Featured Product

    FSI Chair Speaks About Proportionality in Regulation and Supervision

    May 08, 2019

    Fernando Restoy, Chairman of the Financial Stability Institute (FSI) of BIS, spoke at the BIS/IMF policy implementation meeting on proportionality in financial regulation and supervision. Drawing from the analytical work at FSI and at other international bodies, he examined the application of proportionality at the global level, along with the associated policy challenges. "In the wake of the post-crisis reforms, applying proportionality begins with a more humble endeavor: knowing your regulated firms in a manner that allows for a sensible tiering of regulation, supervision, and resolution," he concluded.

    Mr. Restoy described the concept of proportionality and outlined the conditions that, he believes, sound proportionality regimes should, ideally, meet. He pointed out that the proportionality strategies used to tailor regulatory requirements vary markedly across jurisdictions, including the criteria used to differentiate institutions, the scope of application, and the methods used to apply proportionality. These differences may reflect a lack of international guidance on how to apply proportionality. Next, he discussed the worldwide application of proportionality in the areas of prudential regulation, supervision, and resolution. All Basel standards are applicable for "internationally active banks"—a term that has "purposely never been defined by the BCBS"—and there is no commitment for prudential authorities to extend their application to other banks operating in their respective jurisdictions. Evidence suggests that the concept of proportionality is most often applied to the market risk framework, the quantitative liquidity standards, the large exposures regime, and the disclosure and reporting obligations. Most adjustments in regulation aim to reduce complexity without necessarily diminishing stringency.

    However, in non-BCBS member jurisdictions—which are under no commitment to adopt Basel standards and where the vast majority of locally incorporated banks are unlikely to be internationally active—the differences in how proportionality is applied are more widespread. A forthcoming FSI paper—based on a survey of 16 BCBS and non-BCBS jurisdictions—indicates that all surveyed authorities apply proportionality, which demands various degrees of supervisory judgment. He added that, to facilitate a proportionate approach in supervision, some authorities rely more on principles-based approaches that emphasize a holistic assessment of a firm. By contrast, others have developed more structured methodologies, which are referred to as "guided discretion." The key takeaway, he adds, is that the use of proportionality in supervision is not a choice; it is an intrinsic part of supervision that allows supervisory resources to be better allocated to firms that pose the greatest risks. Further, it also helps supervisors to better align a bank's risk profile with its financial buffers and the quality of its risk management/governance arrangements. These issues simply should not, and cannot, be dealt with by regulation alone.

    The FSI Chair also discussed the policy challenges associated with the application of proportionality. He added that it is unlikely that all proportionality approaches taken in various jurisdictions could deliver the same outcomes with respect to the objective of ensuring a level playing field while protecting financial stability. In this context, he illustrated the differences in application of this principle to certain aspects of Basel III in U.S. and EU. These vastly different approaches, while well within each jurisdiction's purview, illustrates the need to achieve a common understanding of the pros and cons of the varied proportionality approaches that have been taken or are being considered. "Against this background, consideration could be given to adopting a categorization (or tiering) approach, where banks are grouped into several classes (defined by various criteria); and these categories are used as the basis for differentiating requirements. Indeed, this is the approach followed in countries such as Brazil and Switzerland (Castro Carvalho et al (2017), and it is the one that the United States is planning to adopt soon (US Federal Reserve (2018)). Ideally, the defined categories could be used not only to establish specific prudential rules but also supervisory criteria and resolution planning requirements," advocates Mr. Restoy. 

    He added that, to the extent that less complex rules imply less risk-sensitivity, authorities may consider introducing certain regulatory requirements and supervisory policies to mitigate the potential incentives for firms to take on excessive risks. There could be merit in imposing more stringent regulatory requirements for banks that are subject to simpler obligations, as an explicit trade-off for adopting less risk-sensitive methodologies. One example of such an approach is the currently proposed community bank leverage ratio framework in the United States. He suggests that the ability to apply proportionality in financial regulation and supervision—without pushback from rating agencies, institutional investors, and other market participants—seems to favor the economies that have "exorbitant privilege" in the structure of the global financial system. For economies that do not benefit from this privilege, additional work at the international level to identify good proportionality practices could serve as a reference for the supervisory community. These references may be particularly valuable for emerging market economies, as these economies will need to ensure that their regulatory framework—particularly if it deviates in some respects from Basel standards for small and non-complex institutions—is still perceived internationally as being sufficiently rigorous.

     

    Related Link: Speech

     

    Keywords: International, Banking, Insurance, Basel III, Proportionality, Regulation and Supervision, Resolution Planning, FSI, BIS

    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