IMF published a working paper on a study looking for robust and implementable framework for macro-prudential stress tests and policies. This report summarizes the findings of a joint research effort by Monetary and Capital Markets Department and the Systemic Risk Center.
The report presents state-of-the-art approaches on macro-prudential stress testing, including modeling and implementation challenges. It also provides a roadmap for future research and discusses the potential uses of macro-prudential stress testing to support policy. A table at the end of the report lists and summarizes the macro-prudential tools in use being used in various countries (refer to Table 1). Another table examines the design of stress testing frameworks of EU, IMF, UK, United States, Canada, Singapore, Bank of Japan, Bank of Korea, and Norges Bank (refer to Table 2).
Macro-prudential stress tests can offer quantitative, forward-looking assessments of the resilience of financial systems as a whole, to particularly adverse shocks. Therefore, they are well-suited to support the surveillance of macro-financial vulnerabilities and to inform the use of macro-prudential policy instruments. The report argues that it would be useful for authorities to adopt a structured yet flexible approach to stress testing for macro-prudential purposes. Such an approach can employ a number of separate models as part of the analysis. The report also concludes that there needs to be accountability for those in charge of formulating macro-prudential policy to the broader policymaking authorities. Also, there needs to be a clear policy on the delicate issue of transparency of stress testing results. There are costs and benefits of communicating stress test results and this involves weighing possible effects on operations of individual institutions versus the system, perception of risks at different times of the cycle, and consequences for risk-sharing within the system.
Related Link: Report
Keywords: International, Banking, Macro-prudential Policy, Stress Testing, Systemic Risk, IMF
Previous ArticleUS Agencies Reaffirm the Role of Supervisory Guidance
FSB published the annual report that examines to-date progress toward implementation of climate-related disclosure recommendations of the industry-led Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD).
APRA is consulting on the reporting standard for credit risk management (ARS 220.0).
PRA launched a consultation (CP18/20) setting out proposals for the "Contractual Recognition of Bail-in" and "Stay in Resolution" Rules.
FASB is consulting on the XBRL US Data Quality Committee (DQC) Rules Taxonomy (DQCRT) along with two technical guides.
EC published draft of a delegated regulation amending liquidity coverage rules for covered bond issuers.
ESMA published an update to its March 2019 statement on the endorsement of credit ratings from UK.
PRA published Version 2 of the questions and answers (Q&A) on the Branch Return form.
FCA and PRA in the UK, FED in the US, and the authorities in Singapore have fined Goldman Sachs for risk management failures in connection with the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB).
ISDA launched the IBOR Fallbacks Supplement and the IBOR Fallbacks Protocol, with both becoming effective on January 25, 2021.
BCBS announced that OSFI and the Bank of Canada hosted the 21st International Conference of Banking Supervisors (ICBS) virtually on October 19-22, 2020.