BCBS published a discussion paper on the design of prudential treatment for crypto-asset exposures of banks. The discussion paper sets out some general principles for the design of a prudential treatment of crypto-assets, including an illustrative example of potential capital and liquidity requirements for exposures to high-risk crypto-assets. The comment period on the discussion paper ends on March 13, 2020. If BCBS decide to specify a prudential treatment of crypto-assets, it will issue a consultation paper detailing its proposals and will seek further input from stakeholders.
While certain types of crypto-assets are at times referred to as "crypto-currencies," BCBS is of the view that such assets do not reliably provide the standard functions of money and can be unsafe to rely on as a medium of exchange or store of value. These types of crypto-assets are not legal tender and are not backed by any government or public authority. Therefore, if banks are authorized, and decide, to acquire crypto-assets or provide related services, BCBS is of the view that banks should apply a conservative prudential treatment to such exposures, especially for high-risk crypto-assets. Therefore, BCBS is publishing this discussion paper to seek the views of stakeholders on a range of issues related to the prudential regulatory treatment of crypto-assets, including features and risk characteristics of crypto-assets that should inform the design of a prudential treatment for crypto-asset exposures of banks. The Basel Committee is also seeking views on the general principles and considerations to guide the design of a prudential treatment of bank exposures to crypto-assets.
The illustrative example of potential capital and liquidity requirements for exposures to high-risk crypto-assets covers the banking book and trading book treatment of crypto-asset exposures of banks. It also specifies that crypto-assets would not be eligible to serve as financial collateral for the purpose of the credit risk mitigation framework and they would not be eligible as high-quality liquid assets (HQLA) for the purpose of the Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) and Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR). Additionally, banks would be required to disclose granular information on any material crypto-asset holdings on a quarterly basis, which would include information on the exposure amounts of different direct and indirect crypto-asset exposures, the capital requirement for such exposures, and the accounting treatment of such exposures. In considering how to specify a prudential treatment for crypto-assets, BCBS has been guided by the following general principles:
- Same risk, same activity, same treatment— A crypto-asset and a "traditional" asset that are otherwise equivalent in their economic functions and the risks they pose should not be treated differently for prudential purposes. The prudential framework should not be designed in a way to explicitly advocate or dissuade specific technologies related to crypto-assets, but it should account for any additional risks resulting from the unique features and other factors of crypto-assets relative to traditional assets.
- Simplicity—The design of the prudential treatment of crypto-assets should be simple and flexible in nature. For example, complex internally modeled approaches should not be used to calculate regulatory requirements. Where appropriate, the prudential treatment should build on the existing framework, especially for crypto-assets with equivalent economic functions and risks as other asset classes.
- Minimum standards—Any specified prudential treatment of crypto-assets by BCBS would constitute a minimum standard. Jurisdictions would be free to apply additional and/or more conservative measures if warranted. As such, jurisdictions that currently prohibit their banks from having any exposures to crypto-assets would be deemed compliant with any potential global prudential standard.
The current Basel framework does not specify the prudential treatment for bank exposures to crypto-assets, given their relative novelty. BCBS is of the view that the growth of crypto-assets and related services has the potential to raise financial stability concerns and increase risks faced by banks. Crypto-assets are an immature asset class, given the lack of standardization and constant evolution. Certain crypto-assets have exhibited a high degree of volatility and present risks for banks, including liquidity risk, credit risk, market risk, and operational risk (including fraud and cyber risks), third-party risks, and legal and reputational risks. The responses to this paper will inform the development of a prudential treatment for crypto-assets at large, including for crypto-assets that are issued by regulated financial institutions or that make use of stabilization tools.
Comment Due Date: March 13, 2020
Keywords: International, Banking, Crypto-Assets, Capital Requirements, Fintech, Banking Book, Trading Book, BCBS
BIS published the September issue of the Quarterly Review, which contains special features that analyze the rapid rise in equity funding for financial technology firms, the effectiveness of policy measures in response to pandemic, and the evolution of international banking.
The Basel Committee for Banking Supervision (BCBS) met in September 2021 and reviewed climate-related financial risks, discussed impact of digitalization, and welcomed efforts by the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Foundation to develop a common set of sustainability reporting standards
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued a Cease and Desist Order against MUFG Union Bank for deficiencies in technology and operational risk governance.
The European Commission (EC) published the Delegated Regulation 2021/1527 with regard to the regulatory technical standards for the contractual recognition of write down and conversion powers.
In a response to the questions posed by a member of the European Parliament, the President Christine Lagarde highlighted the commitment of the European Central Bank (ECB) to an ambitious climate-related action plan along with a roadmap, which was published in July 2021.
The Single Resolution Board (SRB) published a Communication on the application of regulatory technical standard provisions on prior permission for reducing eligible liabilities instruments as of January 01, 2022.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) published a new set of frequently asked questions (FAQs) to provide guidance to authorized deposit-taking institutions on the interpretation of APS 120, the prudential standard on securitization.
The French Prudential Control and Resolution Authority (ACPR) published the corrective version of the RUBA taxonomy Version 1.0.1, which will come into force from the decree of January 31, 2022.
The European Commission (EC) announced that Nordea Bank has signed a guarantee agreement with the European Investment Bank (EIB) Group to support the sustainable transformation of businesses in the Nordics.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) published a new set of frequently asked questions (FAQs) to clarify the regulatory capital treatment of investments in the overseas deposit-taking and insurance subsidiaries.