Bank resolution in South Africa: Recent developments
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this contribution, the authors explore recent developments in South Africa's approach to bank resolution, assessing compliance of its new regime with the Financial Stability Board's Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for Financial Institutions (KAs). Emphasizing the imperative for orderly resolutions to avert financial crises, the authors scrutinize the post‐2008 Global Financial Crisis regulatory landscape. Until June 2023, South Africa's approach to bank failure was limited to curatorship and liquidation under the Banks Act 94 of 1990. Addressing gaps identified by international bodies such as the Financial Stability Board, International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank, and taking lessons from the failure of African Bank in 2014, South Africa has transitioned to a Twin Peaks regulatory model and also introduced a comprehensive resolution framework effective June 1, 2023, captured in the Financial Sector Regulation Act 9 of 2017. This framework currently applies to banks only. The South African Reserve Bank now holds an explicit financial stability mandate and is designated as the resolution authority. The article discusses the design features for an effective resolution regime as recommended in the KAs to benchmark the new South African resolution regime, noting overall compliance. However, it acknowledges the need for further development in certain respects to enhance alignment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it