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
The European Commission (EC) published a report summarizing responses to the targeted consultation on the supervisory convergence and the single rulebook in the European Union (EU).
The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) published an update on the discussion paper that intended to engage federally regulated financial institutions and other interested stakeholders in a dialog with OSFI, to proactively enhance and align assurance expectations over key regulatory returns.
The European Central Bank (ECB) published its opinion on a proposal for a regulation on European green bonds, following a request from the European Parliament.
The Advisory Scientific Committee (ASC) of the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) published a report that explores the expected impact of digitalization on provision of financial and banking services, and proposes policy measures to address the risks stemming from digitalization.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) announced that the guidelines on the reporting and disclosure of exposures subject to measures COVID-relief measures shall continue to apply until further notice.
The Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority (FI) announced that the capital adequacy reporting as at December 31, 2021 must be done by February 11, 2022.
The Central Bank of the Philippines (BSP) issued communications covering developments related to online lending platforms, open finance framework and roadmap, and on the expected regulations in the area sustainable finance.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FED) published the final rule that amends Regulation I to reduce the quarterly reporting burden for member banks by automating the application process for adjusting their subscriptions to the Federal Reserve Bank capital stock, except in the context of mergers.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published its assessment of risks through the quarterly Risk Dashboard and the results of the Autumn edition of the Risk Assessment Questionnaire (RAQ).
The Malta Financial Services Authority (MFSA) updated the guidelines on supervisory reporting requirements under the reporting framework 3.0.