EBA organized, on November 27 and 28, a research workshop on approaches, governance, and methodologies with respect to the future of stress tests in the banking sector. The EBA Chair José Manuel Campa opened the workshop by highlighting the importance of approaching long-term discussion on the future of stress tests and explaining the commitment to widely consult different stress test users before making any final decisions. The EBA Chair also summarized the identified shortcomings in EU stress tests in comparison to other jurisdictions and briefly discussed the potential top-down and bottom-up approaches. Additionally, Andrea Enria, Chair of the Supervisory Board of ECB, suggested a way to redesign the stress test by splitting it into three elements—a supervisory view, a bank view, and a macro view.
According to him, redesigning would ensure that the results can still be compared across banks and that the exercise does not consume too many resources. The supervisory view would, by and large, be a more efficient version of the current stress test. That is, it would still be based on a constrained bottom-up approach. The main difference is that because of a shift in focus when publishing the results, the supervisory view requires fewer resources than the current approach. The focus for publication would be on the capital depletion per bank. Compared with the current approach, this would require far less granular quality assurance by supervisors.
The bank view would not only help to make the results more realistic and relevant but it would also help to maintain transparency, which would be more limited in the supervisory view. The bank view would be the new element of the exercise. It would be run in parallel to the supervisory view and would give banks more freedom. They would have to apply the EBA methodology, but would be allowed to relax some of the constraints. Banks could thus better account for their individual risk profile and vulnerabilities. Overall, this would allow them to predict more accurately how the stress scenario would affect their balance sheet.
Finally, the macro view would make it possible to simulate events that are relevant at the macro level. However, the macro view should not provide a third set of stress test results but should rather supplement the supervisory view with a top-down sensitivity analysis. It would help illustrate how the results might change if the central scenario were modified or different methodological assumptions were used. This would support the high-level narrative of the supervisory view. Mr. Enria concluded that the guiding principles for any future changes to the European stress test should be "realism, relevance, cost-efficiency (for both supervisors and the industry), and transparency."
Keywords: Europe, EU, Banking, Stress Testing, Supervisory View, Bank View, Macro View, Bottom-Up Stress Test, Top-Down Stress Test, ECB, EBA
Previous ArticleBCBS Issues Guiding Principles to Operationalize Sectoral CCyB
EBA published a report analyzing the impact of the unwind mechanism of the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) for a sample of European banks over a three-year period, from the end of 2016 to the first quarter of 2020.
In response to questions from a member of the European Parliament, the ECB President Christine Lagarde issued a letter clarifying the possibility of amending the AnaCredit Regulation and making targeted longer-term refinancing operations (TLTROs) dependent on the climate-related impact of bank loans.
IASB started the post-implementation review of the classification and measurement requirements in IFRS 9 on financial instruments and added the review as a project to its work plan.
FSB published a report that examines progress in implementing policy measures to enhance the resolvability of systemically important financial institutions.
EBA published a report on the benchmarking of national loan enforcement frameworks across 27 EU member states, in response to the call for advice from EC.
FSB published a letter from its Chair Randal K. Quarles, along with two reports exploring various aspects of the market turmoil resulting from the COVID-19 event.
RBNZ launched a consultation on the details for implementing the final Capital Review decisions announced in December 2019.
The Trustees of the IFRS Foundation, which are responsible for the governance and oversight of IASB, have announced the appointment of Dr. Andreas Barckow as the IASB Chair, effective July 2021.
HKMA issued a letter to consult the banking industry on a full set of proposed draft amendments to the Banking (Capital) Rules for implementing the Basel standard on capital requirements for banks’ equity investments in funds in Hong Kong.
ESRB published an opinion assessing the decision of Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority (FSA) to extend the application period of a stricter measure for residential mortgage lending, in accordance with Article 458 of the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR).