FSI published a brief on regulatory responses, within the global financial system, to the COVID-19 pandemic. The brief takes stock of the types of financial measures that have been implemented and the rationale for implementation of these measures, along with their pros and cons. It addresses these aspects of policy response based on a simple framework and a set of principles that can guide the assessment. The brief explains that regulatory policy responses should seek to support economic activity while preserving soundness of the financial system while ensuring transparency.
Since the start of the COVID-19 crisis, prudential and related authorities have implemented a number of measures to support the supply of credit to the economy. The authors highlight that the objectives of financial policies should influence the type and extent of the adjustments. A solid and sound financial system is a prerequisite for sustainable growth. Asymmetric policies that simply ease standards in bad times but do not tighten them in good times could generate excessive risk-taking in the long run. This suggests three principles that could guide the assessment of the adjustments:
- The adjustments should be effective in supporting economic activity. This should apply at least to the crisis period, and preferably even beyond, when establishing the basis for a solid recovery.
- The adjustments should preserve the health of the banking (financial) system. Banks should remain sufficiently well-capitalized, liquid, and profitable to underpin sustainable growth.
- The adjustments should not undermine the long-run credibility of financial policies. Credibility is hard to gain and easy to lose. Compromising the policies excessively in the short run can create serious long-term damage. From this perspective, adjustments should be temporary. Transparency is key in meeting this principle.
The authors have highlighted that the recommendation for banks to make full use of capital and liquidity buffers should go hand in hand with restrictions on dividends and bonuses and clarity concerning the process for rebuilding them. Flexibility in loan classification criteria for prudential and accounting purposes should be complemented with sufficient disclosure on the criteria banks use to assess creditworthiness. The publication of detailed guidance on the application of expected loss provisioning rules, combined with sensible transitional arrangements, may constitute a balanced approach to mitigating the unintended effects of the new accounting standards.
Keywords: International, Banking, Accounting, COVID-19, Liquidity Buffer, Transparency, Disclosures, Basel III, Regulatory Capital, Expected Credit Loss, IFRS 9, FSI, BIS
ECB finalized the guide on assessment methodology for the internal model method for calculating exposure to counterparty credit risk (CCR) and the advanced method for own funds requirements for credit valuation adjustment (A-CVA) risk.
EBA published an Opinion addressed to EC to raise awareness about the opportunity to clarify certain issues related to the definition of credit institution in the upcoming review of the Capital Requirements Directive and Regulation (CRD and CRR).
APRA is consulting on updates to ARS 210.0, the reporting standard that sets out requirements for provision of information on liquidity and funding of an authorized deposit-taking institution.
FED released hypothetical scenarios for a second round of stress tests for banks.
PRA published updates in relation to the 2021 Supervisory Benchmarking Portfolio exercise.
FED adopted a proposal to extend for three years, with revision, the capital assessments and stress testing reports (FR Y-14A/Q/M; OMB No. 7100-0341).
HKMA revised the Supervisory Policy Manual module CR-G-14 on margin and other risk mitigation standards for non-centrally cleared over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives transactions.
EBA issued a revised list of validation rules with respect to the implementing technical standards on supervisory reporting.
EBA published its response to the call for advice of EC on ways to strengthen the EU legal framework on anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT).
NGFS published a paper on the overview of environmental risk analysis by financial institutions and an occasional paper on the case studies on environmental risk analysis methodologies.