FSI published a paper that presents the findings of a comparative analysis on the system-wide stress tests for banks in the euro area, Japan, Switzerland, and the United States. The paper identifies three building blocks in the setup of any stress test—governance, implementation, and outcomes—and relates them to the policy objectives, which can be micro-prudential or macro-prudential.
On the basis of an extensive review of the choices that authorities need to make about the design of a stress test within each of these building blocks, the paper argues that stress tests are most effective when their design is fully aligned with the policy objectives associated with them. This is because micro-prudential and macro-prudential objectives may require different approaches. Consistency with the Basel Committee's high-level principles for stress testing is an important step in this regard. Stress tests are best used in combination with other tools available to the authorities to achieve their policy objectives, such as systemic risk monitoring or capital planning reviews.
The analysis suggests that stress testing is being continually improved and further developments could help to enhance the implementation and the policy use of stress tests. There are several areas in which stress tests could be improved, such as, on the implementation side, the joint treatment of solvency and liquidity risks, or the specification of second-round, spillover and contagion effects. On the policy side, more authorities could use stress tests as an input to the calibration of macro-prudential measures. Additionally, stress tests could be further integrated into regular supervisory reviews.
Some of these changes will be driven by progress in research or advances in technology, while others will be dependent on gaining enough practical experience, especially in the macro-prudential sphere. From a global perspective, a dialog among relevant authorities regarding a common scenario design for large and cross-border active banks would be a helpful addition to the stress testing landscape.
Keywords: International, Banking, Stress Testing, Systemic Risk, Macro-prudential Policy, FSI
Previous ArticleIASB Publishes November Issue of the Investor Update
BoE updated the known issues document for the statistical reporting Forms AS and FV.
EBA updated the report on the implementation of selected COVID-19 policies.
OSFI published a letter that provides an update on the milestones for the implementation of the IFRS 17 standard on insurance contracts.
The Financial Stability Institute (FSI) of BIS published a brief note that examines the supervisory challenges associated with certain temporary regulatory relief measures introduced by BCBS and prudential authorities in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
BCBS is consulting on the principles for operational resilience and the revisions to the principles for sound management of operational risk for banks.
BoE updated the reporting template for Form ER as well as the Form ER definitions, which contain guidance on the methodology to be used in calculating annualized interest rates.
MAS announced several initiatives to support adoption of the Singapore Overnight Rate Average (SORA), which is administered by MAS.
HKMA, together with the Banking Sector Small and Medium-Size Enterprise (SME) Lending Coordination Mechanism, announced a ninety-day repayment deferment for trade facilities under the Pre-approved Principal Payment Holiday Scheme.
The Advisory Scientific Committee of ESRB published a response, in the form of an Insights Paper, to the EBA proposals for reforms to the stress testing framework in EU.
FASB issued a new Accounting Standards Update (2020-06) to improve financial reporting associated with accounting for convertible instruments and contracts in an entity’s own equity.