlay supervisory judgement, as a complement to the quantitativesystemic scores of potential D-SIBs, based on qualitative indicators. This is because, as noted above, a robust assessment approach cannot rely solely or mechanically on quantitative indicators, as some of the most effective factors for assessing systemic importance tend not to be of a quantitative nature.
3.7.73.7.6 As one of the policy objectives of the D-SIB framework is
to give appropriate incentives for D-SIBs to become less systemic, the MA will assess the list of D-SIBs at least annually to ensure that there are continued incentives for AIs to reduce the systemic risks they pose to the system. In exceptional cases an AI may be identified as a D-SIB (and in the case of a locally incorporated AI designated as a D-SIB under the BCR) by the MA outside of the annual assessment exercise (e.g. due to an intervening merger or acquisition which substantially increases the size of the AI).
3.7.83.7.7 The MA intends to conduct a review of the methodology,
including the indicators used; the approach for incorporating these indicators into the assessment and identification process; the calibration of scores and the cut-off threshold for D-SIBs at least every three years. This should enable the MA to capture developments within the banking sector, and to reflect evolving international practices in the methods and approaches for measuring systemic importance.
3.8 Data reporting
3.8.1 To facilitate the data collection for the purpose of the D-SIB
assessment, a specifically tailored regulatory return MA(BS)24 “Return of Information for Assessment of Systemically Important Authorized Institutions” has been issued for AIs within the scope of D-SIB assessment to submit

the selected data items for the calculation of the relevant indicators.
3.8.2 Once AIs are identified by the MA as D-SIBs, they should
inform the MA as soon as possible of any identification or designation by any overseas authorities of their parent companies, their overseas branches and their downstream subsidiaries as a D-SIB and of any HLA requirement applied to any such entity.
4. HLA requirement for locally incorporated AIs designated as
D-SIBs under the BCR
4.1 General
4.1.1 The rationale for imposing an HLA requirement on designated
D-SIBs is to reduce the probability of their failure, which is considered both prudent and justified in view of the greater impact that such failure would likely have on the domestic financial system and the local economy more broadly.
4.1.2 The MA may require the HLA requirement to be applied on an
unconsolidated basis and/or consolidated basis.
4.1.3 The HLA requirement applied to a designated D-SIB should
be determined based on its degree of systemic importance and forms part of the D-SIB’s buffer level (see BCR §§3V and 3G respectively). The HLA requirement applied to D-SIBs is expressed as CET1 capital as a percentage of total risk￾weighted amount (“RWA”) as calculated under the BCR. If and when a designated D-SIB’s CET1 capital ratio (see the following paragraph on the priority of how CET1 capital should be applied) is equal to or below its buffer level (being its capital conservation buffer as extended by the HLA requirement and, where applicable, any countercyclical capital buffer (“CCyB”) to which a given AI may be subject from time to time), the D￾SIB will be subject to restrictions on the discretionary distributions it may make (including by way of dividend, share buyback, discretionary coupon payments on capital instruments and discretionary bonus payments to staff) according to a specified scale (see BCR §3H(1)). The effect of this is that, for so long as D-SIBs’ CET1 capital ratios are equal to or below their buffer levels, designated D-SIBs will be

required to retain earnings in order to bolster their regulatory capital.
4.1.4 In calculating its regulatory capital requirements, including the
CET1 capital it has available to meet the (extended) buffer, an AI’s CET1 capital must first be applied to meeting all of the three minimum capital ratios (i.e. the CET1 capital ratio, Tier 1 capital ratio and Total capital ratio —– including any Pillar 2 add-on applicable to the AI pursuant to a notice issued by the MA under §97F of the Banking OrdinanceBO), before the remainder can contribute to the (extended) buffer requirements. Table 2 depicts the “capital stack” (assuming - that no additional CET1 capital is used to comply with Tier 1 and Total capital ratios over and above the CET1 ratio).
Table 2: CET1 capital stack of a typical D-SIB
Buffers:

• Countercyclical Capital BufferCCyB (usually 0%–2.5% of
  RWA)
• HLA requirement (usually 1%–2.5% of RWA)
• Capital Conservation Buffer (usually 2.5% of RWA)
  Minimum CET1 capital
  ⚫ 4.5% of RWA and applicable Pillar 2 CET1 capital add-on
  4.2 Allocation to HLA buckets
  4.2.1 Given the diversified nature and the varying degrees of
  systemic importance of AIs in Hong Kong, the MA considers a differentiated approach to the local HLA requirement for designated D-SIBs justified. The MA will therefore use a “bucketing approach” to achieve such differentiation. The approach is broadly consistent with the Basel Committee’s G-

