EBA published two reports on the consistency of risk-weighted assets (RWAs) across all EU institutions authorized to use internal approaches for the calculation of capital requirements. The reports cover credit risk for high- and low-default portfolios (LDPs and HDPs) as well as market risk. The results confirm previous findings, with the majority of risk-weight variability explained by fundamentals.
Credit Risk Exercise. The credit risk report examines the drivers leading to the observed dispersion across banks' models. Results are broadly in line with previous exercises, with 50% of the difference in variability explained by the proportion of defaulted exposures in the portfolio and the portfolio mix. The remaining could be attributed to differences in collateralization and other institution-specific factors, such as risk strategy and management practices, idiosyncratic portfolio features, modeling assumptions, client structure, and supervisory practices. This confirms previous findings that RWA variability can be explained, to a large extent, by looking at some measurable features of exposures of institutions. The competent authorities performed an assessment of the internal models, which have been identified as outliers in this benchmarking exercise. Their monitoring activities are increasingly noticing issues identified by the EBA benchmarking exercise. The same conclusion holds for institutions' internal validations. This is reassuring and indicates that the increased regulatory and supervisory attention paid to internal models is contributing to the consistency of the RWA of internal models.
Market Risk Exercise. Compared to the previous exercise, the 2018 analysis shows a reduction in the dispersion in the initial market valuation (IMV) and risk measures. The persisting variability in the results mainly stems from different interpretations and heterogeneous market practices adopted by firms. Some of these issues have been addressed and the quality of the data has improved. From a risk-factor perspective, interest rate portfolios exhibit a lower level of dispersion than the other asset classes, which is most likely due to the use of more consistent practices and assumptions that are more homogeneous across the banks when modeling interest rate risk. This finding confirms the conclusions drawn in last year's analysis. In line with the previous exercises, a significant dispersion for all the risk measures is observed. More complex measures such as incremental risk charge (IRC) and all price risk (APR) show a higher level of dispersion. This report has provided input for competent authorities on areas that may require their further investigation, such as IMV variability for some credit spread products. Supervisors should pay attention to the materiality of risk factors not in VaR and, in particular, not encompassed in the IRC models.
EBA conducts the the benchmarking exercises annually. The exercises constitute a fundamental supervisory and convergence tool to address unwarranted inconsistencies and restoe trust in internal models. For credit risk internal models, EBA has followed its roadmap for the implementation of the regulatory review of internal models. The regulatory technical standards (RTS) on the assessment methodology for internal ratings-based approach are a key component of the EBA work to ensure consistency in models outputs and comparability of risk-weighted exposures. EBA guidelines on the definition of default and the estimation of Probability of Default (PD), Loss Given Default (LGD), and the treatment of defaulted assets are other components of this review. The exercises provide a regular supervisory tool based on benchmarks to support competent authorities' assessments of internal models and produce comparisons with EU peers.
- Press Release
- Market Risk Benchmarking Report (PDF)
- Credit Risk Benchmarking Report (PDF)
- RTS on Assessment Methodology
- Guidelines on Estimation of PD, LGD, and Treatment of Defaulted Assets
Keywords: Europe, EU, Banking, Internal Models, 2018 Benchmarking Exercise, Benchmarking, Market Risk, Credit Risk, EBA
Previous ArticleFASB Issues Q&A on Estimating Credit Loss Reserves
FED finalized a rule that updates capital planning requirements to reflect the new framework from 2019 that sorts large banks into categories, with requirements that are tailored to the risks of each category.
ECB published results of the quarterly lending survey conducted on 143 banks in the euro area.
ESAs published the final draft implementing technical standards on reporting of intra-group transactions and risk concentration of financial conglomerates subject to the supplementary supervision in EU.
EBA published the annual report on asset encumbrance of banks in EU.
MAS revised the guidelines that address technology and cyber risks of financial institutions, in an environment of growing use of cloud technologies, application programming interfaces, and rapid software development.
FED updated the reporting form and instructions for the FR Y-9C report on consolidated financial statements for holding companies.
EBA issued a consultation paper on the guidelines on monitoring of the threshold and other procedural aspects of the establishment of intermediate EU parent undertakings, or IPUs, as laid down in the Capital Requirements Directive.
EC published Regulation 2021/25 that addresses amendments related to the financial reporting consequences of replacement of the existing interest rate benchmarks with alternative reference rates.
BIS published a bulletin, or a note, that examines the cyber threat landscape in the context of the pandemic and discusses policies to reduce risks to financial stability.
HM Treasury, also known as HMT, has updated the table containing the list of the equivalence decisions that came into effect in UK at the end of the transition period of its withdrawal from EU.