The 2008 Global Financial Crisis ("GFC") fundamentally reshaped the world's approach to financial regulation. One of its most enduring lessons was the danger posed by systemically important financial institutions ("SIFIs"). SIFI's are entities whose failure could threaten the stability of the entire financial system. The phrase "too big to fail" became a rallying cry for reform, prompting regulators worldwide to tighten oversight and develop robust frameworks for managing these financial giants.
South Africa, as a member of the G20, was quick to absorb these lessons. The Financial Sector Regulation Act ("FSRA") marked a significant shift, empowering the South African Reserve Bank ("SARB") to designate SIFIs and subject them to enhanced prudential standards. Unlike some jurisdictions where SIFI status is determined by rigid thresholds, South Africa employs a nuanced, indicator-based approach. Factors such as size, complexity, interconnectedness, and substitutability are weighed, echoing the Basel Committee's methodology for identifying domestic systemically important banks ("D-SIBs").
The process is deliberately consultative. The SARB Governor must seek advice from the Financial Stability Oversight Committee ("FSOC") and invite submissions from the institution under consideration. In times of crisis, the Act allows for emergency designation, ensuring that regulatory tools can be deployed swiftly if systemic risks emerge.
To date, SIFI designation in South Africa has been limited to banks. However, the country's financial sector is home to other powerful conglomerates, whose reach extends well beyond traditional banking. These institutions are deeply interconnected with the broader economy, offering insurance, investment, and health products to millions of South Africans. Their sheer scale and complexity raise an important question: should the SIFI net be cast wider?
There is a compelling case for expanding SIFI designation beyond banks. International experience demonstrates that systemic risk is not the exclusive preserve of the banking sector. The near-collapse of AIG in the United States during the GFC, for example, highlighted the potential for non-bank financial institutions to transmit shocks across the financial system. In response, global standard-setters such as the Financial Stability Board ("FSB") have advocated for a broader approach, encouraging the identification of systemically important insurers ("G-SIIs") and other non-bank financial entities.
While expanding the SIFI framework is prudent, it is essential to consider the potential risks of imposing overly burdensome regulation, particularly on innovative financial firms. Excessive regulatory requirements can have several unintended consequences:
- Stifling innovation: Innovative firms, especially fintechs and new entrants, may find it difficult to comply with complex and costly regulatory requirements. This could discourage the development of new products, services, and business models that benefit consumers and enhance competition.
- Barriers to entry and growth: High compliance costs may act as a barrier to entry for smaller firms and startups, entrenching the dominance of established players and reducing market dynamism.
- Reduced competitiveness: Over-regulation can make South Africa's financial sector less attractive to both domestic and international investors, potentially leading to a loss of talent and capital to more accommodating jurisdictions.
- Regulatory arbitrage: Firms may seek to circumvent stringent requirements by relocating or restructuring their operations, potentially undermining the effectiveness of the regulatory framework.
To mitigate these risks, South Africa could adopt a graduated approach, applying the most stringent requirements only to those institutions whose failure would pose the greatest systemic risk. Proportionality and regular review of the SIFI framework are crucial to ensure that regulation remains fit for purpose and does not unduly hinder innovation or competition.
An expanded SIFI framework would require careful calibration. The existing indicator-based approach could be adapted to assess the systemic importance of insurers, asset managers, and other financial conglomerates. Criteria such as market share, cross-sectoral activities, interconnectedness with other financial institutions, and the substitutability of their services would be key considerations.
Enhanced prudential requirements would need to be tailored to the specific risks posed by different types of institutions. For example, insurers might face additional capital requirements related to their underwriting and investment activities, while asset managers could be subject to stress testing and liquidity management standards. Importantly, the process should remain transparent and consultative, allowing affected institutions to make representations and ensuring that regulatory interventions are proportionate.
A critical aspect of international best practice is the development of robust recovery and resolution regimes for SIFIs. The aim is to ensure that even the largest and most complex institutions can be wound down or bailed in in an orderly manner, rather than bailed out and without recourse to taxpayer funds. The FSRA incorporates these principles in several ways:
- Recovery and resolution planning: The FSRA requires designated SIFIs to prepare and maintain comprehensive recovery and resolution plans. These plans set out strategies for restoring financial strength in times of stress and for orderly resolution should recovery prove impossible.
- No implicit government guarantee: The Act makes it clear that SIFI designation does not imply a government guarantee, reinforcing market discipline and reducing moral hazard.
- Cross-border cooperation: Recognising the global nature of many financial conglomerates, the FSRA provides for cooperation with international counterparts, aligning with the approaches taken in the United Kingdom and European Union.
- Regular review and testing: The FSRA mandates regular review and testing of recovery and resolution plans, ensuring that they remain effective and responsive to evolving risks.
As South Africa's financial sector continues to evolve, so too must its regulatory approach. The continued rise of large, diversified financial groups means that systemic risk can emerge in unexpected places. Regulators must remain cautious, ready to adapt the SIFI framework to encompass all institutions whose failure could threaten financial stability.
The challenge is to strike the right balance: safeguarding the system without stifling innovation or competition. By learning from international experience, tailoring solutions to local realities, and ensuring that regulation is both proportionate and forward-looking, South Africa can ensure that its financial sector remains both resilient and dynamic too important to fail, but never too big to regulate.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
