, in particular, global and domestic systemically important banks (G-SIBs or D-SIBs). The BCBS recommends increased capital requirements for SIFIs – the so called “SIFI surcharges” [@BIS:2010aa; @Georg:2011aa]. They propose that SR should be measured in terms of the impact that a bank’s failure can have on the global financial system and the wider economy, rather than just the risk that a failure could occur. Therefore they understand SR as a global, system-wide, loss-given-default (LGD) concept, as opposed to a probability of default (PD) concept. Instead of using quantitative models to estimate SR, Basel III proposes an indicator-based approach that includes the size of banks, their interconnectedness, and other quantitative and qualitative aspects of systemic importance.

There is not much literature on the problem of dynamically re-shaping network topology so that networks adapt over time to function optimally in terms of stability and efficiency. A major problem in NW-based SR management is to provide agents with incentives to re-arrange their local contracts so that global (system-wide) SR is reduced. Recently, it has been noted empirically that individual transactions in the interbank market alter the SR in the total financial system in a measurable way [@Poledna:2014aa; @Poledna:2015aa]. This allows an estimation of the marginal SR associated with financial transactions, a fact that has been used to propose a tax on systemically relevant transactions [@Poledna:2014aa]. It was demonstrated with an agent-based model (ABM) that such a tax – the [*systemic risk tax*]{} (SRT) – is leading to a dynamical re-structuring of financial networks, so that overall SR is substantially reduced [@Poledna:2014aa].

In this paper we study and compare the consequences of two different options for the regulation of SR with an ABM. As an example for the first option we study Basel III with capital surcharges for G-SIBs and compare it with an example for the second option – the SRT that leads to a self-organized re-structuring of financial networks. A number of ABMs have been used recently to study interactions between the financial system and the real economy, focusing on destabilizing feedback loops between the two sectors [@Delli-Gatti:2009aa; @Battiston:2012ab; @Tedes
, in particular, global and domestic systemically important banks (G - sibling or vitamin d - SIBs). The BCBS recommends increased capital necessity for SIFIs – the so called “ SIFI surcharge ” [ @BIS:2010aa; @Georg:2011aa ]. They propose that SR should be measured in terms of the impingement that a bank ’s failure can get on the global financial system and the wider economy, rather than just the hazard that a failure could occur. Therefore they sympathize SR as a global, system - wide, loss - given - nonpayment (LGD) concept, as opposed to a probability of default (PD) concept. Instead of using quantitative models to calculate SR, Basel III proposes an indicator - based approach that includes the size of banks, their interconnection, and early quantitative and qualitative expression of systemic importance. 

 There is not much literature on the problem of dynamically re - shaping network topology so that networks adjust over time to serve optimally in terms of stability and efficiency. A major problem in NW - free-base SR management is to provide agents with incentives to re - dress their local contracts so that global (system - wide) SR is reduced. Recently, it has been note empirically that individual transactions in the interbank market alter the SR in the total financial system in a measurable means [ @Poledna:2014aa; @Poledna:2015aa ]. This allows an estimation of the marginal SR associated with fiscal transactions, a fact that has been use to nominate a tax on systemically relevant transactions [ @Poledna:2014aa ]. It was demonstrated with an agent - based exemplar (ABM) that such a tax – the [ * systemic risk tax * ] { } (SRT) – is leading to a dynamical rhenium - structuring of financial networks, so that overall SR is substantially reduced [ @Poledna:2014aa ]. 

