ESRB published a report that examines the concerns about procyclicality from the expected credit loss (ECL) model in IFRS 9, including the possible sources of procyclicality and its relevance from a financial stability perspective. The report also incorporates the recent information on the implementation of IFRS 9 by EU banks.
Given the limited experience with IFRS 9 to date, this report focuses on describing the aspects of the ECL model under IFRS 9 that could potentially contribute to procyclical bank behavior, along with the conditions under which such behavior would be more likely to arise. The report is focused on the impact at the onset of a downturn because it is a crucial time for the exacerbation of the depth and duration of a financial crisis. The report concludes that a substantial degree of uncertainty exists about the cyclical behavior of the ECL model in IFRS 9 and its impact on bank behavior. Stress tests and targeted and harmonized disclosures are effective tools to improve the understanding of this cyclical behavior. So far, experience of IFRS 9 is limited but points to the following three factors that are important in shaping the cyclical behavior of ECL approach in IFRS 9 and, therefore, may warrant closer monitoring and review going forward:
- The principles-based nature of IFRS 9, with particular reference to the conditions and criteria that trigger the transfer of exposures from stage 1 (12 month expectation) to stage 2 (lifetime expectation) and further into stage 3, which, in turn, could facilitate a delay in loss recognition.
- The ability of, and incentives for, banks to promptly incorporate into their ECL models all new information available on the expected trend of the economic cycle and to recognize losses in a timely manner under IFRS 9 (if recognition of credit losses is delayed because of inadequate modeling or improper incentives).
- The use of point-in-time (PIT) estimates for expected credit losses should generate more volatile outcomes than through-the-cycle estimates, although that volatility should not be judged as negative per se and becomes less relevant if a bank has anticipated the downturn.
The report also concludes that the policy analysis should focus on how the requirements of IFRS 9 are being applied and whether banks have appropriate incentives to recognize credit losses in a timely manner. As IFRS 9 has only been applied since January 01 2018 and in a period of benign macroeconomic conditions, it is still too early to say whether IFRS 9 poses a real risk to financial stability and, therefore, requires prompt regulatory intervention. However, early evidence points to issues that regulators and supervisors may want to monitor closely going forward. These issues, which relate to the quality of foresight in banks’ ECL models, concern lack of information (for example, due to insufficient data or inherent behavioral biases to overweight more recent conditions or not consider tail events) and perverse incentives (that is, management incentives to avoid excessive volatility or adverse market perceptions rather than to build sufficient foresight into ECL estimates). The development of best practices or enhanced guidelines could make a positive contribution to ensuring that the financial stability benefits of IFRS 9 are reaped.
Related Link: Report (PDF)
Keywords: Europe, EU, Accounting, Banking, Procyclicality, ECL, IFRS 9, Credit Risk, Financial Stability, ESRB
EIOPA submitted—to the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, and EC—its 2020, fifth, and last annual report on long-term guarantee measures and measures on equity risk.
The BIS Innovation Hub Swiss Centre, SNB, and the financial infrastructure operator SIX announced the successful completion of a joint proof-of-concept (PoC) experiment as part of the Project Helvetia.
EBA published the final draft regulatory technical standards for calculation of own funds requirements for market risk, under the standardized and internal model approaches of the Fundamental Review of the Trading Book (FRTB) framework.
EIOPA published discussion paper on a methodology for the potential inclusion of climate change in the Solvency II (sometimes also written as SII) standard formula when calculating natural catastrophe underwriting risk.
EU published, in the Official Journal of the European Union, corrigenda to the Directive and the Regulation on the prudential requirements and supervision of investment firms.
MAS proposed amendments to certain regulations, notices, and guidelines arising from the Banking (Amendment) Act 2020.
PRA published a statement that explains when to expect further information on the PRA approach to transposing the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD5), including its approach to revisions to the definition of capital for Pillar 2A.
RBNZ launched consultations on the scope of the Insurance Prudential Supervision Act (IPSA) 2010 and on the associated Insurance Solvency Standards.
SRB published the work program for 2021-2023, setting out a roadmap to further operationalize the Single Resolution Fund and to achieve robust resolvability of banks under its remit over the next three years.
EIOPA is consulting on the relevant ratios to be mandatorily disclosed by insurers and reinsurers falling within the scope of the Non-Financial Reporting Directive as well as on the methodologies to build these ratios.