SIB framework 11 , to ensure compatibility within the frameworks and provide appropriate incentives to designated D-SIBs to refrain from increasing their systemic importance over time.
4.2.2 Upon locally incorporated AIs being identified as D-SIBs
through the two-step approach (seeholistic approach described in subsection 3.7), they will be allocated to different buckets of HLA requirements based on the relative distribution of their systemic scores. Table 3 sets out the buckets to which locally incorporated D-SIBs will be allocated together with the corresponding HLA requirement. The minimum HLA requirement is 1%. Each locally incorporated D-SIB identified using the methodology described in subsection 3.7 will be allocated to a bucket corresponding to a required level of HLA ranging from 1% to 2.5% of total RWA. An empty top bucket of 3.5% is maintained to provide an incentive for the most systemically important locally incorporated D-SIBs to refrain from becoming even more systemically important in the future. If the empty top bucket should become populated, the MA will consider the addition of new buckets so as to maintain the appropriate incentives as part of its regular review of the assessment methodology.
Table 3: Bucketing approach
Bucket HLA requirement
(CET1 as % of RWA)
5 3.5%
4 2.5%
3 2%
2 1.5%
1 1%
11 The Basel Committee’s G-SIB framework takes a differentiated approach to the HLA requirement for G-SIBs whereby the G-SIBs are allocated to “buckets” corresponding to a required level of HLA ranging from CET1 equivalent to 1% to 2.5% of risk-weighted assets, with an empty top bucket of 3.5%, to provide incentives for G-SIBs to refrain from becoming yet more systemically important.

4.2.3 For the purposes of determining the thresholds for each
bucket, the MA will assess and draw reference from the different “clusters” of systemic scores in the D-SIB identification assessment as set out in section 3.
4.2.4 The systemic importance of AIs may evolve over time; AIs
may migrate in and out of D-SIB status, or move between “buckets” or categories of systemic importance. Where a locally incorporated AI is first designated or re-designated as a D-SIB, it will be required to build up its CET1 capital for HLA purposes within 12 months from the MA’s formal notification of its designation (or re-designation). Similarly, if an increased HLA requirement is applied to a designated D-SIB due to the D-SIB moving up one or more buckets as a result of an increase in its degree of domestic systemic importance, the D-SIB will also be subject to the increased HLA requirement within 12 months. However, if a lower HLA requirement is applied to a designated D-SIB due to a decrease in its degree of systemic importance and it moving down one or more buckets or it ceasing to be designated as a D-SIB at all, the D-SIB/AI concerned may recognise the lower (or nil) HLA requirement immediately following the MA’s formal notification. For example, a designated D-SIB is notified by the MA in January 2020 that its HLA will be increased from 1% to 1.5%. Then the D-SIB will be required to apply the new HLA within 12 months. from the date of notification. However, if the MA notifies the D-SIB subsequently that its HLA requirement will be lowered to 1% from 1.5%, then the D-SIB may recognise the 1% HLA as from that notification date.
4.3 Regulatory capital instruments used to meet HLA requirement
4.3.1 The HLA requirement must be fully met with CET1 capital as
defined in §38 of the BCR. This is to ensure that the capital held for HLA purposes will be available to absorb losses on a going concern basis and hence enhance the resilience of the relevant D-SIB by reducing its probability of default.

