DOCSLIB.ORG

Basel IV Poster

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Basel IV Poster Further enhancements of the Basel framework („Basel IV“) Concept Calibration TLAC: MREL: resolution plan (Pillar 2) Eligible instruments Excluded liabilities • Critical service Additional criteria • No preferential treatment Impact • All liabilities, if not • Covered deposits liab. • Not owed to the institution by national insolvency law common Pillar 1 Own Funds • Secured liabilities • Tax and social Regulatory Capital Principles Mechanisms requirement explicitly excluded itself • Bail-in evidence for • Minimum ratio including regular reporting and disclosure Global (FSB)/G-SIB: 5. Assessment of size, • Fiduciary liab. • Loss-absorbing and recapitalization capacity • Conversion into equity 1. Loss absorption, 2. Recapitalisation of 3. Liabilities excluded from 4. Deposit guarantee 6. Size and systemic risk: • Additional criteria security • Not funded directly/ liabilities subject to third requirements TLAC Term Sheet business/funding model, • Institution and • Continuity of functions, orderly resolution • Write-down 18% of RWA especially by own funds non-resolvable business bail-in due to operative scheme contribution effects on the financial defined for MREL/ authorities liab. indirectly by the institution country law • Depending on resolution scenario, requirements on risk profile, based on system (operator) • Stability of financial system (2022) functions importance or difficult considered system TLAC (Art 44, • DGS liab. (MREL) • Remaining maturity of at • Not subject to set off/ group and solo level (BCBS 342, FSB, BRRD) SREP results 45 BRRD, TLAC liabilities < 7 days • Short term least one year netting rights (TLAC only) • Integration in capital planning processes; consideration Own Funds Common Additional TLAC/MREL Eligible • No recourse to tax money EU/all CRR institutions: + Capital buffers valuation Termsheet) • Employee liab. deposits (TLAC) • Does not arise from a of higher funding costs Tier 2 • Total Loss-absorbing Capacity MREL/BRRD Equity Tier 1 Tier 1 • Minimum requirement for own Liabilities derivative Bottom line: 6,75% of LR exposure (TLAC) / double LR requirement (MREL) Resolution fund access: 8% of total liability funds and eligible liabilities Criteria Capital Requirements Max (Capital RequirementsIM ; Capital RequirementsSA x floor factor ) Capital Floors (BCBS 306, 362) Two alternatives possible: Risk-category based floor or overall floor Credit Risk Investments in funds (BCBS 266) Trading-book definition (BCBS 352) Operational risk (BCBS 355) Banking Book Trading Book Standards for the Allocation of Instruments para.12–17 Trading desk para. 22–26, App. A The Standardised Measurement Approach (SMA) Exposure value for derivatives and off balance sheet positions Banking book Trading book Trading book Trading book • Defined group of traders or trading accounts (mandatory) (mandatory) (approved deviation possible) (instruments being held for • Well defined and documented business strategy mandatory reasons) • A clear risk management structure Business Indicator (BI)5 = ILDC + SC + FC Off-balance sheet Per definiton • Approved by supervisor Standardised Approach (SA-CCR) (BCBS 279) Internal methods (IMM) Look-Through Approach (SA and IRB) items (SA) para. 64 ff • Equity investments in a fund in Instruments … • Equity investment with daily All instruments for one of the Interest, operating lease and dividend component (ILDC) = Min [|II – IE|, 0.035 x IEA] + |LI – LE| + DI Leverage which the bank cannot look- • Managed on a trading desk look-through following purposes, not listed Moving instruments between regulatory books para. 27–30 Modified Standardised Approach (IRB) + Adjustment Standardised Approach through daily • in the correlation trading • Listed equity before: EAD = 1.4 x (Replacement Cost + Potential Future Exposure) Direct credit substitutes 100% + CVA Services component (SC) = Max [OOI, OOE] + Max [|FI – FE|, Min{Max(FI, FE), 0.5 x uBI+0.1 x (Max (FI, FE) – 0.5 x uBI)}] Under consideration of wrong-way-risk • Unlisted equity portfolio • Accounting trading asset • Short-term resale • Compliance with bank’s policies • Giving rise to a net short • Approval by senior management and supervisor and CVA Mandate-Based Approach (SA and IRB) • Securitisation warehousing or liability • Profiting from short-term price Unmargined Transactions: (Variation margin is not exchanged) Other Commitments 50–75% • Retail and SME credit credit or equity position in • Market-making activities movements Financial component (FC) = |Net P&L on Trading Book| + |Net P&L on Banking Book| Internal Models RC = max{V – C; 0} aggregate the banking book Multiplier × AddOn Approach • Retail and Derivative • Traded repo-style • Locking in arbitrage profits Internal Risk Transfer para. 31–39 Short-term self-liq. trade letters 20% – Derivatives that have the above • Underwriting commitment transactions • Hedging risk that arise from II = Interest Income LE = Lease Expenses FI = Fee Income uBI = ILDC+Max(OOI;OOE)+Max(FI;FE)+FC Margined Transactions: (Variation margin is exchanged) Outsourcing Max (effective EPE; Fall-Back Approach (1,250%) instruments as underlying asset • Options the instruments mentioned • Only fromm BB to TB IE = Interest Expense DI = Dividend income FE = Fee Expenses ILDC = Interest, operating lease and dividend component (a) possible RC = max{V – C; TH + MTA – NICA; 0} ∑ AddOn for each asset class (a) effective EPE under Stress) • Hedging Positions above • credit/equity risk: only, when external hedge in TB IEA = Interest Earning Assets OOI = Other Operating Income uBI = unadjusted BI FC = Financial Component Retail commitments 10–20% LI = Lease Income OOE = Other Operating Expenses V = MTM value of the derivative transaction in a netting set C = Collateral Value per netting set, after haircut V – C TH = Threshold Amount related to collateral min {1; Floor + (1 – Floor) x exp ( 2 x (1 – Floor) x AddOnaggregate )} Buckets in the BI Component MTA = Minimum Transfer Amount related to collateral BI Range (€ Mln) 0–1,000 1,000–3,000 3,000–10,000 10,000–30,000 >30,000 NICA = Net Independent Collateral Amount Floor = 5% (BCBS 352) Market Risk Buckets 1 2 3 4 5 • Banks should comply with minimum BI Component, if Bucket 1 (BCBS 347) loss data standards under Pillar 1. RWA under Standardised Approach Standardised Approach SMA Capital = Loss Component • Loss data calculations must be of 110 Mln + (BI Component – 110 Mln) x Ln exp (1) – 1 + , if Buckets 2 – 5 { ( BI Component ) good-quality and based on a 10-year observation period. Ratings not available/permitted1,2 Ratings available1 Financing secured by Real Estate (RE) para. 49 ff Total Capital Charge • In the transition period, good-quality Standardised Credit Risk Assessment Approach Loss Component External Credit Risk Assessment Approach (ECRA) = loss data of minimum 5 years may (SCRA) 7 x Average Total Annual Loss Other Real estate Income-Producing RE ADC + 7 x Average Total Annual Loss only including loss events above € 10 milion be used, until the number of years Rating AAA to AA– A+ to A– BBB+ to BBB– BB+ to B– Below B– Grade A Grade B Grade C Sensitivities based Approach + 5 x Average Total Annual Loss only including loss events above € 100 milion reaches 10. Operational req.3,4 met RW = 150% • Banks must have documented Eligibility Default Risk Residual Risk Add-on procedures and processes for the criteria (AAA- 0.11 x BI, if Bucket 1 0% LTV ≤ 40% 25% identification, collection and treatment MDB rating, capital Delta Risk Vega Risk Curvature Risk 110 Mln + 0.15 x (BI – 1,000 Mln), if Bucket 2 LTV 40%–60% 30% BI Component = of internal loss