Featured Product

    Randal Quarles of FED Examines Approaches for Setting CCyB

    March 29, 2019

    While speaking at a meeting in New York, Randal K. Quarles, the Vice Chair of Supervision at FED, outlined the approach of FED for setting the countercyclical capital buffer (CCyB) and discussed how CCyB fits within the broad set of efforts to promote financial stability.

    Mr. Quarles emphasized that FED has developed its CCyB framework outlining the objectives of the tool and the factors that would influence the determination of its appropriate level through a process of public consultation. Under the FED policy, the primary objective for activating CCyB is to build financial-sector resilience during periods when the risks to financial stability have risen to meaningfully above normal levels and there is an elevated possibility of potential losses in the banking sector. A secondary objective for using CCyB is its potential to limit the buildup of financial vulnerabilities by slowing the rate of credit expansion. He added that a notable feature of the FED framework is the decision to maintain a 0% CCyB when vulnerabilities are in the normal range. Since the United States has set high, through-the-cycle capital requirements that provide substantial resilience to normal fluctuations in economic and financial conditions, it is appropriate to set the CCyB at zero in a normal risk environment. Thus, the FED presumption has been that the CCyB would be zero most of the time.

    According to Mr. Quarles, assessing the current state of financial vulnerabilities is a critical part of the decision on whether to activate the CCyB. He explained the FED approach is organized around tracking four broad vulnerabilities—namely, asset valuation pressures, household and business debt, funding risk, and financial-sector leverage. FED also considers a number of quantitative indicators—one of which is the credit-to-GDP (gross domestic product) gap proposed in the Basel Committee guidance—that are indicative of potential vulnerabilities. He then outlined the results of the FED assessment of the four financial system vulnerabilities and concluded that these "strike me as being not outside their normal range, which is consistent with a zero CCyB under the Board's framework and is why I supported the Board's decision to keep the CCyB at zero earlier this month." Next, he discussed the international experience with CCyB and explained that he sees three important explanations for differences in the CCyB across countries:

    • One reason is that the different countries face different vulnerabilities. According to national authorities' announcements, the decisions to activate the buffers were generally motivated by credit growth, household debt, and housing prices; in this regard, it is notable that mortgage credit or house prices have expanded rapidly in several countries deploying the CCyB, including Hong Kong and the Nordic countries that have set their CCyB at 2.5%.
    • The availability of alternative tools, such as caps on loan-to-value ratios, for limiting systemic risk may be among the factors influencing the decision to adjust, or not adjust, the CCyB in a number of countries. For example, policymakers in Canada have not activated the CCyB in response to concerns about housing market risks, but they have lowered the maximum loan-to-value ratio for various mortgage products and capped debt-service-to-income ratios. In this regard, it is notable that the set of macro-prudential tools in the United States is limited relative to that in many other countries.
    • Finally, another difference, one that is particular to the United Kingdom, is the framework adopted by the U.K. Financial Policy Committee (FPC) to integrate the CCyB with its structural capital requirements. Under the FPC framework, the CCyB would equal 1% in standard risk conditions. The buffer can be variedboth up and downin line with the changing risks that the banking system faces over time. This approach is an interesting deviation from the idea in the original Basel discussions and the framework adopted in many other jurisdictions, in which structural capital requirements are set at levels aimed to deliver the desired level of resilience, with the CCyB raised to positive values only at times when vulnerabilities are above normal. In practice, the U.K. framework appears to have provided FPC with additional flexibility, as it has adjusted the CCyB with evolving financial risks associated with, for example, Brexit.

    Mr. Quarles added that systems similar to the United Kingdom's, where the CCyB is positive during normal times, may allow policymakers to react more quickly to economic, financial, or even geopolitical shocks that occur amid otherwise normal conditions, without relying on the slow-moving credit aggregates contemplated in the original Basel proposal. Moreover, this setting of the CCyB permits more gradual adjustments in CCyB, especially during high degree of uncertainty about the level of financial vulnerabilities. The approach of the U.K. to setting the CCyB relies on having a high overall level of capital during normal times, but, by "swapping" some portion of static capital for CCyB in reaching that high capital level during normal times, and thus making some of that capital part of a releasable buffer, U.K. policymakers have built in more flexibility to move buffers down in times of stress. Other countries provide additional "data points" in terms of possible ways of approaching the CCyB. In conclusion, he emphasized that the overall capital framework in the United States has been designed to ensure high capital levels without having to activate the CCyB, with the implication being that the bar for activation would be a high one; however, as a result, much of the time there would not be any buffer to reduce if conditions were to precipitously deteriorate. 

     

    Related Link: Speech

     

    Keywords: Americas, US, Banking, Basel III, CCyB, Systemic Risk, Financial Stability, Regulatory Capital, Macro-Prudential Policy, FED

    Featured Experts
    Related Articles
    News

    BIS Quarterly Review Discusses Developments in Fintech and ESG Space

    BIS published the September issue of the Quarterly Review, which contains special features that analyze the rapid rise in equity funding for financial technology firms, the effectiveness of policy measures in response to pandemic, and the evolution of international banking.

    September 20, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    BCBS to Consult on Supervisory Practices for Climate Risks by Year-End

    The Basel Committee for Banking Supervision (BCBS) met in September 2021 and reviewed climate-related financial risks, discussed impact of digitalization, and welcomed efforts by the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Foundation to develop a common set of sustainability reporting standards

    September 20, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    OCC Identifies Operational Risk Deficiencies in MUFG Union Bank

    The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued a Cease and Desist Order against MUFG Union Bank for deficiencies in technology and operational risk governance.

    September 20, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EC Rule on Contractual Recognition of Write Down and Conversion Powers

    The European Commission (EC) published the Delegated Regulation 2021/1527 with regard to the regulatory technical standards for the contractual recognition of write down and conversion powers.

    September 17, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    ECB to Consider Climate Risks When Reviewing Collateral Framework

    In a response to the questions posed by a member of the European Parliament, the President Christine Lagarde highlighted the commitment of the European Central Bank (ECB) to an ambitious climate-related action plan along with a roadmap, which was published in July 2021.

    September 17, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    SRB Provides Update on Approach to Prior Permissions Regime

    The Single Resolution Board (SRB) published a Communication on the application of regulatory technical standard provisions on prior permission for reducing eligible liabilities instruments as of January 01, 2022.

    September 16, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    APRA Issues Further Guidance on Application of Securitization Standard

    The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) published a new set of frequently asked questions (FAQs) to provide guidance to authorized deposit-taking institutions on the interpretation of APS 120, the prudential standard on securitization.

    September 16, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    ACPR Publishes Corrective Version of RUBA Taxonomy

    The French Prudential Control and Resolution Authority (ACPR) published the corrective version of the RUBA taxonomy Version 1.0.1, which will come into force from the decree of January 31, 2022.

    September 15, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    Nordea Bank and EIB Sign Agreement to Fund Green Projects in Nordics

    The European Commission (EC) announced that Nordea Bank has signed a guarantee agreement with the European Investment Bank (EIB) Group to support the sustainable transformation of businesses in the Nordics.

    September 15, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    APRA Publishes FAQs on Capital Treatment of Overseas Subsidiaries

    The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) published a new set of frequently asked questions (FAQs) to clarify the regulatory capital treatment of investments in the overseas deposit-taking and insurance subsidiaries.

    September 15, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    RESULTS 1 - 10 OF 7487