4.4 Interaction with Pillar 2
4.4.1 As explained above, the HLA requirement is in effect an
additional buffer of the highest quality capital designed to absorb potential losses, enhance resilience and thereby lessen the likelihood of the realisation of the “negative externalities” associated with a D-SIB. Hence the HLA requirement addresses the risks posed by the D-SIB to the local financial system and domestic economy. Pillar 2 capital requirements, in contrast, capture various specific risks taken on by an AI which are not covered or adequately covered under Pillar 1 (see SPM module on Supervisory Review Process CA-G-5 for further details of the Pillar 2 framework). Therefore, the HLA requirement and the Pillar 2 capital add￾on are not duplicative, but rather address the external and internal risks associated with an AI from different but complementary perspectives.
4.4.2 Nevertheless, to the extent that under the methodology set
out in SPM module CA-G-5 (subsection 3.4) an AI which is designated as a D-SIB is assessed to have a degree of overlap between its Pillar 2 capital requirement and its capital buffers, the AI’s HLA requirement will be considered together with the AI’s capital conservation buffer and countercyclical capital bufferCCyB for the purposes of calculating the extent to which the P2B portion of the Pillar 2 capital requirement (as described in SPM module CA-G-5 paragraph 3.4.11) can be absorbed by the AI’s extended capital buffer.
4.5 Application to locally incorporated AIs
4.5.1 The MA may impose the HLA requirement on locally
incorporated D-SIBs (for which the MA is the home regulatory authority) at both the solo unconsolidated and consolidated level, and at the subsidiary and sub-consolidated level on those locally incorporated D-SIBs that are subsidiaries of foreign banking groups (see BCR §3I(1)). This reflects Principle 10 ofis consistent with the Basel Committee’s D-SIB framework which intends to draw a distinction between the level of application of D-SIBspecifies that home authorities should impose HLA requirements for home that they calibrate

at the parent and/or consolidated level, and host authorities. should impose HLA requirements that they calibrate at the sub-consolidated/subsidiary level.
4.5.2 If an AI is thea subsidiary of a D-SIB designated by the MA,
and the MA also designates that AI as a D-SIB, a differentthe HLA requirement may be applied to the subsidiary andmay be different from the HLA requirement applied to its parent by reference to their respective degrees of systemic importance (see BCR §3X).
4.5.3 The HLA requirements under the D-SIB framework in Hong
Kong apply to a locally incorporated AI assessed as systemically important locally, regardless of whether the AI is a subsidiary of a foreign banking group, or a subsidiary of a G-SIB. From the perspective of the MA as a host supervisor, it is of significant importance that the capital of systemically important locally incorporated AIs should be bolstered by HLA requirements, irrespective of whether the AIs are subsidiaries of other entities or not, in order to enhance their resilience and mitigate any potential heightened impact of their failure on the domestic economy.
4.5.4 Principle 114 in RBC40 of the Basel Committee’s D-SIB
frameworkFramework specifies that home and host authorities should make arrangements to coordinate and cooperate on the appropriate HLA requirements, within the constraints imposed by relevant local laws and regulations. For any locally incorporated D-SIB which is a subsidiary of a foreign G-SIB or D-SIB in its home jurisdiction, the MA will communicate with the home supervisory authority in arriving at any decision on the local D-SIB’s HLA requirement. The MA, in discussion with the home supervisory authority, will assess whether some degree of reliance may be placed on the “group” HLA requirement, taking into account a range of factors including:
(i) the way in which the “group” HLA requirement is calibrated, and whether the calibration may have taken 12 Principle 10 of the Basel Committee’s D-SIB framework specifies that “home authorities should impose HLA requirements that they calibrate at the parent and/or consolidated level, and host authorities should impose HLA requirements that they calibrate at the sub-consolidated/subsidiary level.”

into account the associated systemic impact at a local domestic level; (ii) whether there are clear and credible assurances from the parent in terms of forthcoming capital support should the subsidiary in Hong Kong come under stress (with demonstrable ability to execute such support); and (iii) the level of cooperation with, and the degree of reliance the MA is able to place on, the home authority regarding the supervision (and, if and when the time comes, orderly resolution) of the D-SIB; and. (iv) the planned resolution strategy for the banking group to which the D-SIB belongs.
4.5.5 To further strengthen the basis of home-host coordination, the
MA will consider whether any actions need to be taken, such as amending existing, or entering into further, Memoranda of Understanding, to facilitate the operation of the D-SIB framework. The MA as host will also enter into discussions with the relevant home authority in respect of: (i) the resolution regimes (including recovery and resolution plans) in both jurisdictions, (ii) possiblepreferred resolution strategies and any specific resolution planplanning in place for the D-SIB, and (iii) the extent to which such arrangements should influence the respective HLA requirements.
5. Supervisory approach for D-SIBs
5.1 The Financial Stability Board (“FSB”) has made a number of
recommendations to enhance the intensity and effectiveness of supervision of systemically important financial institutions (“SIFIs”). One of the recommendations was that all national supervisory authorities should have the powers to apply differentiated supervisory requirements and intensity of supervision to SIFIs based on the risks they pose to the financial system. It follows that supervisors should focus more resources on systemically important banks (SIBs), 13 See “Intensity and Effectiveness of SIFI Supervision, Recommendations for enhanced supervision”, issued in November 2010: http://www.financialstabilityboard.org/publications/r_101101.pdf.

