ESRB published a report that examines the financial stability implications of differences between the expected credit loss approaches of EU and U.S. The report emphasizes that the extent to which the EU's expected credit loss (ECL) and the United States' current expected credit loss (CECL) models can anticipate a downturn is crucial for achieving their intended objectives. The report discusses the different features of the two standards and their intended and unintended consequences, along with the different business models and banking structures in Europe and in the United States.
The report argues that the ECL approach in IFRS 9 more accurately reflects the evolution of credit risk, as it follows the evolution of credit risk over time (with the importance attached to the concept of “significant increase in credit risk”) and limits the “double-counting” of expected credit losses at the initial recognition of a loan, which are already reflected in the interest rate applied (under the assumption that the price for credit risk is adequately set). However, the three-stage approach and the related requirements may introduce a certain degree of complexity in its practical application. CECL approach of the U.S., on the other hand, requires lifetime estimations of credit losses throughout the life of a loan and could be found to favor the practical implementation by reporting entities, even if it disregards the economic link between the pricing of a loan and its credit quality.
Furthermore, in terms of cyclical behavior, the existing limited academic studies show that the CECL approach may lead to higher impairment charges in normal times, while the ECL approach would have a larger impact at the onset of the crisis. Overall, the report concludes that the extent to which the differences between ECL and CECL approaches can impact financial stability by inducing changes in lending conditions is unknown at present.
Related Link: Report (PDF)
Keywords: Europe, EU, US, Banking, CECL, ECL, IFRS 9, Financial Stability, ESRB
BIS published a paper that provides an overview on the use of big data and machine learning in the central bank community.
APRA finalized the reporting standard ARS 115.0 on capital adequacy with respect to the standardized measurement approach to operational risk for authorized deposit-taking institutions in Australia.
ECB published a guide that outlines the principles and methods for calculating the penalties for regulatory breaches of prudential requirements by banks.
MAS and The Association of Banks in Singapore (ABS) jointly issued a paper that sets out good practices for the management of operational and other risks stemming from new work arrangements adopted by financial institutions amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
ACPR announced that a new data collection application, called DLPP (Datalake for Prudential), for collecting banking and insurance prudential data will go into production on April 12, 2021.
BCB announced that the Financial Stability Committee decided to maintain the countercyclical capital buffer (CCyB) for Brazil at 0%, at least until the end of 2021.
EIOPA has launched a European-wide comparative study on non-life underwriting risk in internal models, also kicking-off of the data collection phase.
SRB published an overview of the resolution tools available in the Banking Union and their impact on a bank’s ability to maintain continuity of access to financial market infrastructure services in resolution.
EBA is consulting on the implementing technical standards for Pillar 3 disclosures on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) risks, as set out in requirements under Article 449a of the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR).
ESAs Issue Advice on KPIs on Sustainability for Nonfinancial Reporting