Stress-testing – Special report 2019
The surge of supervisory stress-testing that began after the 2007–08 financial crisis had a clear purpose: to identify banks in danger of imminent distress and reassure the market that those still standing were solvent and could survive the downturn.
More than a decade later, issuance costs for bank debt could hardly be lower – even for subordinated bonds. That suggests a level of confidence among investors that they understand the risks in the banking sector. However, bankers say the data demands from regulatory stress-testing are, if anything, becoming more intense.
Increasingly, regulators seem to see the stress-testing exercise more as a way to identify process failures rather than balance sheet risks. And banks see them as a capital constraint that is misaligned with the Basel risk-based ratios, or even just as an extra layer of bureaucracy. The annual round of regulatory stress-test results is in danger of becoming an expensive circus that doesn’t specifically reduce risk in the system – especially if, as Risk.net uncovered recently, banks are gaming the results.
If the concern is that banks are modelling and assessing risk incorrectly, then perhaps a more valuable use of supervisors’ time and resources would be to deploy their challenger models directly to the Basel framework. The Fed already does this for stress-test outputs. Regulators can then step up scrutiny of those banks with model outputs that deviate a long way from the challenger, rather than imposing a stress test for all risks on all banks.
Download the full 2019 Stress-testing special report in PDF format
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
Stress-testing: still worth the stress?
There may be more efficient ways to assess if banks are misjudging their risks
How banks game stress tests: the ‘shocking’ truth
Leaked memo exposes effort to swap out risky assets despite Fed’s push to end “window dressing”
Stress-testing to improve strategic decision‑making
Banking regulators remain focused on expanding and developing the range of stress-testing regimes across the globe to maintain stability, monitor emerging risks and avoid another financial crisis. Here, a forum of industry leaders discusses the evolution…
Floating start date for 2020 stress test alarms EU banks
Regulator proposal could lead to less reliable market risk data, critics warn
Double jeopardy: CCAR and the countercyclical buffer
Some US regulators want to hike capital while times are good; banks say Fed’s stress test already does
Banks seek new value for their efforts
As regulatory stress tests evolve and a new age of stress-testing approaches, firms are looking to maximise value by making the most of scenario-based analytics. John Voigt, principal solutions manager at SAS, explores the importance to institutions of…
How capital rules overwhelmed bank strategy
Regulators shouldn’t run a bank – but Basel III and stress tests have put them in the cockpit
Fund fears linger over guidelines set to avert fire sales
Final Esma framework allays some European asset managers’ concerns
IFRS 9 flings loan-loss provisions haphazardly higher
Under the standard, cash piles for bad loans were expected to ramble. Just not quite so much