National regulators discussing results with banks to clarify data issues: QIS5 results delayed until June, says BIS
BASEL, SWITZERLAND – The results of quantitative impact study five will be delayed until June, according to officials from the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland.
Originally, the results of QIS5, along with a recalibration of Basel II, were expected this spring, which many thought would be March or April. Information on QIS5 was first posted during summer 2005, and banks were expected to turn over their information by the end of December 2005.
However, the UK – one of the very first banks to begin its domestic QIS5 process – will only be ready to turn its information over to the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision at the end of February, according to minutes from a meeting the Financial Services Authority held with the industry in December 2005.
A BIS source says that at the moment, most of the national regulators are reviewing the data they received at the end of 2005 and are discussing the results with banks. The source says: "I think everyone is confident that we will have much improved data quality compared with QIS3", which was conducted in 2002, with the results released in May 2003. He also indicated that the Basel Committee may release some preliminary information on the QIS5 results in late March or early April.
Overall, the Basel Committee is expected to have between 300 and 350 banks participating from 33 countries. Of these, 13 of the countries are G-10 members, and 200–250 of the banks participating are expected to be from G-10 countries. OR&C
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Esma won’t soften regulatory expectations for cloud and AI
CCP supervisory chair signals heightened scrutiny of third-party risk and operational resilience
BPI says SR 11-7 should go; bank model risk chiefs say ‘no’
Lobby group wants US guidance repealed; practitioners want consistent model supervision and audit
Esma supervision proposals ensnare Bloomberg and Tradeweb
Derivatives and bonds venues would become subject to centralised supervision
Industry frowns on FCA’s single-sided trade reporting efforts
Buy side warns UK attempt to ease Mifir burden may miss target; dealers aren’t happy either
One vision, two paths: UK reporting revamp diverges from EU
FCA and Esma could learn from each other on how to cut industry compliance costs
Market doesn’t share FSB concerns over basis trade
Industry warns tougher haircut regulation could restrict market capacity as debt issuance rises
FCMs warn of regulatory gaps in crypto clearing
CFTC request for comment uncovers concerns over customer protection and unchecked advertising
UK clearing houses face tougher capital regime than EU peers
Ice resists BoE plan to move second skin in the game higher up capital stack, but members approve