EBA published its first peer review report on the stress tests and the resilience of Deposit Guarantee Schemes. The review, which is mandated under the Deposit Guarantee Schemes Directive or DGSD, was based on the results of the Deposit Guarantee Scheme stress tests and intended to identify good practices and areas for improvement. The report presents the results of an assessment of 135 Deposit Guarantee Scheme stress tests performed by 32 Deposit Guarantee Schemes from 27 member states in EU. In the report, EBA highlighted certain shortcomings and provided early indications on how to improve and enhance the framework.
The DGSD requires member states to ensure that Deposit Guarantee Schemes perform stress tests of their systems. In 2016, EBA issued guidelines on stress tests of Deposit Guarantee Schemes that set out the scope, principle-based requirements, and a list of four "priority tests" that Deposit Guarantee Schemes are required to perform. The DGSD, in turn, requires EBA to use these reports to conduct a peer review of all Deposit Guarantee Schemes across EU, at least every five years. In this exercise, the priority tests covered operational and funding capabilities of Deposit Guarantee Schemes, credit institutions’ single customer view (SCV) files containing depositor information to prepare for a Deposit Guarantee Scheme payout, and cross-border cooperation between Deposit Guarantee Schemes in case of cross-border branches. EBA concluded that such tests have become an established tool to prepare for Deposit Guarantee Scheme interventions.
EBA is of the view that, using the grading system outlined in the guidelines on stress tests of Deposit Guarantee Schemes, the overall resilience of Deposit Guarantee Schemes across the EU is "fair," which is the second best result, after "optimal." This means that the identified shortcomings are isolated and/or can easily be addressed by the Deposit Guarantee Schemes at the point of failure and are unlikely to affect the ability of Deposit Guarantee Schemes to perform their tasks in line with the DGSD. The report also identified good practices that were deployed by a number of Deposit Guarantee Schemes and that can be considered by the other Deposit Guarantee Schemes. EBA also highlighted certain shortcomings and provided early indications on how to improve and enhance the framework. In particular, EBA found that the divergence in the type of exercises performed and in the way outcomes were reported made it difficult for EBA to compare the tests between Deposit Guarantee Schemes, thus hampering the desired consistency. EBA, therefore, provided early indications on how to enhance the comparability for future peer reviews. These early indications will also serve as input for any potential future revision of the EBA guidelines on stress tests of Deposit Guarantee Schemes.
While the peer review performed by EBA is a regular exercise required by the DGSD, it also includes provisions stemming from the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. The report outlines lessons learned from a real-life payout case in one EU member state that coincided with the pandemic. In relation to the COVID‐19 pandemic, the report includes an early indication of how to improve the framework by exploring how to incentivize Deposit Guarantee Schemes to perform special tests that allow them to assess scenarios resulting in severe business continuity problems, such as a pandemic, power outages, or significant operational disruptions.
Keywords: Europe, EU, Banking, DGS, DGSD, Deposit Guarantee Schemes, Peer Review, Resolution Framework, COVID-19, EBA
Leading economist; commercial real estate; performance forecasting, econometric infrastructure; data modeling; credit risk modeling; portfolio assessment; custom commercial real estate analysis; thought leader.
Previous ArticleBCBS Met, Discussed COVID Impact and Finalized CVA Risk Framework
ECB published a decision allowing the euro area banks under its direct supervision to exclude certain central bank exposures from the leverage ratio.
ESAs launched a survey seeking feedback on the presentational aspects of product templates under the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR or Regulation 2019/2088).
ECB published input of the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) into the EBA feasibility report on reducing the reporting burden for banks in EU.
ECB finalized the guide on assessment methodology for the internal model method for calculating exposure to counterparty credit risk (CCR) and the advanced method for own funds requirements for credit valuation adjustment (A-CVA) risk.
EBA published an Opinion addressed to EC to raise awareness about the opportunity to clarify certain issues related to the definition of credit institution in the upcoming review of the Capital Requirements Directive and Regulation (CRD and CRR).
APRA is consulting on updates to ARS 210.0, the reporting standard that sets out requirements for provision of information on liquidity and funding of an authorized deposit-taking institution.
FED released hypothetical scenarios for a second round of stress tests for banks.
FED is proposing to temporarily revise the capital assessments and stress testing reports (FR Y-14A/Q/M) to implement the changes necessary to conduct stressed analysis in connection with the re-submission of capital plans, using data as of June 30, 2020.
FED adopted a proposal to extend for three years, with revision, the information collection under the market risk capital rule (FR 4201; OMB No. 7100-0314).
EBA published a voluntary online survey seeking input from credit institutions on their practices and future plans for Pillar 3 disclosures on the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) risks.