data. para. 10 ff etc.) are met: 410 Mln + 0.19 x (BI – 3,000 Mln), if Bucket 3 LTV 60%–80% 35% LTV ≤ 60% 70% 1,740 Mln + 0.23 x (BI – 10,000 Mln), if Bucket 4 • Banks should adhere to the criteria for Base RW 20% 50% 100% 150% 50% LTV 80%–90% 45% LTV 60%–80% 90% • Based on sensitivities of a bank’s trading book to delta risk • Based on sensitivities to regulatory vega risk factors • Measures the incremental non-linear risk which is not Captures jump-to-default-risk • Separately calculated for all 6,340 Mln + 0.29 x (BI – 30,000 Mln), if Bucket 5 building “SMA loss data set” LTV 90%–100% 55% LTV > 80 120% factors defined by the supervisor • Similar aggregation formula as for delta risks captured by the delta risk of an option (JtD-risk) instruments bearing residual { Banks Base RW 20% 50% 100% 150% 50% 100% 150% LTV > 100% RW cp Relevant Risk • Delta sensitivities are used as inputs in the aggregation • Curvature risk charge (CVR) is first calculated across risk 5 Banks must determine the three-year average of the BI, as the sum of the three-year average of its components. Residential Classes para. 13 ff Short-term RW 20% 50% 150% 20% 50% 150% formula below instruments for each risk factor • Simple sum of gross notional Separate calculation of Operational requirements 3,4 not met • CVRs are then aggregated first within and then across amounts of the instruments General SME Inv. Grade JtD-risk of each instrument Corporates GIRR Instrument Aggregation buckets • RW = 1% for instruments with Sensitivity para. 31 ff Base RW 20% 50% 100% 150% 100% 85% 75% assignment to Risk factor Bucket across buckets an exotic underlying, 0.1% for “Risk that a bank may provide financial support to an entity beyond or in the absence Max. (100%; RW cp) 150% weighting risk classes and sensitivities aggregation within asset other instruments Step-in Risk (BCBS 349) of any contractual obligations, should the entity experience financial stress.”
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Basel III: Post-Crisis Reforms
    Basel III: Post-Crisis Reforms Implementation Timeline Focus: Capital Definitions, Capital Focus: Capital Requirements Buffers and Liquidity Requirements Basel lll 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 1 January 2022 Full implementation of: 1. Revised standardised approach for credit risk; 2. Revised IRB framework; 1 January 3. Revised CVA framework; 1 January 1 January 1 January 1 January 1 January 2018 4. Revised operational risk framework; 2027 5. Revised market risk framework (Fundamental Review of 2023 2024 2025 2026 Full implementation of Leverage Trading Book); and Output 6. Leverage Ratio (revised exposure definition). Output Output Output Output Ratio (Existing exposure floor: Transitional implementation floor: 55% floor: 60% floor: 65% floor: 70% definition) Output floor: 50% 72.5% Capital Ratios 0% - 2.5% 0% - 2.5% Countercyclical 0% - 2.5% 2.5% Buffer 2.5% Conservation 2.5% Buffer 8% 6% Minimum Capital 4.5% Requirement Core Equity Tier 1 (CET 1) Tier 1 (T1) Total Capital (Tier 1 + Tier 2) Standardised Approach for Credit Risk New Categories of Revisions to the Existing Standardised Approach Exposures • Exposures to Banks • Exposure to Covered Bonds Bank exposures will be risk-weighted based on either the External Credit Risk Assessment Approach (ECRA) or Standardised Credit Risk Rated covered bonds will be risk Assessment Approach (SCRA). Banks are to apply ECRA where regulators do allow the use of external ratings for regulatory purposes and weighted based on issue SCRA for regulators that don’t. specific rating while risk weights for unrated covered bonds will • Exposures to Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) be inferred from the issuer’s For exposures that do not fulfil the eligibility criteria, risk weights are to be determined by either SCRA or ECRA.
