HKMA published a circular that provides guidance to authorized institutions about the prudential issues recently addressed in the set of frequently asked questions (FAQs) published by BCBS with respect to the recent developments on benchmark rate reforms. These issues cover the definition of capital, market risk, counterparty credit risk, liquidity risk, and operational risk. BCBS published the recent set of FAQs on June 05, 2020.
The following are the key highlights of the guidance provided by HKMA:
- Regarding the question on whether amendments to the contractual terms of capital instruments would potentially trigger a reassessment of their eligibility as regulatory capital, HKMA adopts an approach that is in line with the BCBS clarification. Where a capital instrument is amended solely for the purpose of implementing benchmark rate reforms, this will not result in the instrument being assessed anew on whether it meets the minimum maturity and call date requirements under Schedules 4B and 4C of the Banking (Capital) Rules (BCR).
- HKMA allows authorized institutions, in conducting the real price observation test for a new benchmark rate, to count real price observations of the old benchmark rate from before its discontinuation as well as those of the new benchmark rate, until one year after the discontinuation of the old benchmark rate.
- With respect to the calculation of expected shortfall in the revised market risk framework, in line with the clarification by BCBS, if the new benchmark rate is eligible for modeling but was not available during the stressed period, HKMA allows authorized institutions to use, for the current period, the new benchmark rate in the full set of risk factors and in the reduced set of risk factors. For the stressed period, HKMA allows the institutions to use the old benchmark rate in the reduced set of risk factors.
- For purposes of sections 226BZE(4), (5), and (6) under the SA-CCR approach of the future version of the BCR and sections 226M(3), (6), and (7) under the IMM(CCR) approach of the current and future versions of the BCR, authorized institutions may, during the one-year period starting from the date of discontinuation of an old benchmark rate, disregard any transitional illiquidity of collateral and OTC derivative transactions that reference the relevant new benchmark rate when determining whether the collateral is illiquid collateral and whether the OTC derivative transactions cannot be easily replaced.
- When a type of instrument that references an old benchmark rate and has historically qualified as high quality liquid assets (HQLA) under the Liquidity Coverage Ratio is being replaced with an equivalent type of instrument that references a new benchmark rate, an authorized institution could take into account anticipated increases in the market liquidity of the replacement instrument when determining whether it qualifies as HQLA.
- With respect to the revised operational risk framework, the BCBS FAQs provide a few clarifications related to the reform of benchmark reference rates and other technical issues, which the HKMA intends to adopt when implementing the framework locally.
Keywords: Asia Pacific, Hong Kong, Banking, Basel, Benchmark Reforms, Market Risk, Credit Risk, Operational Risk, Liquidity Risk, Regulatory Capital, FAQ, BCBS, HKMA
Previous ArticleESRB Publishes Annual Report for 2019
The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) published the final policy statement PS21/21 on the leverage ratio framework in the UK. PS21/21, which sets out the final policy of both the Financial Policy Committee (FPC) and PRA
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) proposed to amend Regulation B to implement changes to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) under Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act.
The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) decided to maintain, at the 2019 levels, the buffer rates for the Other Systemically Important Institutions (O-SII) for another year, with no new rates to be set until December 2023.
The Financial Stability Board (FSB) published a progress report on implementation of its high-level recommendations for the regulation, supervision, and oversight of global stablecoin arrangements.
In a letter to the authorized deposit taking institutions, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) announced an increase in the minimum interest rate buffer it expects banks to use when assessing the serviceability of home loan applications.
The Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI) and the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) are consulting on the preliminary guidance that clarifies that stablecoin arrangements should observe international standards for payment, clearing, and settlement systems.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) and the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) have set out their respective work priorities for 2022.
The Malta Financial Services Authority (MFSA) updated the guidelines on supervisory reporting requirements under the reporting framework 3.0, in addition to the reporting module on leverage under the common reporting (COREP) framework.
The European Commission (EC) published the Implementing Decision 2021/1753 on the equivalence of supervisory and regulatory requirements of certain third countries and territories for the purposes of the treatment of exposures, in accordance with the Capital Requirements Regulation or CRR (575/2013).
EC published the Implementing Regulation 2021/1751, which lays down implementing technical standards on uniform formats and templates for notification of determination of the impracticability of including contractual recognition of write-down and conversion powers.