BIS published a short note or bulletin that explores the conditions under which the release of prudential buffers might help address the shock caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The note first assesses the impact of the economic fallout from the crisis and the related policy measures on banks. It then reviews the design and usability of prudential buffers, before moving on to discuss how the relaxation of such buffers can support bank credit. Thus far, the prudential authorities have sought to support the flow of credit to firms, households, and governments, most notably by relaxing banks’ constraints on the use of liquidity and capital buffers.
The note further highlights that for banks to continue playing a positive role in the supply of funding during the recovery, they should maintain usable buffers for a long period, as losses from a severe recession will take time to materialize. Bank counterparties, market participants, and the public need to remain convinced that buffers in the banking systems will help them weather economic stress. If past experience is any guide, buffers will be needed for quite some time. However, no matter how aggressive, the release of available buffers is unlikely to suffice on its own to compensate fully for the recession-induced erosion of capital.
For example, the CCyB put in place by BCBS jurisdictions before the COVID-19 crisis was set no higher than 2.5% of risk-weighted assets, with the CCyB of most jurisdictions being well below that level. Even tripling this amount by tapping into other buffers—while keeping some resources unused—would be only just enough to absorb the losses estimated in central bank stress tests. In recent versions of those exercises, recession-induced capital erosion was calculated to rise to 4.0% to 7.5% of risk-weighted assets (US, UK, and EU). Given that the impending global recession is likely to match or exceed the most adverse scenarios embedded in these past exercises, capital erosion may be much larger, even if governments intervene to support banks (for example, with guarantees).
A buffer release will be most effective if included within a general strategy for managing the evolution of the pandemic’s economic impact with a portfolio of tools. Lessons from the past indicate that this strategy should have a medium-term horizon and combine transparency, effective market discipline, and preservation of intermediation capacity. It should help to avoid a financial crisis that will worsen the macroeconomic problem. Reading through this lens the messages from successful resolution of past banking crises, the restoration of credit flows to the real economy will be short-lived if banks become weighed down with bad assets and no buffers. Furthermore, government guarantee schemes should require banks to keep “skin in the game,” thus both protecting the solvency of the public sector and leveraging the ability of lenders to discriminate between good and bad credit. Preserving monetary and fiscal space is key, as the resilience of banks is likely to depend for a long time on a combination of buffers and non-prudential policies.
Related Link: Bulletin
Keywords: International, Banking, COVID-19, Bulletin, Macro-Prudential Policy, Capital Buffers, LCR, CCyB, Procyclicality, Regulatory Capital, Liquidity Risk, BIS
Previous ArticleHKMA Announces Liquidity Measures in Response to COVID-19 Outbreak
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.