Featured Product

    IMF Paper on Sovereign Risk in Macroprudential Solvency Stress Testing

    December 06, 2019

    IMF published a working paper that explains how to assess vulnerability of a bank to sovereign risk in macro-prudential solvency stress testing, based on experiences in the Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP). The paper discusses four aspects of the stress tests: scope of exposures and transmission channels, loss-estimation methods, shock calibration, and calculation of capital impact. IMF presented a flexible, closed-form approach to calibrating market-implied haircuts using the extreme value theory, EVT, to capture the impact of significant shocks to sovereign risk on bank solvency.

    The main FSAP approach for stress testing sovereign risk has been to measure valuation effects on traded government debt caused by changes in expected default rather than actual default during adverse macroeconomic conditions. A sovereign risk shock is calibrated as the market-consistent haircut implied by the estimated decline in the fair value of government bonds (market valuation approach) using their price or yield volatility. This paper advances the existing approach toward a tractable method for the calibration of sovereign risk shocks as tail events. The paper is largely based on the experiences with stress testing of banks in the FSAP of IMF over the past decade. However, the same loss-estimation and calibration approach is, in principle, applicable to not only banks but also other types of financial institutions, such as insurance companies, pension funds, and asset managers.

    The paper concludes that macro-prudential solvency stress tests, such as those in FSAPs, share the following common characteristics in assessing the capital impact of sovereign distress:

    • It is ideal for covering all sovereign exposures in both the trading and banking books, for instance, by following the semi-annual Basel III monitoring exercises of BCBS, including indirect exposures that are either government-guaranteed or collateralized by instruments issued by sovereign entities.
    • The market valuation approach provides a transparent capital assessment of sovereign risk. Applying this approach to all securities, including HtMsecurities, allows the most transparent and comparable assessment across banks and jurisdictions, though the treatment of HtM securities varied across FSAPs. 
    • Capital requirements for unexpected losses from local sovereign exposures are very low due to their status as “safe assets.” Stress tests typically maintain the prevailing capital intensity since the capital impact of revising the risk-weights for sovereign exposures is likely to be very large and policy discussions on reforming the current regulatory treatment are evolving.
    • When stress is already ongoing, the latest market valuation could be even lower than the value reflected insolvency ratio for some exposures. Then, it is more transparent to separate deterioration of solvency ratio due to already materialized stress from additional stress in the adverse scenario.
    • Where there are higher chances of outright sovereign default in economies where a large part of sovereign exposures are loans and guarantees (including state-owned enterprises), a more extensive range of macro-financial spillover effects become more important. Then, focusing on the valuation changes with sovereign securities may become too narrow. A more comprehensive approach, including an effort to embed them in a macro scenario is likely to be essential.

    When calibrating the valuation haircuts for sovereign securities, the IMF approach underscores the importance of accounting for the tail-risk nature of sovereign risk. An integrated sovereign risk assessment for macro-prudential surveillance and financial stability analysis will require additional work. The market valuation approach focuses on the direct impact of sovereign distress on bank solvency but does not consider other transmission channels across sectors and countries. Such feedback effects can be assessed more comprehensively by either interacting sovereign debt sustainability analysis and bank stress tests or estimating the effects in empirical multi-sector models (such as Global Vector Autoregressive, or GVAR, approaches), co-dependence models for both banks and sovereigns, or general equilibrium models with bank and sovereign distress. In addition, the interaction between solvency and liquidity conditions under stress could be explicitly addressed as part of integrated stress testing frameworks that model dynamic and systemic effects from credit, market, and liquidity risks. 

     

    Related LinkWorking Paper

    Keywords: International, Banking, Stress Testing, FSAP, Sovereign Risk, Systemic Risk, Credit Risk, Macro-prudential Stress Test, IMF

    Featured Experts
    Related Articles
    News

    HKMA on Fintech Adoption and Innovation by Banks in Hong Kong

    HKMA announced the publication of a report on fintech adoption and innovation in the banking industry in Hong Kong.

    May 20, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    BIS on Impact of Increasing Use of Cloud Technology on Cyber Risk

    BIS published a working paper that examines the drivers of cyber risk, especially in context of the cloud services.

    May 20, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    ECB Consults on Guide for Managing Climate and Environmental Risks

    ECB launched consultation on a guide specifying how the Banking Supervision expects banks to consider climate-related and environmental risks in their governance and risk management frameworks and when formulating and implementing their business strategy.

    May 20, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    ECB Issues Opinion on Revisions to CRR in Response to COVID Crisis

    ECB published an opinion (CON/2020/16) on amendments to the prudential framework in EU in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

    May 20, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EBA Assesses Interlinkages Between Recovery and Resolution Planning

    EBA published a report that examines the interlinkages between recovery and resolution planning under the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD).

    May 20, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    SRB Publishes Final MREL Policy Under the Banking Package

    SRB published the final Minimum Requirements for Own Funds and Eligible Liabilities (MREL) policy under the Banking Package.

    May 20, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    US Agencies Amend Interim Final Rule on Transition Period for CECL

    US Agencies (FDIC, FED, and OCC) published a final rule that makes technical changes to the March 31, 2020 interim final rule that provides a five-year transition period for the impact of the current expected credit loss (CECL) methodology on regulatory capital.

    May 19, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    ECB Releases Results of March Survey on Credit Terms and Conditions

    ECB published results of the March 2020 survey on credit terms and conditions in euro-denominated securities financing and over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives markets.

    May 19, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    FINMA Adjusts Deadlines for COVID-19 Relief Measures for Banks

    FINMA published guidance (06/2020) on extending or discontinuing various exemptions that were granted due to the COVID-19 crisis.

    May 19, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    SRB Consults on Standardized Data Set for Bank Valuation in Resolution

    SRB launched a consultation on the minimum data needed for valuation of a bank in resolution.

    May 19, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    RESULTS 1 - 10 OF 5203