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
PRA, via the consultation paper CP12/20, proposed changes to its rules, supervisory statements, and statements of policy to implement certain elements of the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD5).
EIOPA published the financial stability report that provides detailed quantitative and qualitative assessment of the key risks identified for the insurance and occupational pensions sectors in the European Economic Area.
EBA published its risk dashboard for the first quarter of 2020 together with the results of the risk assessment questionnaire.
EBA announced that the next stress testing exercise is expected to be launched at the end of January 2021 and its results are to be published at the end of July 2021.
PRA published the consultation paper CP11/20 that sets out its expectations and guidance related to auditors’ work on the matching adjustment under Solvency II.
MAS published a statement guidance on dividend distribution by banks.
APRA updated its capital management guidance for banks, particularly easing restrictions around paying dividends as institutions continue to manage the disruption caused by COVID-19 pandemic.
FSB published a report that reviews the progress on data collection for macro-prudential analysis and the availability and use of macro-prudential tools in Germany.
EBA issued a statement reminding financial institutions that the transition period between EU and UK will expire on December 31, 2020; this will end the possibility for the UK-based financial institutions to offer financial services to EU customers on a cross-border basis via passporting.
SRB published guidance on operational continuity in resolution and financial market infrastructure (FMI) contingency plans.