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

EBA Report Assesses Regulatory Framework for Fintech Activities

EBA published the findings of its analysis on the regulatory framework applicable to fintech firms when accessing the market.

July 18, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
News

OSFI Revises Capital Requirements for Operational Risk for Banks

OSFI is revising its capital requirements for operational risk, in line with the final Basel III revisions published by BCBS in December 2017.

July 18, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
News

OSFI Consults on Revised Principles for Management of Liquidity Risk

OSFI proposed revisions to Guideline B-6 on the principles for the management of liquidity risk.

July 18, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
News

ESMA Guidance on Disclosures for Credit Rating Sustainability Issues

ESMA published the technical advice on sustainability considerations in the credit rating market, along with the final guidelines on disclosure requirements applicable to credit ratings.

July 18, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
News

FASB Issues Q&A on Estimation of Expected Credit Losses by Firms

FASB issued a second question-and-answer (Q&A) document that addresses more than a dozen frequently asked questions related to the Accounting Standards Update No. 2016-13 titled “Financial Instruments—Credit Losses (Topic 326): Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments.”

July 17, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
News

US Agencies Delay Enforcing Volcker Rule Restrictions on Foreign Funds

US Agencies (FDIC, FED, and OCC) announced that they will not take action related to restrictions under the Volcker Rule for certain foreign funds for an additional two years.

July 17, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
News

SRB Announces SRF Receives Cash Injection, Grows to EUR 33 billion

SRB announced that the Single Resolution Fund (SRF or the Fund) received a cash injection of EUR 7.8 billion from 3,186 institutions in 2019, bringing the total amount in the Fund to about EUR 33 billion.

July 17, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
News

FASB to Propose to Delay CECL Compliance Deadline for Certain Entities

FASB published a summary of the tentative decisions taken at its Board meeting in July 2019.

July 17, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
News

IMF Publishes Report on 2019 Article IV Consultation with Vietnam

IMF published its staff report in context of the 2019 Article IV consultation with Vietnam.

July 16, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
News

European Parliament Elects Next President of European Commission

European Parliament elected Ursula von der Leyen from Germany as the first female President of the next European Commission for a five-year term from November 01, 2019.

July 16, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
RESULTS 1 - 10 OF 3476