DOCSLIB.ORG

Basel IV and Proportionality Initiatives

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. However, the complexity introduced scope and timelines for the upcoming revisions to capital and by Basel III/ IV has led regulators to now consider how the liquidity requirements for DTIs and outline the extent to which framework can be better tailored to smaller, less complex proportionality considerations affect the scope of changes banks. OSFI’s July 2019 discussion paper titled Advancing affecting Small and Medium Sized Institutions (SMSBs). Foreign Proportionality: Tailoring Capital and Liquidity Requirements for Bank Branches (FBBs) are subject to different standards and Small and Medium-Sized Deposit Taking Institutions presents expectations with respect to capital and liquidity, and a brief outline its proposals to tailor requirements for non-D-SIB banks. of the current state and future changes is also provided. Finally, OSFI’s timelines for implementing the changes related to we conclude with a summary of KPMG’s perspective on key Pillar 1 capital and liquidity requirements conclude in Q1-2022, considerations and challenges for DTIs leading up to Q1-2022. © 2019 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 2 Basel IV and proportionality initiatives Overview of the current Canadian capital and liquidity framework 1. Current capital and liquidity requirements for SMSBs and D-SIBs Capital requirements, leverage requirements and the output floor The following table summarizes the minimum target levels for risk-based capital ratios for DTIs: Table 1: SMSB and D-SIB Risk-based Capital Ratios Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) Tier 1 Total Minimum Ratios 4.5% 6.0% 8.0% Capital Conservation Buffer (CCB) 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% Countercyclical Buffer (CCyB) Not activated Not activated Not activated Minimum Target for SMSBs (including buffers) 7.0% 8.5% 10.5% D-SIB Buffer 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% Domestic Stability Buffer (DSB) 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% Minimum Target for D-SIBs (including buffers) 10.0% 11.5% 13.5% Sources: Capital Adequacy Requirements Guideline, OSFI, 2019 Industry Notice on Domestic Stability Buffer, OSFI, June 2019 DTIs are also expected to maintain a leverage ratio (LR) of at DTIs that have received OSFI’s approval to use advanced least 3%. Disclosure requirements for capital and the leverage approaches to determine credit or operational risk capital ratio can be found in OSFI’s Capital Disclosure Requirements requirements are required to calculate a capital floor which limits and D-12 Leverage Ratio Disclosure Requirements. the extent that RWAs can be lowered relative to standardized approaches. Prior to Q2-2018, Canadian DTIs using internal In addition to the above changes that raise the quality and models to calculate a Basel I capital floor as per OSFI’s now quantity of capital, the implementation of updated Basel IV expired A-3 Guideline. Effective Q2-2018, Canadian DTIs using standards related to the calculation of RWAs has also begun. internal models, or Internal Models Approved Institutions Revisions to the securitization framework, the capitalization of (IMAIs), switched over to revised capital floor based on Basel II central counterparty exposures (for inclusion in the calculation standardized approaches which will stay in place until Q4-2021 of both risk-based capital and leverage requirements), and the using a scaling factor of 72.5%. standardized approach for counterparty credit risk (SA-CCR) were implemented in Q1-2019. Outstanding revisions to RWA calculations will be implemented by Q1-2022. Figure 2: Interim domestic Basel II output floor Modelled requirement Floor requirement Modelled RWA 75% x Floor RWA Less 12.5 x deductions for allowances included in capital Plus 12.5 x allowance for shortfall deductions Modelled RWA = Total RWA using OSFI-approved advanced approaches plus partial-use portfolios treated under non-modelled approaches Floor RWA = Credit RWA, Market RWA, Other Credit RWA and CVA RWA using standardized approaches (with some advanced inputs for CVA and market ris dependin on a Is approval status). Source: Capital Adequacy Requirements Guideline, Chapter 1.9.1., OSFI 2019 © 2019 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Basel IV and proportionality initiatives 3 Liquidity requirements As stated in the Liquidity Adequacy Requirements (LAR), OSFI’s with OSFI’s D-11 Guideline. DTIs are also required to report to assessment of an institution’s liquidity adequacy is informed by OSFI the Net Cumulative Cash Flow (NCCF) metric for multiple its minimum liquidity and funding standards, additional liquidity time horizons up to one year as well as a suite of liquidity and metrics and supervisory standards. All DTIs are currently required intraday liquidity monitoring tools. Although NCCF and other to maintain a Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) of no lower than monitoring tools do not have defined minimum thresholds, OSFI 100% and D-SIBs must provide public disclosures in accordance reserves the right to set regulatory requirements as needed. Figure 3: Factors in the supervisory assessment of liquidity adequacy Minimum liquidity and Additional liquidity metrics Supervisory assessments funding standards NCCF Monitoring tools BCBS 144 OSFI B-6 Principles for sound liquidity risk LCR NSFR Liquidity principles Effective Q1-2020 management and Intraday monitoring tools supervision Source: Liquidity Adequacy Requirements Guideline, OSFI, 2019 2. Current capital and liquidity requirements for foreign bank branches (FBBs) FBBs are subject to different capital and liquidity requirements Figure 4: FBBD maintenance requirements for full-service than D-SIBs and SMSBs. Instead of risk-based capital branches requirements, FBBs hold a foreign bank branch deposit (FBBD) requirement that is met by unencumbered assets deposited Supervisory concerns with an approved financial institution in Canada. For a lending (if required by OSFI) branch, the FBBD is $100,000, whereas for a full-service branch there is an initial FBBD requirement of $5 million with additional Fluctuation in liabilities maintenance requirements to account for fluctuations in liabilities and supervisory concerns. With respect to liquidity, OSFI’s draft B-6 guideline indicates that Base requirement FBBs may require quantitative reporting pertaining to the liquidity of the branch in Canada and its degree of ongoing reliance on its head office. Source: Draft Guideline A-10, OSFI, 2019 © 2019 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 4 Basel IV and proportionality initiatives Overview of the upcoming changes to the Canadian capital and liquidity framework In this section, we begin by reviewing the upcoming changes to in Canada. Next, we explore OSFI’s proposals for how the the Canadian capital and liquidity framework for D-SIBs, which tailoring of base D-SIB requirements helps to better fit the unique are directly transcribed from Basel, with modifications to take characteristics of SMSBs. This section concludes with a brief into account the unique aspects of domestic implementation synopsis of changes to FBB branch capital requirements. 1. Domestic systemically important banks (D-SIBs) Capital requirements, output floor and leverage (SA), and modifications to the Internal Ratings Based (IRB) – requirements the removal of the IRB eligibility
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 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 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
    [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]