The International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) published a paper that explores the impact of the Fundamental Review of the Trading Book (FRTB) on the trading of carbon certificates. The paper notes that FRTB would result in higher capital charges for carbon trading under the standardized approach to market risk, which could impair the ability of banks to act as intermediaries in the emissions trading system market globally; this is expected to have an adverse effect with respect to a key tool for policymakers to ensure a cost-effective transition to a carbon-neutral economy. The analysis suggests that including the lower risk-weight of 37% and the higher tenor correlation of 0.996 would result in a 60% reduction in capital requirements, based on the simplified example for a typical carry position of a bank.
The ESG Risk and Capital Working Group of ISDA has developed this paper, which also investigates whether a more conservative treatment of carbon credit trading in the FRTB is justified from a risk perspective as ISDA believes it is important the regulatory treatment of assets is justified from a risk perspective. This is particularly important for carbon certificates, as inappropriate levels of capital would impact the functioning of this market and affect the willingness of institutions to invest in the transformation to a green economy. The results of the ISDA analysis suggest that FRTB in its current form unduly penalizes carbon-credit trading. The treatment of carbon certificates, as per FRTB, appears out of sync with the underlying risks in the following two key areas:
- Risk-weight of carbon certificates. The results of the analysis suggest the risk-weight for carbon certificates under the standardized approach to market risk is set too high. Based on the estimated stressed-period volatilities of carbon certificates, ISDA believes a risk-weight of nearly 37% would be more appropriate. This is less than two-third of the 60% risk-weight currently prescribed by FRTB framework. Viewed in isolation (disregarding spillover effects to other parts of the portfolio), this would imply a lower capital charge of close to 40%.
- Penalization of carry positions. For commodities with physical storage costs, fluctuations in such costs imply a carry position is not a perfect hedge. Consequently, FRTB imposes a correlation of 0.99 between spot and forward positions. However, carbon certificates are not typical commodities as there are no physical storage costs. Therefore, a much higher correlation for carbon certificates is appropriate. ISDA recommends setting a tenor correlation parameter (medium correlation scenario) for carbon certificates of 0.995-0.999, reflecting empirical observations. An alternative to updating the tenor correlation parameter could be to extend the exemption for pure stock financing from the simplified standardized approach to the standardized approach. This would result in positions where a physical stock has been sold forward being excluded from the commodities risk calculation, which would function as an exemption for carry positions of carbon emission certificates.
According to the ISDA Chief Executive Officer Scott O'Malia, in its current form, FRTB would lead to disproportionately high capital requirements for carbon certificates, which would constrain banks’ ability to support the global reduction of emissions. Ultimately banks will make their own decisions about the businesses in which they are active. However, if the regulatory framework penalizes them with unduly high capital requirements for the trading of carbon certificates, they will naturally retreat from that market. Policymakers tend to agree that carbon trading will be central to the success of the global drive toward net zero in the years ahead. Basel III must be appropriately calibrated to avoid thwarting progress on climate change.
Keywords: International, Banking, FRTB, Climate Change Risk, Carbon Trading, ESG, Basel, Standardized Approach, Market Risk, Regulatory Capital, Transition Risk, ISDA
Previous ArticleIOSCO Proposes Recommendations on ESG Ratings and Data Providers
The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) published an update on the discussion paper that intended to engage federally regulated financial institutions and other interested stakeholders in a dialog with OSFI, to proactively enhance and align assurance expectations over key regulatory returns.
The European Commission (EC) published a report summarizing responses to the targeted consultation on the supervisory convergence and the single rulebook in the European Union (EU).
The European Central Bank (ECB) published its opinion on a proposal for a regulation on European green bonds, following a request from the European Parliament.
The Advisory Scientific Committee (ASC) of the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) published a report that explores the expected impact of digitalization on provision of financial and banking services, and proposes policy measures to address the risks stemming from digitalization.
The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) is consulting on the draft Financial Institutions (Resolution) Ordinance (Cap. 628), or FIRO, Code of Practice chapter on liquidity and funding in resolution, until March 14, 2022.
The Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority (FI) announced that the capital adequacy reporting as at December 31, 2021 must be done by February 11, 2022.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) announced that the guidelines on the reporting and disclosure of exposures subject to measures COVID-relief measures shall continue to apply until further notice.
The Central Bank of the Philippines (BSP) issued communications covering developments related to online lending platforms, open finance framework and roadmap, and on the expected regulations in the area sustainable finance.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FED) published the final rule that amends Regulation I to reduce the quarterly reporting burden for member banks by automating the application process for adjusting their subscriptions to the Federal Reserve Bank capital stock, except in the context of mergers.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published its assessment of risks through the quarterly Risk Dashboard and the results of the Autumn edition of the Risk Assessment Questionnaire (RAQ).