On June 18, ISDA, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and the Institute of International Finance submitted a joint response to US agencies on proposed changes to the surcharge for global systemically important banks (G-SIBs).
The associations welcome the 2026 proposal as an improvement relative to the 2023 proposal, noting in particular that the revised proposal would not include client-cleared derivatives under the agency model in the complexity and interconnectedness categories of the G-SIB surcharge, which would have increased capital requirements for G-SIBs providing clearing services and been at odds with longstanding public policy objectives to promote central clearing.
The associations recommend the following further improvements:
- Derivatives exposures should not be included in the cross-jurisdictional activity indicator, as they are already captured in other systemic indicators, including size, interconnectedness and complexity. To the extent derivatives are included, exposures should be calculated net of collateral and centrally cleared derivatives should be excluded.
- The notional amount of over-the-counter derivatives should be averaged using monthly values rather than daily values to better reflect typical portfolio compression and risk-mitigation practices and avoid overstating notional amounts due to transient build-ups between compression cycles.
- Cross-jurisdictional activity claims and liabilities should be reported as the average of quarter-end values rather than month-end values to avoid operational complexity and maintain alignment with existing quarterly reporting requirements.
- Further consideration is needed before recognizing cross-product netting in the size and interconnectedness indicators, given the interaction with the supplementary leverage ratio framework and the evolving implications of the US Treasury clearing mandate.
- The standardized approach for counterparty credit risk alpha factor should not be included in the interconnectedness indicator, as it is a measure of capital conservatism rather than a reflection of a firm’s actual interconnectedness with other financial institutions.
Click on the PDF to read the full response.
Documents (1) for ISDA, SIFMA, IIF Respond to 2026 US G-SIB Surcharge Proposal
Latest
Joint Response to EBA Consultation
On August 12, ISDA and the Association for Financial Markets in Europe (AFME) responded to the European Banking Authority’s discussion paper on certain taxonomy key performance indicators (KPIs) and other aspects of the Disclosures Delegated Act under Article 8 of...
Response to JSCC on Clearing Fund Consolidation
On August 12, ISDA responded to the Japan Securities Clearing Corporation’s (JSCC) consultation on its proposal to consolidate clearing fund consumption, calculation and deposit segmentation across six clearing qualifications under the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act. ISDA members broadly support...
Response on CSDD Guidelines
On August 6, ISDA responded to the European Commission’s (EC) consultation on due diligence guidelines under the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). While ISDA acknowledges that model contractual clauses can be a helpful resource for in-scope companies, there are...
Response to BoE on Extension of Settlement Hours
On August 6, ISDA responded to the Bank of England’s (BoE) consultation paper on the extension of settlement hours for RTGS and CHAPS, the UK’s high-value payment system. ISDA supports the BoE’s plan to extend RTGS and CHAPS settlement hours...
