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
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.
EBA published an Opinion addressed to EC to raise awareness about the opportunity to clarify certain issues related to the definition of credit institution in the upcoming review of the Capital Requirements Directive and Regulation (CRD and CRR).
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 released hypothetical scenarios for a second round of stress tests for banks.
PRA published updates in relation to the 2021 Supervisory Benchmarking Portfolio exercise.
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).
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.