OSFI published the findings of a confidential consultation with the Chief Executive Officers, Chief Financial Officers, and other senior executives of deposit-taking institutions, with the intention to monitor the effectiveness of OSFI in discharging the key elements of its mandate. OSFI had commissioned Sage Research Corporation, an independent research firm, to conduct this consultation. The results reveal that OSFI is effective in ensuring soundness of the deposit-taking sector in Canada, though participants expressed concerns and highlighted the need for certain improvements. The concerns mainly relate to the early adoption of certain international banking standards, the OSFI approach to proportionality, and the issues with regard to implementation of IFRS 9.
The primary purpose of the research was to explore perceptions of the OSFI as the regulator and supervisor of federally regulated deposit-taking institutions. The objectives of the research included assessment of the OSFI guidance to the industry, its supervisory activities, and its approvals process for regulatory approval applications. The consultation comprised a series of confidential interviews with executives representing a cross-section of the deposit-taking institutions regulated by OSFI. Although OSFI is perceived to be effective in the overall discharge of its mandate, the study did reveal some areas for improvement. OSFI appreciates the feedback provided through this consultation and has developed action plans to address areas identified for improvement. The key findings included the following:
- In addition to prioritizing the cyber or emerging technologies and the unregulated financial sector, the more common suggestions included continued focus on enhancing the consideration of deposit-taking financial institutions' nature, size, complexity, and risk profile in guidance and supervision and more consideration to the negative impact of early adoption of international standards, particularly on competitiveness.
- Concerns have been expressed with respect to early adoption of standards that can adversely affect international competitiveness. Going forward, concern was about the early adoption of the Basel III output floor standard, the Fundamental Review of the Trading Book (FRTB), and the Standardized Approach for Measuring Counterparty Credit Risk (SA-CCR). Some said guidance, particularly related to liquidity requirements, sometimes favors domestic systemically important banks (D-SIBs), making it difficult for smaller institutions to compete.
- Some deposit-taking institutions that offer specialized or non-traditional services said OSFI does not sufficiently adjust supervision to their business model or take into account the lower risk profile of their type of business.
- Reporting and compliance requirements are perceived by some to be onerous and disproportionate given the risk profiles and the limited resources at smaller deposit-taking institutions.
- Some D-SIBs used this discussion to voice concerns about the implementation of IFRS 9 on financial instruments. Some believed that OSFI gave different direction to different D-SIBs, resulting in differences in implementation and outcomes. A few attributed this in part to inadequate IFRS 9 subject-matter expertise at OSFI.
- A few expressed a concern that given the different outputs resulting from variability in models and processes across D-SIBs, OSFI will now, after the fact, try to enforce uniformity among the D-SIBs without consideration of the nuances of the operations and approaches of the different D-SIBs.
Keywords: Americas, Canada, Banking, SA-CCR, IFRS 9, Basel III, D-SIBs, Liquidity Requirements, OSFI
Previous ArticleFED Adopts Proposal to Implement Reporting Form for SCCL
FCA and PRA in the UK, FED in the US, and the authorities in Singapore have fined Goldman Sachs for risk management failures in connection with the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB).
BCBS announced that OSFI and the Bank of Canada hosted the 21st International Conference of Banking Supervisors (ICBS) virtually on October 19-22, 2020.
FCA proposed guidance on how firms should continue to seek to help customers who hold insurance and premium finance products and may be in financial difficulty because of COVID-19, after October 31, 2020.
EBA issued an opinion on prudential treatment of the legacy instruments as the grandfathering period nears an end on December 31, 2021.
ESRB published the fifth issue of the EU Non-bank Financial Intermediation Risk Monitor 2020 (NBFI Monitor).
HM Treasury announced that the new Financial Services Bill has been introduced in the Parliament.
APRA announced that it has increased the minimum liquidity requirement of Bendigo and Adelaide Bank for failing to comply with the prudential standard on liquidity.
PRA published the consultation paper CP17/20 to propose changes to certain rules, supervisory statements, and statements of policy to implement elements of the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD5).
US Agencies adopted a final rule that applies to advanced approaches banking organizations and aims to reduce interconnectedness in the financial system as well as to reduce contagion risks associated with the failure of a global systemically important bank (G-SIB).
US Agencies (FDIC, FED, and OCC) adopted a final rule that implements the net stable funding ratio (NSFR) for certain large banking organizations.