    [Show full text]
  • Basel IV Quantitative Impact Study on Cyprus Banks September 2020 1 Basel IV | Quantitative Impact Study on Cyprus Banks
    Basel IV | Quantitative Impact Study on Cyprus Banks Basel IV Quantitative Impact Study on Cyprus Banks September 2020 1 Basel IV | Quantitative Impact Study on Cyprus Banks The aim of this paper is to provide an (especially SME) and retail customers, Summary overview of the changes in Credit Risk as well as project financing (as part of quantification under Basel IV, focusing on specialised lending). Banking-book credit risk requirements both Our most recent publication from a Standardised and Internal Ratings Analysing and understanding how the examines the impact of Basel IV Based (IRB) approach. reforms will affect the various portfolios of on Cyprus Banks. a bank and how these drive the decrease Our paper also provides guidance on the in required capital, is of paramount In particular, this article steps required to begin understanding importance to Cyprus Banks to ensure focuses on the updated Credit the impact of the reforms on required required capital is allocated appropriately Risk assessment framework. data, changes in processes, modelling and to each of the components of a bank. governance. Banks are therefore challenged to start Our analysis indicates that collecting new data as required by the Cyprus Banks are expected to For our analysis, we have performed reforms. a Quantitative Impact Study (QIS) to have a reduction in capital understand the impact across the different Separate to the Standardised approach requirements as a consequence portfolios of a typical Cyprus Bank, (SA) reforms, our paper considers the Basel of the revised risk-weights shedding a light on which components of IV changes under the IRB approach.
    [Show full text]
  • Basel IV and Proportionality Initiatives
    Basel IV and proportionality initiatives Upcoming changes to the Canadian capital and liquidity framework Introduction Enhancements to risk-based capital requirements and minimum Q1-2020. Attention is now focused on the implementation of liquidity and funding standards for Deposit-Taking Institutions final Basel III reforms, informally referred to as ‘Basel IV’, which (DTIs) are two foundational aspects of post-financial crisis introduces extensive revisions to the calculation of Risk-Weighted reforms introduced by Basel III. In Canada, initial Basel III reforms Assets (RWA) for Pillar 1 risks. OSFI’s proposed policy direction dedicated to raising the quality and quantity of capital have and implementation timelines for Basel IV are included in OSFI’s already been implemented. The domestic implementation of July 2018 discussion paper, Implementation of the final Basel III Basel III liquidity and funding standards will be complete when reforms in Canada. DTIs begin reporting the Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR) in Figure 1: Summary of basel capital, leverage and liquidity requirements Focus of CET1 Basel III: ratio Raising the Capital LCR, NSFR Leverage ratio quality and quantity of capital Focus of RWA Basel IV: Revising how risks are calculated Risk positions SA for Securitisation Operational SA for IRB for Market risk CVA risk Output measuring risk credit risk credit risk (FRTB) floor counterparty credit risk Source: Workshop Basel IV, KPMG International, 2018. While the Basel framework was originally designed to apply to which obligates DTIs to achieve compliance with updated large, internationally-active banks, domestic regulators including standards in short order. OSFI have applied Basel standards to a wider set of banks In this paper, we provide a consolidated overview of the for pragmatic reasons.
    [Show full text]
  • Basel Iv Compliance
    REPRINT risk & R&Ccompliance DATA PRIVACY INBASEL EUROPE IV COMPLIANCE REPRINTED FROM: RISK & COMPLIANCE MAGAZINE JAN-MARJAN-MAR 20202014 ISSUE rriskisk && && compliance compliance������������ JAN-MAR 2014 RC ��������������������������������� RC www.riskandcompliancemagazine.com Inside this issue: FEATURE The evolving role of the chief risk officer EXPERT FORUM Managing your company’s regulatory exposure ������������������ HOT TOPIC ������� Data privacy in Europe ������������������������� ���������������������� ������������ ���������������������� �������������������� ��������� ������������������������� ����������������������������� www.riskandcompliancemagazine.com VVisitisit the website to request a free copy of the full e-magazine To learn more about how SAS can help drive business evolution with intelligent Published by Financier Worldwide Ltd [email protected]@financierworldwide.com risk analytics, please visit sas.com/risk. © 20202014 Financier Worldwide Ltd. All rights reserved. risk & R&Ccompliance www.riskandcompliancemagazine.com 2 RISK & COMPLIANCE Jan-Mar 2020 www.riskandcompliancemagazine.com MINI-ROUNDTABLE MINI-ROUNDTABLE BASEL IV COMPLIANCE www.riskandcompliancemagazine.com RISK & COMPLIANCE Jan-Mar 2020 3 BASEL IV COMPLIANCE MINI-ROUNDTABLE PANEL EXPERTS Luís Barbosa Partner PwC T: +351 213 599 151 E: luis.fi[email protected] Luís Barbosa is currently leading PwC’s European network in the area of risk modelling & risk-weighted assets (RWA) and is responsible for the credit risk
    [Show full text]
  • The Value of Diversity in Bank Credit Portfolios Basel Iv
