BCBS published a report presenting the results of a survey conducted on proportionality practices in bank regulation and supervision. The Basel Committee conducted this survey among its members and those of the Basel Consultative Group (BCG), in an effort to take stock of the proportionality measures in place across jurisdictions.
The following are the key findings of the survey:
- The majority of respondents to the survey apply proportionality measures in their jurisdictions. In most cases, such measures are applied to banks that represent a relatively small share of total banking assets in the relevant jurisdiction, although there is a fair degree of heterogeneity.
- Jurisdictions rely on a number of determinants in identifying proportionality thresholds/segments. These include a wide number of balance sheet metrics and differentiation by bank business models. In most cases, these indicators are coupled with supervisory judgment when determining the scope of banks subject to different requirements.
- Most jurisdictions apply some form of proportionality related to capital and liquidity requirements. These generally take the form of a modified/simpler version of the existing Basel standards, particularly for the more complex risk categories, or an exemption from such requirements for certain banks.
- Jurisdictions similarly apply proportionate reporting and disclosure requirements, with some banks subject to less onerous requirements and submission frequencies.
- Most jurisdictions also apply a proportionate approach to their supervisory practices, including the intensity of on- and off-site examinations, requirements related to risk management controls and governance, and supervisory stress tests.
The majority of the respondents indicated that they have future plans related to proportionality, while just under half of BCG respondents indicated likewise. These include plans to review the existing proportionality regimes, including the scope for developing simpler approaches for capital and liquidity requirements, reducing reporting and disclosure requirements, and reviewing the scope of banks subject to proportionality measures, and the associated threshold determinants. Some jurisdictions noted that they plan to apply a proportionate approach to supervision. A few jurisdictions that do not apply proportionality measures indicated that they plan to consider introducing a proportionality regime in the future.
Keywords: International, Banking, Basel III, Proportionality, Banking Supervision, Banking Regulation, BCBS
Previous ArticleAPRA Amends Prudential Standards in Line with CPS 320 and GPS 340
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.
MAS published the guidelines on individual accountability and conduct at financial institutions.
APRA published final versions of the prudential standard APS 220 on credit quality and the reporting standard ARS 923.2 on repayment deferrals.
SRB published two articles, with one article discussing the framework in place to safeguard financial stability amid crisis and the other article outlining the path to a harmonized and predictable liquidation regime.
FSB hosted a virtual workshop as part of the consultation process for its evaluation of the too-big-to-fail reforms.
ECB updated the list of supervised entities in EU, with the number of significant supervised entities being 115.
OSFI published the key findings of a study on third-party risk management.
FSB is extending the implementation timeline, by one year, for the minimum haircut standards for non-centrally cleared securities financing transactions or SFTs.