
Bread and buffers

Ironing out the pro-cyclical effects of regulatory capital and accounting standards has become a focal point for regulators and politicians across the globe. Talk has centred on an overhaul of the incurred loss model in favour of expected loss or dynamic provisioning, along with the introduction of capital buffers, leverage ratios and a new stressed value-at-risk measure. Regulators are also pushing banks to consider probabilities of default (PD) through-the-cycle, instead of point-in-time.
While some practitioners have warned about the pro-cyclical nature of Basel II for some time, the financial crisis has created a sudden urgency to tackle the issue. It has become painfully clear any regulation that requires risk weightings to be set based on credit quality will lead to higher capital levels in a downturn, potentially aggravating any recession by causing banks to cut back on lending.
Putting aside extra capital in good times means banks could dip into a pool of funds during any recession. Likewise, moving away from point-in-time modelling of default probabilities would mean banks consider the risk of a borrower through an entire cycle. In other words, the internal rating and capital assigned to any entity should not spike suddenly due to changes in economic conditions.
However, the piecemeal alterations by supervisors create potential contradictions within regulatory capital rules. For 10 years, regulators have moved towards making regulatory capital rules more risk sensitive, and to eliminate the gap between the risk models banks use internally and those used for regulatory purposes. Central to this is the concept of the use test. In obtaining validation for their risk models for regulatory capital purposes, banks must show these systems are truly employed for internal risk management.
The problem is, the likely addition of capital buffers means overall regulatory capital levels will no longer be as risk-sensitive. Some bankers would argue the behaviour of borrowers and PDs are inherently pro-cyclical: borrowers are more likely to default in a downturn. As a result, internal risk calculations should always measure this, arguably by considering PDs at each specific point in time. While the foundations of the Basel II framework will be retained, the proposed bolting on of a capital buffer and measuring of PDs through-the-cycle means there is likely to be a split between what banks are doing internally and what they are doing for regulators.
Capital buffers should strengthen the financial system, and hopefully avoid some of the capital headaches of the recent crisis, supervisors believe. But there are potential implications for regulatory use tests. After striving for a decade to eradicate the gap between internal risk capital and regulatory capital, this gap could now open again.
Nick Sawyer, Editor.
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
SEC’s Peirce calls for rethink of international standards
Risk Live Boston: regulator rejects international calls for bank-like regulation of investors
Tariff turbulence piles pressure on banks’ VAR models
Backtesting breaches start to mount, but too early to tell if regulatory intervention needed
Trading desks want regulators to face down the NMRF monster
Rule-makers in Australia and the European Union are open to changes to the unpopular FRTB test
CFTC’s Doge-inspired drive to enforcement may fall short
Lawyers doubt guidance on rewards for self-reporting goes far enough
FRTB may bite harder for Europe’s CVA modellers
Farther reach of advanced approach and lighter load on total requirements mean limited takeaways from Canada and Japan’s implementation
Can Europe’s FRTB refurb bring banks back to Club IMA?
Softening the NMRF regime permanently might have the most impact, but the output floor still hurts
Japan, Basel III and the pitfalls of being on time
Capital floor phase-in delay may be least-worst option for JFSA as US and Europe waver
Gould stands by OCC decision to end exams for reputation risk
Comptroller nominee also blames SVB failure on poor supervision, not tailoring rule