{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.035443037974683546, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0033755274261603376, 'mean_word_length': 5.051020408163265, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Financial Stability Board and Global Systemically Important Banks: Unintended Consequences?

We identify, measure and compare the characteristics of Global Systemically Important Banks (G-SIBs) vis-a-vis banks not chosen by the Financial Stability Board (FSB) to be in the 2011 G-SIB group; investors’ responses to banks being classified as a G-SIB and how these responses relate to banks’ characteristics; and changes in banks’ financial performance after being named a G-SIB. The G-SIBs were larger, less profitable, more levered, and riskier. We find that the cumulative effect of the FSB announcements on G-SIBs’ stock prices was predominantly negative. In the year following designation, the G-SIBs shrank, reduced their net interest margins, and increased their leverage, market betas, and co-movement among G-SIB stock returns. The increased correlation across stock returns was associated with a reduction in the diversification benefits of holding a portfolio of G-SIB banks, providing evidence that the vulnerability of a G-SIB portfolio to a negative event rose, consistent with an increase in systemic risk. The data suggest that the FSB is not yet achieving its goals.