    BASEL IV REQUIRESIN BANKTHE SERIOUS CREDIT VALUE PORTFOLIOSOFU.S. DIVERSITY REVIEW REPRINTS OF THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF THE CLEARING HOUSE Q1 2018, VOLUME 6, ISSUE 1 AND DESIGNING A MORE EFFECTIVE AML/CFT SYSTEM MENDING THE RISK-BASED APPROACH HAS THE U.K. FOUND THE ANSWER TO AML INFORMATION SHARING? TECH’S ROLE IN IMPROVING THE AML SYSTEM AML REFORM: A SAFE HARBOR PROPOSAL THE VALUE OF DIVERSITY 2 BANKING PERSPECTIVES IN BANK CREDIT QUARTER 1 2018 PORTFOLIOS DIVERSITY CAN BE A POSITIVE FORCE FOR A HEALTHY CREDIT MARKET AND A SYSTEMICALLY HEALTHY FINANCIAL SYSTEM. BY DAVID CARRUTHERS AND MARK FAULKNER CREDIT BENCHMARK DIVERSITY – IN NATURE AND IN HUMAN ACTIVITY – is usually seen as a force for good. This view has strong support among credit market participants, especially the banks that mobilize and deploy capital; they believe that there are economic and systemic benefits resulting from banks taking PORTFOLIOS different views of risk. However, financial regulators are concerned about the role of this diversity in driving excess variability in risk-weighted assets. Regulators have argued for, and continue to impose, regulatory floors and ceilings to limit that variability; however, in some cases, these constraints could limit the scope for credit opinion diversity. Despite the differences in opinion, we find it encouraging that this important topic is now the subject of a constructive debate between the participants in the market and those who regulate it. D BANKING PERSPECTIVES QUARTER 1 2018 3 The Value of Diversity in Bank Credit Portfolios A broad and deep credit market is an essential element than 90% of the bank obligors are unrated by the major of a broad, deep, and robust economy, mobilizing idle nationally recognized statistical rating organizations.1 capital and facilitating maturity transformation.
    [Show full text]
  • European Financial Congress1 in Relation to the Financial Stability Board’S Call for Public Feedback on the Effects of the Too-Big-To-Fail (TBTF) Reforms for Banks2
    Answers of the European Financial Congress1 in relation to the Financial Stability Board’s call for public feedback on the effects of the too-big-to-fail (TBTF) reforms for banks2 Methodology for preparing the answers The answers were prepared in the following stages: Stage 1 A group of experts from the Polish financial sector were invited to participate in the survey. They were sent the FSB’s consultation questions. The experts were guaranteed anonymity. Stage 2 The European Financial Congress received responses from experts representing: commercial banks, regulatory bodies, consulting firms and the academia. Stage 3 The survey project coordinators from the European Financial Congress prepared a draft synthesis of opinions submitted by the experts. The draft synthesis was sent to the experts participating in the survey with the request to mark the passages that should be modified in the final position and to propose modifications and additions as well as marking the passages they did not agree with. Stage 4 On the basis of the responses received, the final version of the European Financial Congress’ answers was prepared. 1 European Financial Congress (EFC – www.efcongress.com). The EFC is a think tank whose purpose is to promote debate on how to ensure the financial security and sustainable development of the European Union and Poland. 2 https://www.fsb.org/wp-content/uploads/R230519.pdf https://www.fsb.org/wp-content/uploads/P230519.pdf Answers of the European Financial Congress 1. To what extent are TBTF reforms achieving their
    [Show full text]
  • Basel 4 – the Effect on Swiss Banks How to Act Adequately March 2020 Brochure / Report Title Goes Here | Section Title Goes Here
    Basel 4 – the effect on Swiss Banks How to act adequately March 2020 Brochure / report title goes here | Section title goes here 02 Basel 4 – the effect on Swiss Banks |How to act adequately Summary The aim of this paper is to (LTV) metric is needed for both This article examines the impact understand the drivers of the RWA standardized and AIRB banks. of the Basel 4 post-crisis reforms impacts across the different Furthermore, proper documentation (published in December 2017) portfolios of a typical Swiss bank, on this portfolio is necessary for for a typical Swiss retail bank. and hence shed light on which components of the bank will be appropriate allocation of capital. In particular, this article will most affected. This paper further Other portfolios that require focus on the updated credit risk gives guidance on first steps to take further attention are: exposures to framework, as well as the impact to start understanding the impact corporates (especially SME), project of the newly introduced output of the reforms on required data, financing (as part of specialised lending) and retail exposures to floor for banks using internal changes in processes, changes SME. For certain portfolios, the risk models. Our assessment indicates in modelling and the required governance, and how Swiss banks weights used in the standardised that Swiss banks with internal could commence implementation of approach depend on external rates, models are expected to have an these reforms. which require a due diligence process increase in capital requirements from the bank. Due to the capital as a consequence of the output As previously mentioned, the focus floor, AIRB banks will also have to get a deeper understanding of the floor.
