IOSCO published a statement setting out matters for users of financial benchmarks to consider in selecting an appropriate benchmark and in contingency planning, particularly for scenarios in which a benchmark is no longer available.
The statement sets out matters for users of benchmarks to consider, which fall into two categories. First, there are matters related to assessing the appropriateness of a benchmark, in both its initial selection and ongoing use. Second, there are matters related to contingency planning, such as if the selected benchmark becomes unavailable. In both cases, the statement recognizes user reliance on benchmarks, aims to increase awareness of the risks involved, and encourages their mitigation, where appropriate. The statement recognizes that, in many instances, users of benchmarks may not be able to provide any input to the characteristics of a benchmark or the terms of existing financial instruments which reference them. In cases where a benchmark is used in a contract between a financial firm and a retail client, for example, the retail client is likely to have little ability to change contractual terms. The financial firm is likely to have responsibilities toward that client.
In July 2013, IOSCO had published the Principles for Financial Benchmarks, which addressed conflicts of interest in benchmark-setting processes as well as other matters related to benchmarks. The statement does not supersede existing laws, regulations, guidance, or standards or relevant regulatory or supervisory frameworks in specific jurisdictions, including any IOSCO Principles or undertakings agreed with regulators related to a specific type of benchmark or related action. Rather, the statement is intended to help inform benchmark users and to complement the existing IOSCO Principles.
Related Link: Press Release and Statement (PDF)
Previous ArticleEBA Issued Draft Methodology for 2018 EU-Wide Stress Test
ECB finalized the guide on assessment methodology for the internal model method for calculating exposure to counterparty credit risk (CCR) and the advanced method for own funds requirements for credit valuation adjustment (A-CVA) risk.
APRA is consulting on updates to ARS 210.0, the reporting standard that sets out requirements for provision of information on liquidity and funding of an authorized deposit-taking institution.
FED adopted a proposal to extend for three years, with revision, the capital assessments and stress testing reports (FR Y-14A/Q/M; OMB No. 7100-0341).
PRA published updates in relation to the 2021 Supervisory Benchmarking Portfolio exercise.
HKMA revised the Supervisory Policy Manual module CR-G-14 on margin and other risk mitigation standards for non-centrally cleared over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives transactions.
EBA issued a revised list of validation rules with respect to the implementing technical standards on supervisory reporting.
EBA published its response to the call for advice of EC on ways to strengthen the EU legal framework on anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT).
NGFS published a paper on the overview of environmental risk analysis by financial institutions and an occasional paper on the case studies on environmental risk analysis methodologies.
MAS published the guidelines on individual accountability and conduct at financial institutions.
APRA published final versions of the prudential standard APS 220 on credit quality and the reporting standard ARS 923.2 on repayment deferrals.