Featured Product

    ESRB Paper Presents Alternative Approach to EBA Stress Test Proposal

    August 05, 2020

    The Advisory Scientific Committee of ESRB published a response, in the form of an Insights Paper, to the EBA proposals for reforms to the stress testing framework in EU. In the paper, the authors assert that the EBA proposal is a significant step backward in terms of transparency, reliability, and comparability of the results. This is because of the envisaged ample leeway for supervisors, limited disclosure in the supervisory leg, and the greater flexibility and reduced quality assurance in the bank leg. The paper presents a sequential approach in which an enhanced single-leg, bottom-up stress-testing exercise run by EBA is regarded as the primary source of granular, reliable, and comparable information for subsequent supervisory applications.

    EBA launched the consultation on the proposed stress testing framework in January, with the consultation scheduled to end on June 30, 2020. In addition to several methodological innovations, including the consideration of multiple adverse scenarios or the relaxation of the static balance sheet assumption, the main proposals in the discussion paper refer to restating the purpose of the EBA stress test as a primarily micro-prudential exercise and replacing the current design in which banks and (micro-prudential) supervisors share ownership of the results (as the two parties iterate before arriving at the supervisory-validated results) with a two-leg design. In the supervisory leg, supervisors would have greater discretion to introduce bank-specific adjustments and would publish a more limited range of results than under the current design, with the main objective being the estimation of the capital deficits necessary for calibrating their Pillar 2 Guidance requirements. In the bank leg, individual banks would have greater flexibility in the use of their own methods and data to produce results that would cover a similar range of granular information as under the current framework, but they would be subject to less intense quality assurance by their supervisors.

    This paper expresses serious concerns about these two main proposals. First, the EU-wide stress tests are a big endeavor for banks and supervisors. Redefining their objective as primarily micro-prudential would unnecessarily narrow down their scope, condition their future development, and potentially induce some duplication of information gathering costs to satisfy macro-prudential authorities’ needs that might no longer be met properly. Second, the two proposed legs could give rise to more abundant but less reliable and comparable—that is, less useful—information. This could occur if the supervisory leg turned out to be more opaque and were to disseminate less granular results than the current framework, while the greater flexibility and reduced quality assurance in the bank leg would decrease the comparability of the results across banks and increase the margin for misrepresentation. The paper discusses the alternatives to the two-leg design that are more compatible with the dual micro-prudential and macro-prudential use of the information gathered via the stress tests.

    The paper advocates an alternative to the two-leg approach, which separates bank-originated calculations from supervisor-originated calculations at an early stage. This would be a sequential approach in which an enhanced single-leg bottom-up stress-testing exercise run by EBA is regarded as the primary source of granular, reliable, and comparable information for subsequent supervisory applications. Under this approach, the enhanced EBA exercise would come first and end with the publication of aggregate and individual results for the supervised entities. The corresponding micro- and/or macro-prudential supervisors would come next; they would introduce adjustments and elaborations in line with their own objectives before publishing the adjusted or elaborated results that would determine their regulatory requirements and policies. The suggested sequential approach would not involve an unnecessary redefinition of the EBA stress-testing exercise as primarily micro-prudential and would allow both micro-prudential and macro-prudential authorities to leverage the output of the stress test (stages 1 and 2 of the sequential approach), without preventing them from adjusting and elaborating on the data obtained (stage 3). To strengthen the common European perspective and minimize the risk of undue weight being given to national considerations, a significant increase in the financial and human resources that EBA can devote to stress-testing exercises will also be required under this alternative approach.

     

    Related Links

    Keywords: Europe, EU, Banking, Stress Testing, EU Wide Stress Test, Pillar 2 Guidance, Top-Down Stress Test, Bottom-Up Stress Test, Basel, EBA, ESRB

    Featured Experts
    Related Articles
    News

    ECB Amends Guideline on Temporary Collateral Easing Measures

    ECB published Guideline 2021/975, which amends Guideline ECB/2014/31, on the additional temporary measures relating to Eurosystem refinancing operations and eligibility of collateral.

    June 17, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EIOPA Releases Report on Artificial Intelligence Governance Principles

    EIOPA published a report, from the Consultative Expert Group on Digital Ethics, that sets out artificial intelligence governance principles for an ethical and trustworthy artificial intelligence in the insurance sector in EU.

    June 17, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    HKMA to Increase Focus on Suptech and Regtech Cloud Adoption

    HKMA published the seventh and final issue of the Regtech Watch series, which outlines the three-year roadmap of HKMA to integrate supervisory technology, or suptech, into its processes.

    June 17, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EC Consults on Improving Transparency in Secondary Markets for NPLs

    EC launched a targeted consultation to improve transparency and efficiency in the secondary markets for nonperforming loans (NPLs).

    June 16, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    BIS and Nordic Central Banks Launch Innovation Hub in Stockholm

    BIS, Danmarks Nationalbank, Central Bank of Iceland, Norges Bank, and Sveriges Riksbank launched an Innovation Hub in Stockholm, making this the fifth BIS Innovation Hub Center to be opened in the past two years.

    June 16, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    FDIC Tech Sprint Aims to Explore Technologies to Reach Unbanked

    FDITECH, the technology lab of FDIC, announced a tech sprint that is designed to explore new technologies and techniques that would help expand the capabilities of community banks to meet the needs of unbanked individuals and households.

    June 16, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EC Releases Sustainable Finance Taxonomy Compass

    EC released the EU Taxonomy Compass, which visually represents the contents of the EU Taxonomy starting with the EU Taxonomy Climate Delegated Act.

    June 16, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    FDIC Proposes Amendments to Real Estate Lending Standards

    FDIC is seeking comments on a rule to amend the interagency guidelines for real estate lending policies—also known as the Real Estate Lending Standards.

    June 15, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EIOPA to Consider Liquidity Risk in Stress Test for 2021

    EIOPA published its annual report, which sets out the work done in 2020 and indicates the planned work areas for the coming months.

    June 15, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    ESRB Paper Discusses Measurement of Impact of Bank Failure via Lending

    The ESRB paper that presents an analytical framework that assesses and quantifies the potential impact of a bank failure on the real economy through the lending function.

    June 15, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    RESULTS 1 - 10 OF 7116