applying a higher degree of supervisory intensity according to the risk a given SIB poses.
5.2 The MA has long adopted a risk-based supervisory approach to
monitor and assess the safety and soundness of AIs on a continuing basis (see SPM module on Risk-based Supervisory Approach SA-1 for details of the supervisory framework). Under this approach, AIs have historically experienced, and will continue to be subject to, more intensive supervision proportionate to their nature, size and complexity. In this regard, the MA’s D-SIB assessment exercise should serve to consolidate and enhance, rather than fundamentally change, the existing risk-based approach. Based on the D-SIB assessment results, the MA will fine-tune the intensity of, and tailor the strategy for, supervising individual D-SIBs in Hong Kong. This will include, among other things:
(i) more in-depth assessment of D-SIBs (such as more frequent examinations); (ii) reference to macro-prudential analysis to identify potential risks and threats to the domestic financial system that might adversely affect the risk profile of individual D-SIBs; (iii) review and consideration of D-SIBs’ risk appetite and risk tolerance statements on a regular basis and, as appropriate, review of supplementary information such as associated metrics or management information (e.g. risk or audit reports), to support assessment of whether the risk appetite and risk limits are adhered to at an operational level; and (iv) in the case of locally incorporated D-SIBs, more intensive supervisory interaction and engagement, including between the MA and the D-SIB’s board and its risk committee members.
5.3 The MA expects D-SIBs to adhere to higher standards in general, in
terms of risk culture and risk management; corporate governance; and internal controls. AIs are expected generally, and D-SIBs in particular, to be proactive in cultivating a sound risk culture, and ensuring that an effective risk governance framework is in place. D-SIBs should undertake more regular assessments and evaluations of, and generate regular internal reports on, the effectiveness of their risk governance structure and their risk profiles; and use these assessments, evaluations and reports as a basis for discussion with the board and risk committee for the purpose of identifying any actions required to be taken towards enhancing risk governance practices.

5.4 In line with the on-going international work on supervisory intensity
and effectiveness, D-SIBs are also expected to adopt higher standards in strengthening their data processing capabilities and risk reporting practices in order to support better risk identification and measurement (also see subsection 5.2 of the SPM module on Risk Management Framework IC-1 for general guidance on risk management information system). In particular, D-SIBs should be able to demonstrate that they are in full compliance with Principles 1 to 11 of the “Principles for effective risk data aggregation and risk reporting” 14 (issued by the Basel Committee in January 2013) within three years of their designation as D-SIBs.
6. Recovery and Resolution Planning
6.1 Improving the prospects for recovery and the resolvability of a D-SIB
are key pillars of the D-SIB framework. The statutory requirements on recovery planning are prescribed in Part XIIA of the BO, and further guidance is provided in the SPM module on Recovery Planning (RE￾1). Part XIIA of the BO defines the recovery plan, specifies the scope of application, and describes the manner in which the MA’s powers relating to recovery planning requirements in the BO are to be executed. The SPM module RE-1 further sets out the key elements of effective recovery planning for AIs, as well as the MA’s approach and expectations in reviewing AI’s recovery plans and exercising the related powers under the BO. The relevant guidance applies to all AIs in a proportionate manner, having regard to their size, structure and business mix and the systemic risks associated with their activities. Thus, recovery plans for larger or more complex AIs, including D￾SIBs, tend to be more complicated in terms of the stress scenarios, recovery options, recovery triggers and communication plan.
6.2 As the resolution authority for banking sector entities, which include
all AIs, the MA has issued a Code of Practice chapter under the Financial Institutions (Resolution) Ordinance on the HKMA’s approach to resolution planning (RA-2), which provides guidance on the HKMA’s approach to resolution planning for AIs including assessment of resolvability. Resolution planning is generally expected to be prioritised for all D-SIBs and any other locally incorporated AIs with total consolidated assets of more than 150 14 http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs239.pdf

