Date post: | 18-Dec-2014 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | richard-gresser |
View: | 196 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Workshop – What are the Regulators Thinking?
Canadian Conference for Credit Union Leaders May 3, 2011
Richard Gresser
Managing Director, Bank Capital
OSFI
2
Agenda
Regulatory Capital Changes
Supervisory Concerns
3
Regulatory Capital Changes
What are the objectives of Basel III?
1. Macro Economic Concerns
2. Missing Parts
3. Emphasis on Capital
4. Better Risk Assessment
4
The Macro ConcernsSystemic Risk and Interconnectedness• Interconnectedness among large global
systemically important financial institutions (GSIFIs) transmitted shocks across the financial system and economy
• Solutions being envisaged:– Capital surcharges– Contingent capital– Bail-in debt
• To be developed in 2011
5
The Macro Concerns
Countercyclical Capital Buffer• Excessive credit growth → Period of
financial stress → bank reduce credit supply to maintain solvency → real economy affected → additional credit losses in banking system
• Countercyclical buffer to be built up capital buffer when aggregate credit growth is excessive → increasing credit cost → dampen credit growth
• Buffer 0 to 2.5% of RWA – expected to be deployed on an infrequent basis (once every 10 to 20 years)
6
The Missing Pieces
• The financial crisis demonstrated that the regulatory tool box needed to be expanded -- risk-based capital requirements are essential but not sufficient
• Basel III will introduce liquidity requirements and leverage constraints
7
Liquidity
• Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR)– To ensure enough short term liquid assets are
available– Banks to have enough high-quality liquid assets
to withstand a 30-day funding scenario specified by supervisors
• Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR)– To limit over-reliance on short-term wholesale
funding and encourage better assessment of liquidity risk
– Banks to have enough sources of funding over a one-year horizon
8
Leverage
• Excessive build-up of on- and off-balance sheet leverage contributed to the financial crisis.
• A leverage ratio will be introduced to act as a backstop to the risk-based capital requirements
• Leverage ratio also introduces additional safeguards against model risk and measurements error risk present in the risk-based approach
• Unlike most countries, Canada already has leverage constraints
9
Emphasis on Capital
• Risk-based regulatory capital is the core instrument of financial regulation but crisis highlighted deficiencies– Emphasis should be on capital of the highest
quality (i.e. truly loss absorbing) – rules emphasize common equity requirements (or equivalent for non-stock entities)
– Definition of capital should be more uniform in all countries – deductions from capital harmonized internationally
– The requirements should be higher – 7% “minimum” common equity ratio; 10.5% total capital
10
Better Risk Assessment
• Another lesson from the crisis has been the need to strengthen the risk coverage of the capital framework
• Trading book and securitization rules already strengthened in 2009 (stressed VAR; higher capital requirements for resecuritizations)
• Counterparty Credit Risk rules to be improved – incentives the use of central counterparties to reduce counterparty credit risk
11
Supervisory Concerns
1. Enterprise Risk Management
2. Stress Testing
3. Internal Capital Adequacy Assessment
12
Enterprise Risk Management
• Continued emphasis on ERM• A framework for risk management which
involves:– identifying particular events or circumstances
relevant to the institution's objectives (risks and opportunities),
– assessing them in terms of likelihood and magnitude of impact
– determining a response strategy– monitoring progress
13
Enterprise Risk Management
• A way to aggregate similar risks or exposures across the organization and get a good understanding of what the risks, based on historical experience that produces the benefit of:– Apples to apples comparison of risk adjusted
returns– Manage a complex web of risks against an
enterprise wide risk appetite (the risks may be greater or less than the sum of the parts)
• Need to do more/better stress testing– Challenge historical experience– Anticipate impact of sea change in markets
14
Stress Testing
• A key risk management tool• Used to evaluate the potential effects on an
institution’s financial condition of a set of specific changes in risk factors, corresponding to exceptional but plausible events
• Financial crisis underlined the importance of stress testing and also shortcomings of stress testing practices
• OSFI Guideline on Stress Testing December 2009
15
Expectations for Stress Testing
• Commensurate with the nature and complexity of the institution and with its risk profile
• Embedded in enterprise wide risk management
• Actionable• Feed into the institution’s decision making
process
16
ICAAP
• Internal Capital Adequacy Assessment Process
• Capital requirements set out in the Basel Framework and in OSFI’s CAR guideline for banks are regulatory minimums that assume a highly granular and widely diversified portfolio of risks
• Guideline issued October 2010 sets out expectations for banks
17
ICAAP
• Through ICAAP, an institution sets its internal capital target and develops strategies for achieving the target that are consistent with its business plan, risk profile and operating environment
• ICAAP is a vital component of a strong risk management process
18
ICAAP
• Stress testing is a key part of ICAAP• The results of rigorous, forward-looking
stress testing should be considered when looking at the adequacy of an institution’s capital
• OSFI assesses institutions’ ICAAPs as part of the supervisory review process
19
Proportionality in Stress Testing and ICAAP
• Formalization and sophistication of ICAAPs will differ, depending on the institution’s complexity, range of business activities risk profile, and operating environment
• The board has ultimate responsibility for the overall stress testing program and should be aware of the key findings from stress tests.
• Senior management is accountable for the program’s implementation, management and oversight and for ensuring that the institution has adequate plans to deal with remote but plausible stress scenarios.
20
Rules vs. Supervisory Review
• Capital and Liquidity Rules are not a safe harbor, they are minimums
• OSFI Supervisory review assesses– Inherent risk of significant businesses and the
direction of those risks. (analog of rules quantitative standards)
– Quality of risk management and whether it mitigates or amplifies inherent risk
• Rules could be seen as a sort of baseline for inherent risk and risk management assessments
21
Summary
• The financial crisis has prompted regulators to review the regulatory framework to:– Address macro economic concerns– Improve risk measurement– Require more and better quality capital– Reduce counterparty credit risk– Introduce liquidity and leverage standards– Improve internal risk management and controls
(ERM, ICAAP, Stress testing)
• How will this impact provincially regulated Credit Unions?