FSI published a brief note that describes how regulatory distribution constraints operate under Basel III and discusses how that standard has been applied in some jurisdictions. The note takes stock of recent supervisory actions aimed at capital conservation and discusses how they differ across a sample of 14 jurisdictions. The note highlights that most authorities have undertaken initiatives in relation to banks’ distribution policies but practices across jurisdictions diverge markedly regarding scope and stringency.
Many authorities have restricted capital distribution by banks in their jurisdictions. However, not all important financial centers have issued concrete public guidance regarding this. Moreover, among those that have taken public action, the scope, severity, and duration of the measures differ, making the conservation measures somewhat incomparable across countries. These differing dimensions include the following aspects:
- Measures differ in their scope. Some jurisdictions have undertaken initiatives that capture all types of distribution, including dividends, share buybacks, and bonuses. Others apply different regimes to dividends and share buybacks. Most jurisdictions have not restricted bonuses.
- The degree to which authorities restrict distributions differs. In some jurisdictions no distributions at all will be paid in 2020, while in others authorities have issued high-level recommendations not to increase distributions.
- Authorities’ measures differ in terms of the period of time for which they will apply. Some authorities have specified a fixed period, even if only tentatively, while others have taken more open-ended measures that apply until they are alleviated or removed. Moreover, the fixed periods of application differ in length, with the minimum extending until mid-2020. UK is the only jurisdiction in which restrictions apply retroactively by cancelling outstanding 2019 dividends, albeit with regard to only the seven largest systemically important UK banks.
- Given the extreme market sensitivity, some authorities may have preferred to make specific and targeted recommendations to the institutions as part of their regular supervisory dialog rather than to publicly issue general restrictions.
The note emphasizes that regulatory actions in the current circumstances need to focus on preserving banks’ lending activity without jeopardizing their solvency. This means that flexibility in capital requirements, including through the use of regulatory buffers, and capital conservation should go hand in hand. Basel III provides for automatic distribution constraints when capital falls below specific thresholds. In the current context, this may disincentivize firms from following authorities’ recommendations to use capital buffers. The note concludes that blanket distribution restrictions imposed through supervisory action may help address these disincentives to the extent that they are not linked to firms’ individual capital positions and thus remove any possible stigma effect.
Related Link: Brief on Dividend Distribution
Keywords: International, Banking, COVID-19, Basel III, Dividend Distribution, Regulatory Capital, Capital Buffers, FSI
Previous ArticleEBA Updates Calculation Tool for Liquidity Coverage Ratio of Banks
BIS Innovation Hub published the work program for 2021, with focus on suptech and regtech, next-generation financial market infrastructure, central bank digital currencies, open finance, green finance, and cyber security.
In an article published by SRB, Mairead McGuinness, the European Commissioner for Financial Services, Financial Stability, and Capital Markets Union, discussed the progress and next steps toward completion of the Banking Union.
EBA finalized the two sets of draft regulatory technical standards on the identification of material risk-takers and on the classes of instruments used for remuneration under the Investment Firms Directive (IFD).
EC published, in the Official Journal of the European Union, a notification that the European Court of Auditors (ECA) has published a special report on resolution planning in the Single Resolution Mechanism.
BoE published a scenario against which it will be stress testing banks in 2021, in addition to setting out the key elements of the 2021 stress test, guidance on the 2021 stress test, and the variable paths for the 2021 stress test.
PRA published a consultation paper (CP3/21) proposes rules regarding the timing of identity verification required for eligibility of depositor protection under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS).
FSB published the work program for 2021, which reflects a strategic shift in priorities in the COVID-19 environment.
FCA announced that 50% firms have started using the new data collection platform RegData, which is slated to replace the existing platform known Gabriel.
Bundesbank published Version 5.0 of the derivation rules for completeness check at the form level, with respect to the data quality of the European harmonized reporting system.
FED finalized a rule that updates capital planning requirements to reflect the new framework from 2019 that sorts large banks into categories, with requirements that are tailored to the risks of each category.