The Financial Stability Institute (FSI) of BIS published a paper that studies policy options to address regulatory fragmentation in the banking sector. The paper identifies three main sources of this regulatory fragmentation and outlines possible further work in the policy domain. The identified sources of regulatory fragmentation that can lead to different prudential outcomes across jurisdictions are heterogeneous practices in the measurement of assets, differences in the scope of application of Pillar 1 Basel III requirements, and divergent approaches in the implementation of the supervisory review process under Pillar 2. The paper suggests that further guidance on the scope of application of the Basel framework and better clarity on certain features of Pillar 2 can promote more regulatory convergence.
Regulatory divergence, or differences, in how jurisdictions apply Basel III and other global banking standards is a significant source of market fragmentation. Although substantial efforts have been made to ensure full, timely, and consistent implementation of international standards, prudential regimes may still diverge. Under Japan’s presidency of the G20 in 2019, FSB investigated whether regulatory policies and supervisory practices have led to market fragmentation and considered tools to address the issue. This paper leverages the FSB report and identifies specific sources of regulatory divergence in the banking sector. Full, timely, and consistent implementation of the standards, at least to international active banks, is a necessary condition to minimise unwarranted divergence. Yet domestic regulations that are assessed as compliant with Basel standards may still lead to different prudential outcomes across jurisdictions.
The paper highlights that differences in how banks calculate regulatory capital are a key source of regulatory divergence. The valuation of loans drives the reported capital number of banks. Other hard-to-value assets can also affect a bank’s capital figure. As banks are highly leveraged, even small changes in asset values can have a disproportionate effect on capital. Thus, heterogeneous asset valuation practices may materially affect the consistency of bank solvency assessments across jurisdictions, as the regulatory capital figure is the starting point for assessing compliance with Pillars 1 and 2 of the Basel framework. A variety of instruments can be used to address unwarranted regulatory fragmentation. BCBS evaluates the implementation of its standards in all member jurisdictions and has already issued guidance on elements of the prudential regime where significant discrepancies exist.
The paper suggests that additional policy work may be considered in areas where excessive heterogeneity remains, such as those relating to the measurement of nonperforming exposures and other hard-to-value assets that are consequential in the calculation of regulatory capital. To reduce variation resulting from the asset measurement practices that drive the calculation of regulatory capital, the design of consistently applied prudential backstops, particularly for the measurement of nonperforming exposures and Level 2/3 assets can reduce unwarranted variability across jurisdictions. On the second and third sources of discrepancies—that is, differences in the national implementation of some elements of Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 requirements—there is scope to investigate whether all differences are justified on the basis of national specificities or whether additional guidance may mitigate unwarranted regulatory fragmentation. Further guidance on the scope of application of the Basel framework and greater clarity on certain features of Pillar 2 can promote more regulatory convergence.
Keywords: International, Banks, Basel III, Pillar 1, Pillar 2, NPE, Market Fragmentation, Regulatory Capital, BCBS, FSI, BIS
EBA published a report analyzing the impact of the unwind mechanism of the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) for a sample of European banks over a three-year period, from the end of 2016 to the first quarter of 2020.
In response to questions from a member of the European Parliament, the ECB President Christine Lagarde issued a letter clarifying the possibility of amending the AnaCredit Regulation and making targeted longer-term refinancing operations (TLTROs) dependent on the climate-related impact of bank loans.
IASB started the post-implementation review of the classification and measurement requirements in IFRS 9 on financial instruments and added the review as a project to its work plan.
FSB published a report that examines progress in implementing policy measures to enhance the resolvability of systemically important financial institutions.
EBA published a report on the benchmarking of national loan enforcement frameworks across 27 EU member states, in response to the call for advice from EC.
FSB published a letter from its Chair Randal K. Quarles, along with two reports exploring various aspects of the market turmoil resulting from the COVID-19 event.
RBNZ launched a consultation on the details for implementing the final Capital Review decisions announced in December 2019.
The Trustees of the IFRS Foundation, which are responsible for the governance and oversight of IASB, have announced the appointment of Dr. Andreas Barckow as the IASB Chair, effective July 2021.
HKMA issued a letter to consult the banking industry on a full set of proposed draft amendments to the Banking (Capital) Rules for implementing the Basel standard on capital requirements for banks’ equity investments in funds in Hong Kong.
ESRB published an opinion assessing the decision of Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority (FSA) to extend the application period of a stricter measure for residential mortgage lending, in accordance with Article 458 of the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR).