ECB published report that presents a summary of the analysis conducted on the internal capital adequacy assessment process (ICAAP) practices of a sample of 37 "significant" banks. The analysis underlines areas in which practices of banks appear to be further developed and the areas in which additional work is warranted across banks, as per the ECB opinion. The analysis identified three key improvement areas to allow the ICAAPs to effectively foster continuity of banks: data on which the ICAAP is based, economic ICAAP perspective, and stress testing. In conclusion, ECB encourages banks to accelerate the improvement of their data quality frameworks while taking into account the BCBS 239 principles.
ECB acknowledges that many banks have made a considerable effort toward improving their ICAAPs over recent years and that they have made clear progress. This is reflected in the report by providing examples of good ICAAP practices observed in banks included in the analysis sample. A further observation of the positive developments seen in banks was that some ICAAP areas are broadly established across banks. For instance, all banks in the sample have risk identification processes, produce capital adequacy statements, and conduct stress-testing and capital planning, including adverse scenarios. The analysis also revealed several ICAAP areas that are less developed, all of which meriting attention, as weak practices in those areas could undermine the overall effectiveness of the ICAAPs. The report presents following main conclusions of the analysis in line with the seven principles under the ICAAP guide:
- ICAAP governance—The analysis reveals that, though banks have improved with regard to the format and content of the capital adequacy statement, there is still room for improvement in striking the right balance between comprehensiveness (including factoring in the uncertainties stemming from ICAAP weaknesses) and management body accountability.
- ICAAP integration—It was observed that many banks integrate the ICAAP into their overall management framework, for example, by using their internal limit systems and management reporting. However, weaknesses have been identified with respect to the connection between the ICAAP and other strategic processes such as the internal liquidity adequacy assessment process (ILAAP) as well as the use of the ICAAP for decision-making. Additional areas for improvement are the use of effective and sufficiently granular limit systems and adequately frequent and detailed reports to the management body.
- ICAAP perspectives—With regard to the implementation of the two ICAAP perspectives, room for improvement exists under both the normative as well as the economic perspectives, with attention being needed on the latter perspective. Many banks still either have not fully elaborated their economic perspective or do not explicitly follow a continuity approach under this perspective. Another area where improvement is warranted under both perspectives is the internal definition of minimum capital adequacy thresholds.
- Risk identification—Processes for the identification of material risks are established and regularly performed. For many banks, however, there is room for improvement regarding forward-looking, pro-active risk identification, the use of a “gross approach,” and the concepts used for deciding on materiality with regard to both the scope of material entities and risk types.
- Internal capital—More than half of the banks do not have an elaborated approach for properly defining their internal capital.
- ICAAP risk quantification methodologies—Banks mainly rely on regulatory approaches and on statistical models for quantifying risks under the economic perspective. While most banks do adjust their regulatory methodologies, in a number of cases regulatory methodologies are directly applied without making any adjustments, meaning without tailoring them to the bank’s individual risk profile. There are also some concerns regarding statistical models, as they are only capable of capturing situations that were previously factored into their design and reflected in the input data used. Other issues observed, such as inadequate holding periods applied to market risk positions in combination with insufficient data histories, for example, may lead to a material underestimation of risk. Another issue identified is that many banks need to align their risk quantifications with the different underlying natures of the two ICAAP perspectives and clearly distinguish between balance sheet/profit and loss impacts under the normative perspective and economic value impacts under the economic perspective.
- Stress-testing—On the positive side, all banks are performing internal stress tests that are forward-looking over a sufficiently long time horizon. While internal stress-testing under the normative perspective is well-established, stress-testing is underdeveloped under the economic perspective. The number of scenarios and the frequency of the review and the application of these scenarios are heterogeneous, with a tendency toward applying a few scenarios only. Likewise, the severity level underlying the adverse scenarios appears to be too low, which is also reflected in low levels of common equity tier 1 depletion. Overall, the stress-testing programs at many banks do not seem to foster a well-informed and timely reaction to changes in their risk situation and to upcoming threats, as also triggered by underdeveloped ad hoc stress-testing capabilities and insufficient monitoring of upcoming threats.
Overall, the analysis revealed that several banks do not have elaborated data quality frameworks in place, including data quality controls. Linked to this finding is the analysis outcome that, at many banks, there is no strong connection between their ICAAPs and BCBS 239. Therefore, banks are encouraged to accelerate the improvement of their data quality frameworks and underlying IT infrastructures, by, for example, taking into account the BCBS 239 principles, particularly given that experience shows that material improvements in data quality may take some time.
Related Link: Report (PDF)
Keywords: Europe, EU, Banking, ICAAP, ILAAP, Stress Testing, Regulatory Capital, Governance, BCBS 239, Basel, ECB
Previous ArticleEBA Guidance on Impact of CRR Quick-Fix on Reporting and Disclosures
Next ArticleEC Proposes to Amend Rules for Financial Benchmarks
APRA issued a letter on the loss-absorbing capacity (LAC) requirements for domestic systemically important banks (D-SIBs) and published a discussion paper, along with the proposed the prudential standards on financial contingency planning (CPS 190) and resolution planning (CPS 900).
The European Commission (EC) launched a call for evidence, until March 18, 2022, as part of a comprehensive review of the macro-prudential rules for the banking sector under the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) and Directive (CRD IV).
The Financial Stability Board (FSB) published a report that sets out good practices for crisis management groups.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) found that Heritage Bank Limited had incorrectly reported capital because of weaknesses in operational risk and compliance frameworks, although the bank did not breach minimum prudential capital ratios at any point and remains well-capitalized.
The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) released the annual report for 2020-2021.
Through a letter addressed to the banking sector entities, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) announced deferral of the domestic implementation of the final Basel III reforms from the first to the second quarter of 2023.
EIOPA recently published a letter in which EC is informing the European Parliament and Council that it could not adopt the set of draft regulatory technical standards for disclosures under the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) within the stipulated three-month period, given their length and technical detail.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published the third in a series of policy statements that set out rules to introduce the UK Investment Firm Prudential Regime (IFPR), which will take effect on January 01, 2022.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) published, along with a summary of its response to the consultation feedback, an information paper that summarizes the finalized capital framework that is in line with the internationally agreed Basel III requirements for banks.
The Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI) and the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) issued a consultative report focusing on access to central counterparty (CCP) clearing and client-position portability.