    [Show full text]
  • Bank Capital Requirements
    December 19, 2017 Bank Capital Requirements Basel Committee Releases Standards to Finalize Basel III Framework SUMMARY On December 7, 2017, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision released standards to finalize its Basel III capital framework (commonly referred to as “Basel IV”).1 The Basel III capital framework was published in December 2010,2 and, since then, has been supplemented and revised by numerous standards published prior to December 2017.3 Although the Basel III capital framework primarily addressed the components of regulatory capital (i.e., the numerator of capital ratios) and the calibration of minimum required capital ratios (i.e., the minimum percentages), Basel IV largely focuses on the denominator in capital ratios—in particular, risk-weighted assets (“RWAs”) for purposes of the risk-based capital ratios. The Basel Committee describes Basel IV as finalizing post-crisis regulatory reforms for capital adequacy, but it is likely that the international framework for the regulation of bank capital will continue to evolve. Indeed, Basel IV and the Basel Committee’s accompanying materials note that the Basel Committee will (i) review the calibration of the revised market risk framework prior to its implementation on January 1, 2022,4 (ii) monitor the impact of leverage capital requirements on central clearing of derivatives and, by December 2019, conclude a review of the impact of leverage capital requirements on the provision of clearing services and resilience of central clearing,5 and (iii) review the treatment of credit
    [Show full text]
  • Basel IV Rules
    Collective Intelligence for Global Finance Basel IV Rules: The Impact Upon Capital Markets and the Securities Finance Industry July 2020 Basel IV Rules: The Impact Upon Capital Markets and the Securities Finance Industry Executive Summary The impact of the Covid-19 crisis to the global financial network has accelerated the downward transition of creditworthiness at a rate comparable to the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. The forthcoming Basel IV regulations will impact the global capital markets and have potentially serious consequences for the securities finance industry. Under Basel IV, banks’ internal ratings models will be set aside and unrated counterparts will carry a 100% RWA. Tens of thousands of high-quality but unrated obligors will attract this 100% risk weight. It is estimated that applying data from an external credit assessment institution (“ECAI”) could reduce the RWA dramatically, and produce a cost saving of 2 million USD per notional 1 billion USD of exposure. A potential solution to this dilemma is the regulatory-approved use of alternative sources of credit data to supplement the gaps in the “issuer paid” credit rating agency model. In 1966 Robert F. Kennedy made a speech about the About Credit Benchmark importance of individual action to drive necessary change. Credit Benchmark produces a comprehensive view of In the speech he said “Like it or not, we live in interesting credit risk by creating Consensus ratings and analytics times. They are times of danger and uncertainty; but they are on the credit quality of companies, financial also the most creative of any time in the history of mankind.” institutions, sovereigns and funds.
