General Information & Client Service
  • Americas: +1.212.553.1653
  • Asia: +852.3551.3077
  • China: +86.10.6319.6580
  • EMEA: +44.20.7772.5454
  • Japan: +81.3.5408.4100
Media Relations
  • New York: +1.212.553.0376
  • London: +44.20.7772.5456
  • Hong Kong: +852.3758.1350
  • Tokyo: +813.5408.4110
  • Sydney: +61.2.9270.8141
  • Mexico City: +001.888.779.5833
  • Buenos Aires: +0800.666.3506
  • São Paulo: +0800.891.2518
July 04, 2018

At the Westminster Business Forum in London, the FSI Chairman Fernando Restoy spoke about the application of proportionality in banking regulation. He reviewed the concept, motivation, and the constraints associated with the proportionality principle and compared the different approaches in various jurisdictions, while using some work that has been recently done at the FSI of BIS.

He believes that it may make sense to adjust the regulatory requirements applied to smaller and/or less complex institutions to alleviate the excessive regulatory burden that they would otherwise face. However, the design of such a proportionality regime will need to meet a number of conditions. First, it should not dilute institutions' capacity to absorb losses or face liquidity shocks. A proportionality regime must focus on reducing complexity without undermining the fundamental prudential safeguards to avoid compromising financial stability. Second, the proportionality regime should not overprotect small or medium-size institutions against competitive forces. In particular, proportionality should not generate spurious incentives for banks to remain small or simple if there are competitive forces that promote consolidation, potentially leading to a more efficient banking industry. Technological developments and overcapacity in some jurisdictions are examples of competitive forces that help to shape market structure.

He explained that the results of an FSI study showed the approaches to tailoring regulatory requirements to different classes of institutions vary markedly across jurisdictions. They could be broadly classified into the categorization approach and the specific standard approach. Under the categorization approach, which is followed in Switzerland and Brazil, banks are classified into a few categories according to their size or complexity and a specific set of rules is applied for all banks within each category. Under the specific standard approach, which is being used in EU and to some extent the United States—exceptions are applied to each relevant regulatory obligation (for example: liquidity, market risk, or reporting requirements) for banks meeting specific criteria. The categorization approach is certainly simpler and more transparent. However, the specific standard approach permits a finer adjustment of the requirements to the characteristics of the supervised institutions; it allows exemptions or simpler versions of specific requirements to be adopted only for banks for which the original rules are considered unnecessarily complex from a prudential point of view.

The study also shows that, in most jurisdictions, the proportionality regime affects a variety of regulatory requirements. Within Pillar 1, the standards on market and liquidity risk are the ones most often tailored to specific institutions. Within Pillar 2, proportionality often affects stress testing requirements and procedures for the supervisory review process. Proportionality regimes also typically include simpler reporting and disclosure requirements for small firms. The analysis shows that proportionality does not normally imply reduced minimum capital ratios for smaller or less complex institutions. Yet the application of some simplified approaches to assess the solvency, liquidity, and risk profile of the institutions and the reduced reporting and disclosure requirements may collectively have prudential relevance. The reduced frequency of reporting requirements for small institutions—which is allowed in some jurisdictions and is a subject of discussion in EU—may hamper the ability of supervisors to properly monitor emerging risks.

In view of these prudential considerations, some jurisdictions are considering the possibility of accompanying the application of simplified requirements to some institutions with the introduction of a more demanding coverage of risks. A case in point is the recent legislation passed by the US Congress in which institutions with a balance sheet below USD 10 billion may be exempted from meeting standard minimum risk-based capital ratios if they keep their leverage ratios—whose calculation is simpler—substantially above the ones required under the Basel standards. This combination of simplicity with additional stringency would seem to be a promising formula for the calibration of proportionality regimes and one that might be well worth exploring in other jurisdictions.

 

Related Link: Speech

Keywords: International, Banking, Proportionality, Basel III, Reporting, FSI

Related Articles
News

BCBS Publishes Results of Survey on Proportionality in Bank Regulation

BCBS published a report presenting the results of a survey conducted on proportionality practices in bank regulation and supervision.

March 19, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
News

US Agencies Adopt Interim Rule to Facilitate Transfers of Legacy Swaps

US Agencies (FCA, FDIC, FED, FHFA, and OCC) are adopting and inviting comments on an interim final rule.

March 19, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
News

EBA Single Rulebook Q&A: Third Update for March 2019

EBA published answers to seven questions under the Single Rulebook question and answer (Q&A) updates for this week.

March 15, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
News

OCC Updates Recovery Planning Booklet of the Comptroller's Handbook

OCC updated the Recovery Planning booklet of the Comptroller’s Handbook.

March 15, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
News

EBA Publishes Report on Convergence of Supervisory Practices Across EU

EBA published annual report on the convergence of supervisory practices in EU.

March 14, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
News

CPMI-IOSCO Publish Update to Level 1 Assessment of PFMI Implementation

CPMI and IOSCO jointly updated the Level 1 Assessment Online Tracker on monitoring of the implementation of the Principles for financial market infrastructures (PFMI).

March 14, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
News

Agustín Carstens of BIS Speaks About New Role of Central Banks

While speaking at the 20th anniversary conference of the Financial Stability Institute (FSI), Agustín Carstens, the General Manager of BIS, highlighted the need for regulatory actions in light of the continued evolution of financial technology.

March 14, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
News

ESMA Analyzes Impact of Regtech and Suptech for Markets and Regulators

ESMA published the results of its analysis of the regulatory and supervisory technologies—also known as regtech and suptech—being developed in response to various demand and supply drivers in the financial sector.

March 14, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
News

PRA Publishes Policy Statement on Group Supervision Under Solvency II

PRA published a policy statement (PS9/19) that provides feedback on responses to the consultation paper CP15/18 and the final supervisory statement SS9/15 (Appendix) on group supervision under Solvency II.

March 14, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
News

ECB Announces Start Date for Euro Short-Term Rate

ECB announced that it will start publishing the euro short-term rate (€STR) as of October 02, 2019, reflecting the trading activity of October 01, 2019.

March 14, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
RESULTS 1 - 10 OF 2759