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 Insights

BCBS Finds Liquidity Risk Management Principles Remain Fit for Purpose

BCBS completed a review of its 2008 Principles for sound liquidity risk management and supervision. The review confirmed that the principles remain fit for purpose.

January 17, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

HKMA Urges Local Banks to Start Working on FRTB Implementation

HKMA announced that it plans to issue a consultation paper on the new market risk standard in the second quarter of 2019.

January 17, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

EBA Finalizes Guidelines for High-Risk Exposures Under CRR

EBA published the final guidelines on the specification of types of exposures to be associated with high risk under the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR). The guidelines are intended to facilitate a higher degree of comparability in terms of the current practices in identifying high-risk exposures.

January 17, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

MAS Guidelines on Risk Mitigation Requirements for OTC Derivatives

MAS published guidelines on risk mitigation requirements for non-centrally cleared over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives contracts.

January 17, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

BoE Publishes the Schedule for Statistical Reporting for 2019

BoE published the updated schedule for statistical reporting for 2019. The reporting institutions use the online statistical data application (OSCA) to submit statistical data to BoE.

January 16, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

PRA Delays Final Direction on Reporting of Private Securitizations

PRA and FCA have delayed the issuance of final direction, including the final template, on reporting of private securitizations, from January 15, 2019 to the end of January 2019.

January 15, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

SNB Updates Forms on Supervisory Reporting for Banks

SNB published Version 1.7 of reporting forms (AUR_U, AUR_UEA, AUR_UES, AURH_U, AUR_K, AUR_KEA, and AURH_K) and the related documentation for supervisory reporting on an individual and consolidated basis.

January 15, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

BCBS Finalizes Market Risk Capital Framework and Work Program for 2019

BCBS published the final framework for market risk capital requirements and its work program for 2019. Also published was an explanatory note to provide a non-technical description of the overall market risk framework, the changes that have been incorporated into in this version of the framework and impact of the framework.

January 14, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

EBA Single Rulebook Q&A: First Update for January 2019

EBA published answers to 13 questions under the Single Rulebook question and answer (Q&A) updates for this week.

January 11, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

PRA Proposes to Amend Supervisory Statement on Credit Risk Mitigation

PRA published the consultation paper CP1/19 that is proposing changes to the supervisory statement (SS17/13) on credit risk mitigation.

January 10, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
RESULTS 1 - 10 OF 2473