    [Show full text]
  • Preparing for Basel IV: Why Liquidity Risks Still Present a Challenge to Regulators in Prudential Supervision
    Munich Personal RePEc Archive Preparing for Basel IV: why liquidity risks still present a challenge to regulators in prudential supervision Ojo, Marianne North West University 22 December 2015 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/70888/ MPRA Paper No. 70888, posted 28 Apr 2016 13:40 UTC ABSTRACT This chapter considers and assesses various explanations attributed as principal factors of the recent Financial Crisis. In particular, it focuses on two principal regulatory tools which constitute the basis of the framework promulgated by recent Basel Committee's initiatives, that is, Basel III. These two regulatory tools being capital and liquidity requirements. Various conclusions have been put forward to explain what triggered the recent Financial Crisis. This chapter aims to explain why the Basel Committee's liquidity requirements and present proposals aimed at addressing liquidity risks, still represent a very modest milestone in efforts aimed at addressing challenges in prudential regulation and supervision. Even though problems attributed to capital adequacy requirements are considered by many authorities to have triggered the recent Crisis, the chapter will highlight how runs on banks are triggered by liquidity crises and that liquidity risks cannot be isolated from systemic risks. In so doing, it will incorporate the roles assumed by information asymmetries and market based regulation – hence elaborate on how market based regulation could serve to address problems which trigger liquidity risks. Imperfect knowledge being a factor which is contributory to liquidity crises and bank runs, and market based regulation being essential in facilitating disclosure - since the Basel Committee's focus on banks and prudential supervision cannot on its own, address the challenges encountered in the present regulatory environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Impacts on Financial Regulation
    WHAT IF BIDEN WINS? Impacts on Financial Regulation Douglas J. Elliott October 27, 2020 What If Biden Wins? November’s election will substantially affect financial regulation. In this paper, I examine the likely impacts if former Vice President Joe Biden wins the election. © Oliver Wyman 2 What If Biden Wins? THE BIG PICTURE Financial regulation is unlikely to be one of the top priorities for a Joe Biden presidency Covid-19, the economic recovery, healthcare, social justice, the climate transition, and troubled foreign relations will already more than occupy the new President’s attention. Major legislation in this area is therefore improbable Big legislation almost always takes a major push from the Administration, which appears unlikely unless a large problem develops that creates a bipartisan consensus for action. Legislation will be even less likely if the Democrats fail to get a majority in the Senate or have only a vote or two to spare in that body. (Fivethirtyeight.com’s average forecast currently is for 51 Democrats and 49 Republicans in the Senate, with a reasonable probability of being as much as three seats higher or lower for the Democrats.) But, regulators can do a great deal without new legislation Capital and liquidity requirements, resolution and recovery planning, risk management procedures, disclosure requirements, and many other areas offer regulators and supervisors great leeway to mandate changes. Who is chosen for the key positions will matter Any Democratic appointees will share certain priorities, but there will be important differences on other potential initiatives and in how the key priorities are executed.
    [Show full text]
  • Basel “IV”: What’S Next for Banks? Implications of Intermediate Results of New Regulatory Rules for European Banks
    Basel “IV”: What’s next for banks? Implications of intermediate results of new regulatory rules for European banks Global Risk Practice April 2017 Authored by: Sebastian Schneider Gerhard Schröck Stefan Koch Roland Schneider 2 Implications of intermediate results of new regulatory rules for European banks Contents Executive summary 5 1 Beyond Basel III 6 1.1 Regulatory changes ahead 6 1.2 Need for a comprehensive view of regulations’ coming impact 6 2 Expected capital impact for the European banking industry 9 2.1 Impact at sector level 9 2.2 Variations in capital impacts between geographies … 10 2.3 ... size of institution 12 2.4 ... and business model 12 2.5 Expected impact on ROE 13 3 Implications and reactions: How banks can react 15 3.1 Mitigating actions 15 3.2 “No-regret” actions until Basel IV rules are finalized 22 Appendix 24 Global rules analyzed 24 Further regulatory initiatives 24 Methodology 26 Implications of intermediate results of new regulatory rules for European banks 3 Executive summary Many European banks will face significant capital shortfalls under the so-called Basel “IV” reforms proposed by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS). The current state of the suggested changes (a mix of consultation papers and finalized standards) would rework the approach to risk-weighted assets (RWA) and possibly internal ratings, as well as set regulatory capital floors. According to our analysis, if banks do nothing to mitigate their impact, these rules will require about €120 billion in additional capital, while reducing the banking sector’s return on equity by 0.6 percentage points.
    [Show full text]