BoE published an article that discusses the range of methods that banks use to allocate equity capital to their business lines, drawing on reviews conducted by PRA. The article complements a previous Quarterly Bulletin article that describes Fund Transfer Pricing (FTP) practices of banks. It also examines the potential implications of capital allocation methods for banks and prudential regulation.
The article discusses the capital allocation practices observed in a sample of banks reviewed by PRA. In general, risk‑weighted assets (RWAs) are the primary basis of the allocation process. Some banks go further, employing more complex methodologies with a blend of different regulatory capital metrics. An example of this is the inclusion of the leverage ratio requirement—a non-risk-adjusted metric—in the allocation process. Where relevant, banks also take into account the capital buffer for global systemically important banks (G‑SIBs) and the impact of severe stress scenarios on their equity capital.
PRA reviews show that there are significant variations in the allocation practices used by banks. It is important for banks to understand the limitations of their practices and the implications of different approaches for their business decisions, strategy, and incentives within their organizations. Banks should carefully consider the most appropriate approach for their circumstances and continue to keep this under review. From a regulatory perspective, different approaches used by banks may have implications for the effectiveness and impact of micro- and macro-prudential policies. For example, some banks allocate capital to business lines proportionate to the individual contributions of those lines to the group’s overall stress losses. This could generate stronger incentives for business lines to take actions to mitigate losses in future periods of stress. The findings in this article suggest that further research by the academic community may be beneficial—both to guide banks as they further refine their practices and understand the associated incentive effects as well as to help policymakers understand their significance in aggregate terms.
Keywords: Europe, UK, Banking, Regulatory Capital, RWA, Internal Capital Allocation, BoE
Next ArticleEBA Single Rulebook Q&A: Third Update for June 2018
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.
PRA published updates in relation to the 2021 Supervisory Benchmarking Portfolio exercise.
FED adopted a proposal to extend for three years, with revision, the capital assessments and stress testing reports (FR Y-14A/Q/M; OMB No. 7100-0341).
HKMA revised the Supervisory Policy Manual module CR-G-14 on margin and other risk mitigation standards for non-centrally cleared over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives transactions.
EBA issued a revised list of validation rules with respect to the implementing technical standards on supervisory reporting.
EBA published its response to the call for advice of EC on ways to strengthen the EU legal framework on anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT).
NGFS published a paper on the overview of environmental risk analysis by financial institutions and an occasional paper on the case studies on environmental risk analysis methodologies.