 In this newspaper we study and compare the consequence of two different options for the rule of SR with an ABM. As an example for the first option we study Basel III with das kapital surcharges for G - SIBs and compare it with an case for the second option – the SRT that leads to a self - organize re - structuring of fiscal networks. A number of ABMs have been used recently to learn interactions between the financial system and the real economy, focusing on destabilizing feedback cringle between the two sectors [ @Delli - Gatti:2009aa; @Battiston:2012ab; @Tedes
, in particular, global and dumestic systemieqlly ikportaht banks (G-SIBs or D-SIBs). The BCBS reclmnends increased capital reqjirements for SIFUs – uhe so called “SIFM surchavyes” [@BJD:2010aa; @Yeirg:2011aa]. They prokose that SR should be meavufeb in terms of the impact that a bank’f failute can have on tre gkjbal financial system and the wider ecknomy, rether than just the risk that a failure cluld occur. Therefore tjey understqnd FE as a globau, system-wide, loss-given-sefault (LGD) concept, as opposed go a 'robability od dfxault (PD) coicept. Pnstead of uslmg quattitatife models to extikatw SR, Basel III proposxs an indicator-based approach tkat includes the size od banns, tveir untdrckniecfednesd, aid other quzntitative qnd qualitative asptctf of systemic jmportwnse.

There is not much literature on the pgoblsm of dynamically re-shaping network topology so that getworks adapt over time to function optimally in terma of sbabiuutj and efficiency. A major problem in NW-based SW msnsgement is to irovide agents witn lnvgntives to re-atrange cgejr local contracts so thaj globql (system-ride) SR is reduced. Recently, it yas been notvd enpirically that inbividual trausactipns im the interbank market clter fhe SR in tje total rknancial system kn s keasurable way [@Poledna:2014aa; @Pjledna:2015aa]. Vhis cllows av esjimatiog of the mwrginal SR associated wihh fiuancidl transachions, a fact that has been used to propose a jax on systemieally velevant transastions [@Poledna:2014ca]. It waf demunstrated sith an agent-based model (ABM) thdj such a tax – the [*syseemix riwk tax*]{} (RFT) – is leading to a dynciicao re-structuring of fivzncial networks, so that overall ST ir stbdtentiajny reduced [@Pmledva:2014ax].

On thks paper we rtudu and compare the cotseqhences of two diffrrcnt optiobs for tre regulation of SR with an ABM. As ai exam'le fot tre first option we study Basel III with caiital surchardes nor D-SIBs and eompare it with an example for the seconv option – the SRT that oeads to a self-orgauieed re-structucing os financidl networks. A number of ABMs have beek used recently to stusy intaractlons between the financial system and the real economy, focusing on destabulizinj seedback lokps netwevn che two sqctocs [@Delli-Gatti:2009aa; @Bantiston:2012ab; @Tedes
, in particular, global and domestic systemically (G-SIBs D-SIBs). The recommends increased capital so “SIFI surcharges” [@BIS:2010aa; They propose that should be measured in terms of impact that a bank’s failure can have on the global financial system and wider economy, rather than just the risk that a failure could occur. Therefore understand as global, loss-given-default (LGD) concept, as opposed to a probability of default (PD) concept. Instead of using quantitative to estimate SR, Basel III proposes an indicator-based that includes the size banks, their interconnectedness, and other and aspects of importance. is much literature on problem of dynamically re-shaping network topology so that networks adapt over time to function optimally in terms stability and major problem NW-based management to provide agents to re-arrange their local contracts so SR is reduced. Recently, it has been noted that individual in the interbank market alter the in the total financial system in a measurable [@Poledna:2014aa; @Poledna:2015aa]. This allows an estimation of the marginal SR associated with financial transactions, a has been used to a tax on relevant [@Poledna:2014aa]. was with an model (ABM) that such a tax – the [*systemic risk tax*]{} – is leading to a dynamical re-structuring of financial networks, overall is substantially reduced In this paper we and the consequences of two for regulation an As example for the first we study Basel III with surcharges for G-SIBs and for the second option – the SRT that to a self-organized re-structuring of financial networks. number of ABMs have been used recently to study interactions between the system and economy, focusing on destabilizing feedback loops between the sectors [@Delli-Gatti:2009aa; @Battiston:2012ab; @Tedes
, in particular, global and domeStic systemIcallY imPorTaNt baNks (G-sIBs or D-SIBs). The bcBS rEcommends increased capiTal reQuIRemeNTs For SIfIs – the sO CaLLEd “SiFi sUrcHaRGeS” [@BIS:2010aA; @GeOrg:2011aa]. ThEy propose tHat sR Should be measUReD in terms of The Impact that a bAnk’S failuRe Can HAve on The GlobaL finanCIal sysTem and the WiDEr econOMy, ratheR THaN jusT the risk that a failURe COuld occur. ThereFore thEy UNdERStaNd Sr as a global, SyStem-wIDe, loss-gIVeN-DEFauLT (LGD) concept, as Opposed to a pRObaBility Of DefAUlt (PD) cOncepT. INSteAd of using quAntiTative modEls to eSTimate Sr, basel IIi propoSes An iNdicAToR-bAseD aPProACh ThaT IncLudes the SiZe Of banKs, thEIR INterConNectEdnesS, and other quanTitAtivE And QualiTativE aspEcTs of sYstemiC impoRtAnce.

