General Information & Client Service
  • Americas: +1.212.553.1653
  • Asia: +852.3551.3077
  • China: +86.10.6319.6580
  • EMEA: +44.20.7772.5454
  • Japan: +81.3.5408.4100
Media Relations
  • New York: +1.212.553.0376
  • London: +44.20.7772.5456
  • Hong Kong: +852.3758.1350
  • Tokyo: +813.5408.4110
  • Sydney: +61.2.9270.8141
  • Mexico City: +001.888.779.5833
  • Buenos Aires: +0800.666.3506
  • São Paulo: +0800.891.2518
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 Insights

BCBS Finds Liquidity Risk Management Principles Remain Fit for Purpose

BCBS completed a review of its 2008 Principles for sound liquidity risk management and supervision. The review confirmed that the principles remain fit for purpose.

January 17, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

HKMA Urges Local Banks to Start Working on FRTB Implementation

HKMA announced that it plans to issue a consultation paper on the new market risk standard in the second quarter of 2019.

January 17, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

EBA Finalizes Guidelines for High-Risk Exposures Under CRR

EBA published the final guidelines on the specification of types of exposures to be associated with high risk under the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR). The guidelines are intended to facilitate a higher degree of comparability in terms of the current practices in identifying high-risk exposures.

January 17, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

MAS Guidelines on Risk Mitigation Requirements for OTC Derivatives

MAS published guidelines on risk mitigation requirements for non-centrally cleared over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives contracts.

January 17, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

BoE Publishes the Schedule for Statistical Reporting for 2019

BoE published the updated schedule for statistical reporting for 2019. The reporting institutions use the online statistical data application (OSCA) to submit statistical data to BoE.

January 16, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

PRA Delays Final Direction on Reporting of Private Securitizations

PRA and FCA have delayed the issuance of final direction, including the final template, on reporting of private securitizations, from January 15, 2019 to the end of January 2019.

January 15, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

SNB Updates Forms on Supervisory Reporting for Banks

SNB published Version 1.7 of reporting forms (AUR_U, AUR_UEA, AUR_UES, AURH_U, AUR_K, AUR_KEA, and AURH_K) and the related documentation for supervisory reporting on an individual and consolidated basis.

January 15, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

BCBS Finalizes Market Risk Capital Framework and Work Program for 2019

BCBS published the final framework for market risk capital requirements and its work program for 2019. Also published was an explanatory note to provide a non-technical description of the overall market risk framework, the changes that have been incorporated into in this version of the framework and impact of the framework.

January 14, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

EBA Single Rulebook Q&A: First Update for January 2019

EBA published answers to 13 questions under the Single Rulebook question and answer (Q&A) updates for this week.

January 11, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

PRA Proposes to Amend Supervisory Statement on Credit Risk Mitigation

PRA published the consultation paper CP1/19 that is proposing changes to the supervisory statement (SS17/13) on credit risk mitigation.

January 10, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
RESULTS 1 - 10 OF 2473