Getting risk models runway ready
Banks struggling with internal model requirements may soon opt for off-the-rack rather than bespoke
Successful financial risk models share few traits with fashion models, but both have to be up-to-the-minute and flawless in their execution – whether it be calculating default probabilities in Monaco or showcasing the latest season’s attire in Milan. Without these, neither type of model can be truly ‘runway ready’. Awkwardly for eurozone lenders, the latest round of model health checks conducted by the European Central Bank found such qualities wanting.
The targeted review of internal models (Trim) was launched in 2016 to assess whether the models used to sum statutory capital requirements are fit for purpose and conform to regulations. In a recent update, the watchdog laid out issues with banks’ market risk modelling practices. Those branded the most severe concerned value-at-risk calculations, the essential building blocks of market risk capital charges.
Shortcomings have also been found with credit risk models. Last year, the ECB disclosed that a third of eurozone banks were non-compliant with internal ratings-based credit modelling standards. Separately, the European Banking Authority found 39% of firms’ IRB models lowballed capital charges versus the regulator’s own benchmarks.
Faulty models worry watchdogs because they could produce regulatory capital requirements that underestimate the risks banks are running. This could leave them short of the resources needed to cover losses under stress.
However, through Trim the ECB has a stick with which to beat recalcitrant models into line. The central bank’s investigators can order changes to bring deficient models up to scratch. These generally result in the models producing higher capital requirements.
A handful of banks have already disclosed, or anticipate disclosing, such uplifts. For example, Dutch lender ABN Amro’s credit risk-weighted assets have swelled by more than €6 billion since Q3 2018 because of Trim.
Yet risk models undergo style changes just the same as fashion models. Even as banks grapple with today’s requirements, the Fundamental Review of the Trading Book is ushering in a new generation of modelling practices that will push them to the limit. Revisions to the IRB framework are also to be implemented under Basel III reforms from 2022.
It’s taking years for eurozone banks to conform with current model standards. Quite how they will cope with the souped-up requirements remains to be seen. Those firms struggling the most today may end up dispensing with internal models for some risks entirely in favour of regulator-set standardised approaches – the equivalent of choosing a wardrobe off-the-rack versus bespoke. No self-respecting fashion model would make that choice. But banks have a duty to hold capital in line with regulations. If this cannot be achieved using a tailored approach, then ready-made is their only option.
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 Our take
Can history resolve factor investors’ p-hacking questions?
Quants seek reassurance in the far distant past
Insurance double-hatters like Apollo can expect more scrutiny
Regulators are homing in on conflicts of interests at private-equity-owned insurers
Podcast: Lorenzo Ravagli on why the skew is for the many
JP Morgan quant proposes a unified framework for trading the volatility skew premium
Quants see promise in DeBerta’s untangled reading
Improved language models are able to grasp context better
Counterparty risk model links defaults to portfolio values
Fed’s Michael Pykhtin proposes using copula models to capture effects of margin calls on default risk
Does Basel’s internal loss multiplier add up?
As US agencies mull capital reforms, one regulator questions past losses as an indicator of future op risk
Is JSCC-CFTC stalemate about to be broken?
Japan CCP gains allies in battle to clear yen swaps for US clients, but CFTC shakeup could dash hopes
What T+1 risk? Dealers shake off FX concerns
Predictions of increased settlement risk and later-in-the-day trading have yet to materialise