The Financial Stability Institute (FSI) of Bank for International Settlements (BIS) published a paper that examines the key design features of a climate risk stress test for banks and discusses the challenges that emerge when trying to adapt traditional stress tests to banks' climate-related risks. The paper reviews how the identified challenges have been addressed in practice and concludes with reflections about the possible implications for prudential requirements of addressing climate risk. The identified challenges relate to data availability and reliability, adoption of very long time horizons, uncertainty around future pathways of key reference variables covering physical risks, and uncertainty related to transition risks. The paper concludes that methodological changes are needed to make stress tests better suited for climate risks; it also notes that modeling approaches need to be revised to include a climate risk component and to allow for finer sectoral and geographical breakdowns.
The paper shows how the technical challenges of a climate risk stress test have been addressed in pilot exercises conducted by the Dutch and French authorities in 2018 and 2021, respectively, and in the exercise underway in the UK. These pilots are seen as highly relevant by the authorities and the industry. They are being viewed as a starting point for managing climate-related risks and are expected to be useful in the beginning to identify and assess an increasingly important source of risk. They can also act as a catalyst to further develop modeling techniques that would be better suited to capturing climate risk and to the collection of relevant data. At a minimum, climate stress test exercises, and the ways in which a bank acts on their outcomes, can inform discussions with its supervisor regarding its business model, internal governance, and risk management. However, at this stage the stress tests are considered to be exploratory and preliminary and it is clearly acknowledged that much remains to be improved.
An open issue for all authorities is the nature of their follow-up with the industry, although for now climate stress tests are not expected to trigger new capital requirements. Bank stress tests have traditionally been associated with setting a minimum level of capital for each bank and requirements for remedial action when the hurdle rate is not met. For climate risk-related exercises such a requirement is considered premature given the preliminary nature of the exercises and the high-level of uncertainty attached to their results. For this reason, some authorities prefer to describe their current exercises as “scenario analysis” rather than “stress tests.” Irrespective of the labeling, the predominant view in the official community is that no new capital requirements will be introduced on the basis of the outcomes of these stress tests. The outcome of climate change stress tests may inform other supervisory actions. Public communication by authorities engaging in such exercises indicates that they plan to use the exercises in supervisory reviews and supervisory expectations have been set accordingly. Thus, the climate stress test exercises, and the ways in which they inform banks’ decisions regarding their business models and their day-to-day risk management, can become the basis of supervisory discussions; they can facilitate a smooth transition for the banks to a lower carbon economy. Ultimately, such stress tests also contribute to the safety and soundness of the financial system.
Keywords: International, Banking, Climate Change Risk, Stress Testing, Transition Risk, Physical Risk, ESG, Scenario Analysis, Regulatory Capital, BIS
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published the final draft regulatory technical standards specifying and, where relevant, calibrating the minimum performance-related triggers for simple.
The European Central Bank (ECB) is undertaking the integrated reporting framework (IReF) project to integrate statistical requirements for banks into a standardized reporting framework that would be applicable across the euro area and adopted by authorities in other EU member states.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) has been awarded the top European Standard for its environmental performance under the European Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS).
The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) set out the Financial Services Industry Transformation Map 2025 and, in collaboration with the SGX Group, launched ESGenome.
The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision met, shortly after a gathering of the Group of Central Bank Governors and Heads of Supervision (GHOS), the oversight body of BCBS.
The International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) welcomed the work of the international audit and assurance standard setters—the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB)
The Bank of England (BoE) published a Statistical Notice (2022/18), which informs that due to the Bank Holiday granted for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II’s State Funeral on Monday September 19, 2022.
The French Prudential Control and Resolution Authority (ACPR) announced that the European Banking Authority (EBA) has updated its filing rules and the implementation dates for certain modules of the EBA reporting framework 3.2.
The European Central Bank (ECB) published a paper that examines how credit rating agencies accepted by the Eurosystem, as part of the Eurosystem Credit Assessment Framework (ECAF)
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) announced reduction in the aggregate Committed Liquidity Facility (CLF) for authorized deposit-taking entities to ~USD 33 billion on September 01, 2022.