There is not mUch lIterature On tHe ProBlEm of dYNamicaLly Re-sHaping nEtwork tOPolOgY SO ThAt networks adapt oveR tIME tO functioN optimALlY iN Terms of sTaBilIty aND EfficIencY. a mAjor probLem in Nw-BaSeD SR manaGeMent is To ProVidE agenTS witH incenTives to rE-arraNGe their local coNTracts so that gLObAL (SySTem-wIde) sR is reduced. receNTly, iT has BEeN noTEd empIricaLlY ThAT individual transactIoNs in thE inteRbank market alTer the SR in THE Total finAnciAL sYStem in a measuraBle waY [@Poledna:2014aa; @pOledna:2015aa]. this aLlows an eStimation OF The margiNal sR aSsoCiaTED wIth financial tRANsacTiOns, a facT thAt has beEn uSed To pRopOsE a tax on syStemicalLy ReLeVaNt tRansaCTions [@PolEdNa:2014aA]. IT waS demoNStrateD with An agEnT-bASed Model (ABm) ThAT Such A tAx – The [*sYstEmIc risK tax*]{} (srT) – iS leadinG to a dynamIcaL Re-stRuCtUring of Financial netwOrKs, so that ovErAll sR is suBSTantiallY reduced [@Poledna:2014aa].

In this PAper we sTudY and cOmpaRe the consEquEnces oF twO DifferEnt optIons fOr The REGulatION oF SR WiTh an ABM. As aN EXamPle foR tHe fiRst optiOn we study Basel III wITh cApital surcharGes For G-sibs And COmPAre It WIth AN Example for the seCond option – ThE sRt that leads TO a sElF-organiZed re-stRuctuRIng of fiNancial neTworks. A nuMbEr of abms hAve been useD recentlY to study iNTeracTIoNs betWeeN the fiNaNciAl sysTem and THe rEal ecOnomy, fOcUsing oN destAbIlizing fEedback loops between the tWo sectOrs [@DeLli-gatti:2009aa; @BaTtiSTon:2012Ab; @Tedes
, in particular, global an d domestic  syst emi cal ly  imp orta nt banks (G-SI B s or  D-SIBs). The BCBS rec ommen ds incr e as ed ca pital r e qu i r eme nt sfor  S I FI s – t heso call ed “SIFI s urc ha rges” [@BIS: 2 01 0aa; @Geor g:2 011aa]. They  pr oposeth atS R sho uld  be m easure d  in te rms of th ei mpactt hat a b a n k’ s fa ilure can have on th e  global financ ial sy st e ma n d t hewider econ om y, ra t her tha n  j u s t  th e  risk that afailure cou l d o ccur.Th ere f ore th ey un de r sta nd SR as aglob al, syste m-wide ,  loss-g i ven-def ault ( LGD ) c once p t,  a s o pp o sed to  ap rob abilityof  d efaul t (P D ) c once pt.  Ins teadof using quan tit ativ e  mo delsto es tima te  SR,BaselIII p ro poses an indica tor- based app roa ch  th at  incl u des th e s ize  of ban ks, the i r i nt e r c on nectedness, and ot he r qu antitati ve and qu al i tative a sp ect s of s ystem ic i m po rtance.
There is  n ot much  l iterat ur e o n t he pr o blem  of dy namicall y re- s haping network topology so t h at n et w orks  ad apt over ti me t o  fun ctio n  o pti m allyin te rm s  o f  stability and effi ci ency.A maj or problem in  NW-basedS R manageme nt i s  t o  provide agent s wit h incentiv e s to re- arran ge their  local co n t racts so  th atglo bal ( sy stem-wide) SR i s re du ced. Re cen tly, it  ha s b een  no te d empiric ally tha tin di vi dua l tra n sactions  i n t he  in terba n k mark et al terth eS R i n the t o ta l fina nc ia l sy ste min ameas u rab le way[@Poledna :20 1 4aa;  @ Po ledna:2 015aa]. Thisal lows an es ti mat ion of t he margi nal SR associated withf inancia l t ransa ctio ns, a fac t t hat ha s b e en use d to p ropos ea t a x  on s y s te mic al ly relevan t tra nsact io ns [ @Poledn a:2014aa]. It wasd emo nstrated with  an  age n t -b ase d  m o del  ( A BM) t hat such a tax– the [*sy st e mi c risk tax * ]{}  ( SRT) –is lead ing t o  a dyna mical re- structuri ng  off i nan cial netwo rks, sothat over a ll SR is  subs tan tially  r edu ced [ @Poled n a:2 014aa ].

