Featured Product

    APRA to Transition to Annual Stress Testing of Large Banks in 2020

    February 21, 2020

    APRA published key findings of the stress testing assessment conducted on authorized deposit-taking institutions. APRA conducted a qualitative assessment of the internal stress testing capabilities of 28 authorized deposit-taking institutions in 2018-19, with focus on governance, scenario development, and use of stress testing. The assessment identified a number of areas requiring ongoing improvements among authorized deposit-taking institutions. APRA has outlined the identified improvements in a letter to the industry. APRA plans to consult on a prudential practice guide on stress testing in the second half of 2020 and to transition to annual stress testing of large institutions in 2020.

    The assessment covered the most recent enterprise-wide stress tests, or EWSTs, and the most recent internal capital adequacy assessment process (ICAAP) reports of authorized deposit-taking institutions. Participants were split into two peer groups to facilitate more meaningful comparisons. Group 1 constituted larger diversified institutions and Group 2 constituted other participants with total assets ranging from $3 billion to $25 billion. The appendix to the APRA letter to industry lists the participating banks in Group 1 and Group 2. The assessment was informed by the Prudential Standard on Capital Adequacy (APS 110), the Prudential Practice Guide on ICAAP and Supervisory Review (CPG 110), the 2018 BCBS Stress testing principles, regulatory stress tests, and expert judgment. The key findings for the focus areas of this assessment include: 

    • Governance. Most Group 1 institutions had enterprise-wide stress tests frameworks with formalized governance structures, clear roles and accountabilities, and documentation to support most aspects of their stress testing process. Group 2 participants generally did not have specific frameworks for stress testing and instead relied in part on various risk-specific management frameworks and ICAAP documentation. When compared to Group 2, Group 1 entities typically had broader engagement across the organization in their stress testing activities. 
    • Scenario Development. Most Group 1 institutions have structured and integrated scenario development processes that engage stakeholders across the organization. Stress parameters and impacts were generally well-considered, with scenarios typically covering all or most material risks identified by the entity. The process at most Group 2 institutions tended to be less structured and integrated, with the scenarios and stress parameters typically having been designed with less sophisticated considerations. Many participants used previous APRA industry stress test scenarios, either as a substitute for their own internal ICAAP scenarios or as a reference to inform the macroeconomic settings of their own internal scenarios.
    • Use of Stress Testing. Group 1 institutions generally made better use of stress test results and used stress testing in a wider range of decision-making than those in Group 2. Their ICAAP reports included details of the stress tests undertaken and the implications the results had on their main capital management decisions. Group 1 institutions typically used a set of capital adequacy criteria to express their risk appetite and assess their stress test results. The role of stress testing appeared much less prominent in Group 2 institutions, where ICAAP stress testing results were generally only used for the validation of their main internal capital targets. They typically did not have well-defined risk appetites around their capital adequacy. 

    The results of this self-assessment and actions to improve capabilities should be incorporated in subsequent ICAAP reports. The findings of this assessment will inform the further development of the guidance on stress testing. APRA intends to consult with industry in the second half of 2020 on a prudential practice guide on stress testing to promote industry better practice and consistency. To complement the ongoing improvement in stress testing capabilities and application, APRA is moving toward greater frequency and depth of stress testing for these institutions. This includes transitioning in 2020 to annual stress testing of large institutions. APRA also plans to test resilience to broader scenarios, including the impact from operational and climate change financial risks. 


    Related Links

    Keywords: Asia Pacific, Australia, Banking, Stress Testing, ICAAP, APS 110, CPG 110, Enterprise Wide Risk Stress Tests, Operational Risk, Climate Change Risk, BCBS, APRA

    Featured Experts
    Related Articles
    News

    APRA Issues Interim Update to Policy Priorities for 2021 and Beyond

    In a letter addressed to the industry, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) set out an updated schedule of policy priorities for the banking, insurance, and superannuation industries.

    September 24, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EC Adopts Solvency II and Resolution Rules Package for Insurers

    The European Commission (EC) adopted a comprehensive review package of Solvency II rules in the European Union.

    September 22, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    OCC Issues Booklets on Regulatory Reporting and Earnings

    The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued Versions 1.0 of the "Earnings" and "Regulatory Reporting" booklets of the Comptroller's Handbook.

    September 22, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    ECB Sets Out Results of Economy-Wide Climate Stress Tests

    The European Central Bank (ECB) published results of its economy-wide climate stress test, which aimed to assess the resilience of non-financial corporates and euro area banks to climate risks.

    September 22, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EBA Examines Implications of Increasing Use of Digital Platforms in EU

    The European Banking Authority (EBA) published a report on the use of digital platforms in the banking and payments sector in European Union.

    September 21, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    HKMA Issues Updates on Policy Measures Intended to Ease COVID Impact

    The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) published updates on the policy measures that were announced in context of the ongoing pandemic.

    September 21, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    ISDA Responds to BCBS Proposal on Treatment of Cryptoasset Exposures

    The International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA), along with several other associations, submitted a joint response to the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) consultation on preliminary proposals for the prudential treatment of cryptoasset exposures.

    September 21, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    BIS Quarterly Review Discusses Developments in Fintech and ESG Space

    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.

    September 20, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    BCBS to Consult on Supervisory Practices for Climate Risks by Year-End

    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

    September 20, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    OCC Identifies Operational Risk Deficiencies in MUFG Union Bank

    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.

    September 20, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    RESULTS 1 - 10 OF 7494