billion Hong Kong dollarsHKD 150bn as their non-viability would be likely to pose a risk to the stability and effective working of the financial system of Hong Kong, including to the continued provision performance of critical financial functions.
6.3 The recovery plans and resolvability of AIs will be taken into
consideration during the application of the supervisory judgement overlay in the D-SIB assessment qualitatively as described in paragraph 3.7.6 as appropriateprocess.
7. Announcement of D-SIBs
7.1 As mentioned in paragraph 3.7.7,3.7.6, the MA will conduct an annual
D-SIB identification exercise. In exceptional cases, the MA may also update the D-SIB list outside of the annual cycle if there are important structural changes within the banking system, e.g. a merger or a substantial take-overtakeover.
7.2 Relevant AIs which the MA proposes to identify as D-SIBs, and in the
case of locally incorporated AIs to designate as D-SIBs under the BCR, will be informed of the MA’s intention and may discuss the proposed identification/designation and the reason for it with the MA. Thereafter the MA will finalise its decision and the relevant AIs identified/designated as D-SIBs will be formally advised. Subsequently a public announcement will be made of the identification/designation of D-SIBs and, where applicable, their corresponding HLA requirement to promote transparency. Public disclosure of the list should facilitate international co-ordination and implementation of the SIFI framework.
8. Disclosure requirement for D-SIBs
8.1 AnyA locally incorporated AI designated as a D-SIB will be required
to disclose its specific D-SIB HLA requirement (or G-SIB HLA requirement if higher) in the MA’s standard capital disclosure templatetemplates specified by the MA for the purpose of making disclosures on the key prudential ratios and the composition of the AI’s regulatory capital base under the BDR.

9. Approach to designating G-SIBs
   9.1 General
   9.1.1 As mentioned in paragraph 1.3.1, the BCR include a power
   forempowers the MA to designate a locally incorporated AI as a G-SIB, and to impose an HLA requirement on a G-SIB so designated, if the risks associated with the AI are such that, upon its failure the AI would be capable of having a significant impact on the effective working and stability of the global financial system.
   9.1.2 A public announcement will be made of any G-SIB so
   designated and its corresponding HLA requirement.
   9.2 Assessment methodology
   9.2.1 The assessment methodology to identify G-SIBs adopts the
   Basel Committee’s G-SIB framework as mentioned in paragraph 1.2.1. In parallel with the Basel Committee’s annual assessment, the MA will conduct its own annual G-SIB assessment applying the Basel Committee’s assessment process to any relevant reporting AIs (see paragraph 9.2.2 below) for which the MA is the home regulatory authority.
   9.2.2 AIs meeting the following criteria will be required under §63(2)
   of the Banking OrdinanceBO to report data on the thirteen G￾SIB indicators used in the Basel Committee’s G-SIB methodology to the MA, using the template and reporting instructions devised by the Basel Committee 15:
   (i) AIs of a size (as measured by the leverage ratio measure of exposure), including exposures arising from insurance subsidiaries) exceeding the Hong Kong DollarHKD equivalent of 200 billion EuroEUR 200bn, based on the exchange rate at the relevant cut-off date 16; 15 The template and reporting instructions can be found at:
   https://www.bis.org/bcbs/gsib/reporting_instructions.htm, and may be updated by the Basel Committee from time to time. 16 The exchange rates prescribed by the Basel Committee will be used for the application of the threshold. In addition, definition of the size indicator and the relevant threshold can be found at:
   https://www.bis.org/basel_framework/chapter/SCO/40.htm, and may be updated by the Basel Committee from time to time.

(ii) any AIs which (although below the threshold in (i)) the MA, in the exercise of supervisory judgement, considers should be added to the reporting group; and (iii) any AIs which were classified as G-SIBs in the previous year.
9.2.3 Given that the Basel Committee and MA assessments use
identical data, methodology and parameters, the outcomes should be consistent. In the unlikely event that the results of the local MA process and global Basel Committee process should differ, the MA will liaise with the Basel Committee with a view to identifying the source of the difference and rectifying the matter.
9.2.4 The Basel Committee’s G-SIB framework also allows for the
designation of banks as G-SIBs on the basis of supervisory judgement. If the MA were to consider that a locally incorporated AI (for which the MA is the home authority), which would not otherwise be assessed to be a G-SIB by the application of the Basel Committee’s methodology, should in fact be designated as a G-SIB, the MA may propose the addition to the Basel Committee and provide the MA’s supporting justification for consideration by the Basel Committee and the FSB. However, this would be expected to be a very rare event. The MA envisages that, in general, any designation by the MA of a locally incorporated AI as a G-SIB will be in line with the inclusion of that AI on the list of G-SIBs published annually by the FSB.
9.3 HLA requirement
9.3.1 The MA will apply HLA requirements to any locally
incorporated AIs that are designated as G-SIBs in a manner commensurate with their degree of systemic importance. §3T(2) of the BCR prescribes a G-SIB HLA range of 1–3.5% of total RWA in line with the Basel Committee’s G-SIB framework. The G-SIB will be notified in writing of its HLA requirement.
9.3.2 If a locally incorporated AI is designated as both a G-SIB and
a D-SIB, the HLA requirement to be applied to the AI will be the higher of the D-SIB orand G-SIB HLA

requirementrequirements (BCR §3W). This is, in line with Principle 103 in RBC40 of the Basel Committee’s D-SIB frameworkFramework.
9.4 Disclosure requirement
9.4.1 A locally incorporated AI must disclose information (and will
thus be subject to disclosure requirements under the BDR) regarding its group’s systemic importance in accordance with §16FF of the BDR if it falls into any of the following categories:
(i) it is or has been designated by the MA as a G-SIB by the MAeither in the current annual reporting period or was designated as a G-SIB by the MA in the annual reporting period immediately preceding the current annual reporting period; or (ii) the MA directs the AI to make the requisite disclosure, where (a) the AI, or if applicable the AI’s consolidation group had, as at the immediately preceding 31 December immediately preceding the current annual reporting period, a leverage ratio exposure measure in respect of its group, including insurance subsidiaries that are outside the consolidation group, exceeding the Hong Kong DollarHKD equivalent of EUR 200bn 17 billion Euro, and the MA directs the AI to make the requisite disclosure.; or (b) the MA, having regard to the characteristics of the institution, reasonably believes that the AI would be capable of having a significant impact on the effective working and stability of the global financial system were the AI to become non-viable.
9.4.2 Information to be disclosed includes the AI’sAI or its group
figures in relation to the thirteen indicators (including the two sub-indicators) used in the Basel Committee’s G-SIB 17 The exchange rates prescribed by the Basel Committee will be used for the application of the threshold. In addition, definition of the size indicator and the relevant threshold can be found at:
https://www.bis.org/basel_framework/chapter/SCO/40.htm, and may be updated by the Basel Committee from time to time.

assessment methodology. However, it should be noted that this disclosure requirement may be updated from time to time following any review by the Basel Committee.
9.4.3 The disclosure requirements should be included in the AI’s
published financial statements, or the AI should provide a direct link or reference in its annual financial statements to the relevant sections of its public website where the disclosures can be found. The disclosure should be made no later than four months after the financial year-end.The disclosure of G￾SIB indicators should be made annually using the standard disclosure template (Template GSIB1) specified by the MA. The disclosure should be based on the position as at the end of the annual reporting period immediately preceding the current annual reporting period or another date as permitted by the MA.
9.4.4 Any A locally incorporated G-SIB will also be required to
disclose its specific G-SIB HLA requirement (or D-SIB HLA requirement if higher) in the MA’s standard capital disclosure templatetemplates specified by the MA for the purpose of making disclosures on the key prudential ratios and the composition of the AI’s regulatory capital base under the BDR. ————————— Contents Glossary Home Introduction

Annex 1 – QualitativeAncillary Indicators

1. Anticipated business expansion/contraction
2. Anticipated merger and acquisition
3. Analysis of exposures to a particular banking group across AIs
4. Settlement institution for any payment or clearing system (e.g. RTGS)
5. Banknote issuing banks
6. Extent of retail banking network in Hong Kong
7. Number of overseas branches of the AI
8. Activities in the FX market in Hong Kong in terms of market share
9. Activities in Hong Kong dollarHKD-denominated bond market in terms of
   market share
10. Structure of the group
    a. Number of subsidiaries b. Number of associates
    c. Number of special purpose vehicles
    d. Number of joint ventures e. Number of local and overseas subsidiaries being designated as D-SIBs
11. Involvement in, and scale of, the following types of services provided by the
    group:
    a. Securities brokerage b. Trustee
    c. Insurance
    d. Custodial services for debt and equity securities e. Money lender f. Money broker g. Futures trading business h. Bullion trading business
12. Amount and number of non-plain vanilla products/portfolios held
13. Amount of off-balance sheet exposures
14. Presence of booking centre outside Hong Kong
15. Degree of mismatch in activity and booking centres
16. Recovery plans and resolvability