In  t his pa per w estudy an d compare the consequen ces of  twodif ferent op tio n s f or the re gula tion of SR  wi than AB M.A s anexam p le  fo r  thefirs t  option w e  s tud y Ba sel III wit h c api tal s urc h argesforG-SIBs and compar e  it with an ex ampl e for  th e  sec on d option – the  SR Tt h at leads  t o a self-or ganizedre - struc turing  of fi nancial n et w orks.A nu mbe r of ABMs  ha ve been us ed  r e cently  tost udy in teract i onsb e tween the financ ial s y s tem a n d t he re al  econom y , fo cusing ondestabilizi ng fee dbac k loo ps betw ee n thetwo  s ectors [@D e lli-Gatti :2009 aa; @Ba tt isto n:2 012ab;  @Te d e s
, in_particular, global_and domestic systemically important_banks (G-SIBs_or_D-SIBs). The_BCBS_recommends increased capital_requirements for SIFIs_– the so called_“SIFI surcharges” [@BIS:2010aa;_@Georg:2011aa]._They propose that SR should be measured in terms of the impact that a_bank’s_failure can_have_on_the global financial system and_the wider economy, rather than_just the_risk that a failure could occur. Therefore they_understand_SR as a_global, system-wide, loss-given-default (LGD) concept, as opposed to a_probability of default (PD) concept. Instead_of using quantitative_models_to_estimate SR, Basel III_proposes an indicator-based approach that includes_the size of banks, their interconnectedness,_and other quantitative and qualitative aspects of_systemic importance.

There is not much literature_on the problem of dynamically_re-shaping network_topology so that networks adapt_over time to_function optimally_in terms of_stability and efficiency. A major problem_in NW-based SR_management is to provide agents with_incentives_to re-arrange their_local_contracts_so that_global (system-wide) SR_is_reduced. Recently,_it_has been noted empirically that individual_transactions_in the interbank market alter the SR_in the total financial_system_in a measurable way_[@Poledna:2014aa; @Poledna:2015aa]. This allows an_estimation of the marginal SR associated_with financial_transactions, a_fact that has been used to propose a tax on systemically_relevant transactions [@Poledna:2014aa]. It was demonstrated_with an agent-based model_(ABM) that_such_a tax –_the_[*systemic risk_tax*]{} (SRT) – is leading to a_dynamical re-structuring_of financial networks, so that overall_SR is substantially reduced_[@Poledna:2014aa].

In_this paper we study and compare_the consequences of two different options_for the regulation of SR_with_an_ABM. As an example for_the first option we study Basel_III with capital_surcharges for G-SIBs and compare it with_an_example for the second option –_the_SRT that leads to a self-organized_re-structuring_of_financial networks. A number of_ABMs have been used recently to_study interactions between the financial system and the real_economy, focusing on_destabilizing feedback loops between the_two_sectors_[@Delli-Gatti:2009aa; @Battiston:2012ab; @Tedes