Randal K. Quarles of FED spoke at the Program on International Financial Systems Conference in Germany. As FED has been considering refinements to the stress testing and capital frameworks, he highlighted that two goals have been at the forefront—to simplify these frameworks to make them easier to apply and understand and to maintain the overall high level of loss-absorbing capacity in the banking system. Last year, FED had issued a proposal on the stress capital buffer (SCB) to simplify regulatory regime by integrating the stress test with the non-stress capital rules. Instead of finalizing the SCB for the 2019 stress test cycle as planned earlier, the SCB framework is now expected to be in place for the 2020 stress tests.
For large bank holding companies, SCB would replace the fixed-for-all-times-and-for-all-banks 2.5% risk-based capital buffer with a firm-specific buffer based on the most recent stress test results of a firm. This would integrate the stress testing capital requirements with the point-in-time capital requirements. Based on the feedback to the proposal, Mr. Quarles emphasized on two elements of the proposal that he believes should not be a part of the final framework. One of these elements is the requirement for stress leverage buffer and the second element is the requirement for banks to pre-fund the next four quarters of their planned dividend payments. The stress tests currently require banks to set aside sufficient capital to "pre-fund" expected capital distributions, both dividends and repurchases, for all nine quarters of the capital planning horizon. Removing the pre-funding of dividend requirement would simplify the SCB proposal, said Mr. Quarles.
As an alternative to requiring pre-funding dividends and in furtherance of the other goals, he suggested two co-equal options that would simplify capital requirements while limiting procyclicality. These two options are consistent with the goal of maintaining the overall levels of capital in the banking system—to set the countercyclical capital buffer (CCyB) at a higher baseline level during normal times and to raise the "floor," or the minimum level, of stress capital buffer. While FED has maintained the CCyB at zero since 2016, other countries have adjusted their CCyB in response to vulnerabilities in their financial sectors or, in the case of the UK, to integrate the CCyB with its structural capital requirements. Under the British framework, the CCyB would equal a positive amount in standard risk conditions. The effect of the policy is that the buffer can be varied in line with the changing risks that the banking system faces over time. He highlighted that the application of the UK approach in the United States could provide a flexible mechanism that could complement other modifications to the SCB framework and allow FED to adjust capital requirements as financial risks are evolving.
Mr. Quarles mentioned another equally viable alternative to turning on the CCyB, which involves raising the proposed SCB floor from the fixed 2.5% of risk-weighted assets to a somewhat higher level. This approach would have three significant benefits compared to the CCyB option: greater simplicity, transparency, and predictability. However, the higher fixed floor option has some drawbacks as well. For firms whose losses are typically close to the existing 2.5% floor, this change will affect them more than others and produce a capital regime with slightly less risk-sensitivity. In terms of targeting procyclicality, this approach would be much less direct, as opposed to more actively managing the level of the CCyB.
Before finalizing the SCB framework, FED plans to solicit public comment on potential revisions to the SCB proposal from last year, through the standard rule-making process, and this consultation is expected to be launched "in the near future." Mr. Quarles expects that the FED will maintain the basic SCB framework while incorporating some additional refinements, such as to address volatility and provide better notice for firms in planning their capital actions. He concluded that the refinements that are being considered to the SCB framework would improve the efficiency, coherence, and transparency of the regulatory capital framework and the core principles of the stress testing program (that have proven to be successful).
Related Link: Speech
Keywords: Americas, US, Banking, Stress Testing, CCyB, Stress Capital Buffer, Regulatory Capital, Loss-Absorbing Capacity, Financial Stability, FED
Previous ArticleRBI Circular on Sale of Investments Under Held to Maturity Category
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published the final draft regulatory technical standards on disclosure of investment policy by investment firms, under the Investment Firms Regulation (IFR).
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published version 5.1 of the filing rules for supervisory reporting.
The European Central Bank (ECB) Guideline 2021/1829 on the procedures for the collection of granular credit and credit risk data has been published in the Official Journal of European Union.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) published the prudential practice guide CPG 511 to assist banks, insurers, and superannuation licensees in meeting requirements of CPS 511, the new prudential standard on remuneration.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) published a bulletin that provides an updated self-assessment tool for banks to evaluate their preparedness for cessation of the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR).
The Financial Stability Board (FSB) published a report that examines the progress made toward disclosures aligned with recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD).
The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) published the progress report on adoption of the Basel III regulatory framework in member jurisdictions.
The French Prudential Supervisory Authority (ACPR) has implemented, in its information system, updates linked to the Data Point Model (DPM) version 3.1.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published a thematic note that aims to identify and raise awareness of the transition risks of benchmark rates, as the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) and the Euro Overnight Index Average (EONIA) are close to being phased out.