EBA published two annual reports that assess 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 market risk and credit risk for high- and low-default portfolios (LDPs and HDPs). The results of the 2019 benchmarking exercise confirm that the majority of risk-weight variability can be explained by fundamentals.
The credit risk report examines the different drivers leading to the observed dispersion across banks' models. The results are broadly in line with the previous exercises, with 50% of the difference in variability explained with simple risk drivers, a risk-weighted deviation on low-default portfolios below 10 percentage points and estimates for high-default portfolios generally on the conservative side when compared with empirical observed metrics. Furthermore, this year, for the first time, on high-default portfolios, EBA performed a comparison with the standardized approach risk-weights. The overall observed variability under the standardized approach is at a similar level than the one observed on internal rating-based (IRB) approach. Within a single exposure class, the variability under the IRB approach follows, in a conservative manner, the empirical variability of risk (observed via default rates). In addition to a questionnaire filled in by supervisors and interviews conducted with seven institutions, a survey was conducted among institutions to better assess the variability of practices in terms of rating scales. This survey highlights the variability of practices on the type of calibration of the probability of default.
The market risk report presents the results of the 2019 supervisory benchmarking and summarizes the conclusions drawn from a hypothetical portfolio exercise conducted by EBA during 2018-19. Compared to the previous exercises, the 2019 analysis shows a substantial reduction in terms of dispersion in the initial market valuation and some reduction in risk measures, especially for the aggregated portfolios. This improvement was expected and is likely due to the simplification in the market risk benchmarking instruments. The remaining dispersion is probably the result of new benchmarking instruments being used by banks for the first time. The quantitative analysis, which has been extended in terms of scope with respect to the previous exercises, was also complemented by a questionnaire to competent authorities. Although the majority of the causes were identified and actions were put in place to reduce the unwanted variability of the hypothetical RWAs, the effectiveness of these actions can be evaluated only with ongoing analysis. The 2019 exercise is the first exercise with the new set of hypothetical instruments and portfolios. The new set of instruments mainly consists of vanilla instruments and is more extensive in terms of the number of instruments to model with respect to the three previous benchmarking exercises.
- Press Release
- Results of Credit Risk Benchmarking (PDF)
- Annex: Charts from Credit Risk Benchmarking (PDF)
- Results of Market Risk Benchmarking (PDF)
Keywords: Europe, EU, Banking, Credit Risk, Market Risk, Benchmarking, Internal Models, 2019 Benchmarking Exercise, Regulatory Capital, EBA
Previous ArticleUS Agencies Find Risk Associated with Leveraged Lending to be High
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published its annual report on convergence of supervisory practices for 2021. Additionally, following a request from the European Commission (EC),
The European Commission (EC) has issued two letters mandating the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) to jointly propose amendments to the regulatory technical standards under Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation or SFDR.
The European Commission (EC) published a public consultation on the review of revised payment services directive (PSD2) and open finance.
The Farm Credit Administration published, in the Federal Register, the final rule on implementation of the Current Expected Credit Losses (CECL) methodology for allowances
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) looks set to intensify focus on crypto-assets and cyber risk and extended the comment period on the proposed rules to enhance and standardize climate-related disclosures for investors.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) announced reduction in the aggregate Committed Liquidity Facility and issued an update on the operational preparedness for zero and negative market interest rates.
The European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) published a feedback statement on the responses received to the consultation on blockchain and smart contracts in insurance.
The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) announced that the applicable jurisdictional countercyclical capital buffer (CCyB) ratio for Hong Kong remains unchanged at 1.0%
The Commission for the Financial Market (CMF) in Chile published capital adequacy ratios (as of February 2022, January 2022, and December 2021) for 17 banks and for the banking system.
The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) issued a statement on the European Banking Authority (EBA) guidelines on management of non-performing exposures (NPEs) and forborne exposures.