General Information & Client Services
  • 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
News

MAS Amends Notice 637 on Capital Adequacy Requirements in Singapore

MAS published the final, revised Notice 637 on the risk-based capital adequacy requirements in Singapore.

November 13, 2018 WebPage Regulatory News
News

ESMA Updates Q&A on Implementation of CSD Regulation and MAR

ESMA updated questions and answers (Q&A) documents on the implementation of the Central Securities Depository (CSD) Regulation and Market Abuse Regulation (MAR).

November 12, 2018 WebPage Regulatory News
News

FSB Finalizes and Publishes the Cyber Lexicon

FSB published a cyber lexicon, following the public consultation earlier this year.

November 12, 2018 WebPage Regulatory News
News

SRB Updates Liability Data Reporting Template for 2019

SRB published version 2.7.1 of the Liability Data Reporting (LDR) Template.

November 12, 2018 WebPage Regulatory News
News

IMF Publishes Reports on the 2018 Article IV Consultation with Chile

IMF published its staff report and selected issues report under the 2018 Article IV consultation with Chile.

November 09, 2018 WebPage Regulatory News
News

PRA Issues PS27/18 on Implementing the Extension of SM&CR to Insurers

PRA published the policy statement PS27/18, which provides feedback to responses to the consultation paper CP20/18, on implementing the extension of the Senior Managers and Certification Regime (SM&CR) to insurers (Part 2).

November 09, 2018 WebPage Regulatory News
News

EBA Single Rulebook Q&A: First Update for November 2018

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

November 09, 2018 WebPage Regulatory News
News

FED Finalizes the Large Financial Institution Rating System

FED finalized the new supervisory rating system for Large Financial Institutions (LFIs), to better align with the current supervisory programs and practices for these firms.

November 09, 2018 WebPage Regulatory News
News

ECB Publishes Guides for Capital and Liquidity Management by Banks

ECB published the guides for capital and liquidity management by banks in EU.

November 09, 2018 WebPage Regulatory News
News

EC Amends Regulation on Prudent Valuation for Supervisory Reporting

EC published the amended Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1627 on prudent valuation for supervisory reporting. Regulation 2018/1627 amends the Implementing Regulation 680/2014.

November 09, 2018 WebPage Regulatory News
RESULTS 1 - 10 OF 2199