October 11, 2018

During a speech at the 2018 Stress Testing Research Conference in Boston, Beverly Hirtle of NY FED discussed the evolution of design of the supervisory stress testing. She briefly reviewed how stress testing emerged as a key supervisory policy tool and how the original goals of the Supervisory Capital Assessment Program (SCAP), Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR), and Dodd-Frank Act Stress Testing (DFAST) affected modeling and design choices. She then highlights the gaps left by the current approach, before finally suggesting the areas where new research could help push forward the frontier of stress test modeling, both of specific elements that go into the stress test calculation and of the broader impact of the stress testing programs implemented in the United States and elsewhere.

She detailed the design choices made for stress testing and highlighted three important tactical issues in supervisory stress test modeling that research can help address:

  • Additional ways of projecting revenues and non-credit expenses in stressed environments is a particularly ripe area for additional work.
  • Concerns about measuring model risk. How to assess errors from models intended to capture performance under stressed conditions when those conditions have not yet been realized and might not be in the historical data?  How to assess the uncertainty or margin of error around loss and revenue projections derived from models that can be quite complex, often involving multiple estimation steps?  How to assess the error around the ultimate calculation of stressed capital ratios? Howto measure correlation in model errors in a tractable and practical way? How much model risk owes to the decision to develop complex models for many individual pieces of the net income and regulatory capital ratio calculations, instead of using simpler, "top down" estimation approaches?
  • Role of simpler, easier to estimate models of net income and its key components. Federal Reserve modeling teams have already developed a set of these "benchmark" models that produce loss and revenue estimates as a comparison to the projections from the more sophisticated and complex production models. Increasing deviations between benchmark and production projections could highlight emerging (or declining) areas of risk. A related area of research could address optimal ways for supervisors to assess the signal when benchmark and production model results deviate significantly from one another. Also, these simpler models could potentially form the basis of a more dynamic, system-focused stress test analysis that builds in the linkages and feedback not currently captured in CCAR and DFAST stress testing programs. 

Next, she highlighted issues where additional research could help guide the evolution of the supervisory stress testing regime. A related set of questions concerns how stress testing affects the cyclicality of capital requirements and what degree of cyclicality is appropriate. How does cyclicality of stress testing interact with other cyclical elements, such as the countercyclical capital buffer and the incoming current expected credit loss (CECL) approach to loan-loss provisioning? Finally, one concern that has been raised about the FED approach to stress testing and integration into the CCAR program is that of "model monoculture," which is the idea that banks will be "incented" to develop models that mimic the FED models rather than developing their own independent approaches: "Significant commonality in modeling approaches in the banking system could result in banks adopting similar risk exposures and hedging techniques, exposing the sector to additional systemic risk and potential future instability. How do we measure this risk? What should we think about differences (and similarities) between bank-generated and supervisory stress test results, both for a particular stress test cycle and over time? What disclosure and transparency policies about supervisory models can address these concerns, while still supporting insight and credibility into the DFAST and CCAR stress testing programs?"

She concluded by saying that these are the questions that challenge policymakers as the regulatory and supervisory regime that was put in place following the crisis is re-examined and evolves in the wake of that re-examination. "A disciplined analytical approach to these topics is critical in weighing future design choices, such as those made during the initial implementation of SCAP, CCAR and DFAST stress testing. Research on these topics could make substantial and meaningful contributions."

 

Related Link: Speech

Keywords: Americas, US, Banking, Stress Testing, DFAST, SCAP, CCAR, NY FED, BIS

Related Articles
News

CFTC Proposes to Amend Derivatives Clearing Organization Regulations

CFTC proposed amendments to certain regulations applicable to registered derivatives clearing organizations (DCOs) under Part 30 of the CFTC regulations.

May 16, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
News

APRA Licenses Societe Generale As Foreign Deposit-Taking Institution

APRA granted Societe Generale a license to operate as a foreign authorized deposit-taking institution under the Banking Act of 1959.

May 16, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
News

EBA Provides Updates on Its Work on Basel III Impact Assessment in EU

EBA is working to finalize the impact assessment on implementation of Basel III standards, in response to the EC call for advice, which was received on May 04, 2018.

May 16, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
News

FED Publishes Report Summarizing Regulatory and Supervisory Activities

FED published a report that summarizes banking conditions and the supervisory and regulatory activities of FED, in conjunction with semiannual testimony before Congress by the Vice Chairman for Supervision.

May 15, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
News

US Agencies Propose to Amend Regulatory Framework for Foreign Banks

US Agencies (OCC, FED, and FDIC) proposed a regulatory framework for foreign banks operating in the U.S. that would more closely match the rules for foreign banks with the risks they pose to the U.S. financial system.

May 15, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
News

ECB Consults on EONIA to €STR Legal Action Plan

ECB published a consultation, which was launched by the working group on euro risk-free rates, on recommendations to address the legal implications for new and legacy contracts referencing the euro overnight index average (EONIA), as a result of the proposed transition from EONIA to the euro short-term rate (€STR).

May 15, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
News

FASB Offers Targeted Transition Relief Under Credit Losses Standard

FASB issued an Accounting Standards Update 2019-05 (on Topic 326) that eases transition to the credit losses standard by providing the option to measure certain types of assets at fair value.

May 15, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
News

European Council Adopts Updated Rules on Clearing of OTC Derivatives

European Council adopted a regulation improving the existing regulatory framework applicable to the market for over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives.

May 14, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
News

European Council Adopts Package on CRD 5, CRR 2, BRRD 2, and SRMR 2

European Council adopted a comprehensive legislative package that will reduce risks in the banking sector and further reinforce banks' ability to withstand potential shocks.

May 14, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
News

EBA Single Rulebook Q&A: Second Update for May 2019

EBA published answers to two questions under the Single Rulebook question and answer (Q&A) updates for this week.

May 10, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
RESULTS 1 - 10 OF 3080