APRA Publishes FAQs on Capital Treatment of Overseas Subsidiaries
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) published a new set of frequently asked questions (FAQs) to clarify the regulatory capital treatment of investments in the overseas deposit-taking and insurance subsidiaries. The FAQs are relevant for authorized deposit-taking institutions that hold these investments via holding companies. Through this set of FAQs, APRA confirmed that institutions can use the indirect equity investment provisions in APS 111, the prudential standard on capital adequacy (the January 01, 2022 version of the standard), to determine the capital treatment for these exposures.
In the FAQs, APRA clarified the method for calculating the amount of capital institutions need to hold against their exposures to overseas deposit-taking and insurance subsidiaries that are held through non-operating holding companies for capital purposes, at Level 1. The amount of capital to be held by an authorized deposit-taking institution against its equity investments in overseas deposit-taking and insurance subsidiaries may, at Level 1, be determined using the "look-through" method in APS 111. An authorized deposit-taking institution may treat the underlying investments in its overseas banking and insurance subsidiaries as indirect equity exposures. APRA considers that indirect equity exposures represent exposures that will result in a loss to the institution that is substantially equivalent to any loss in the direct holding. Therefore, an authorized deposit-taking institution, may, if the overseas deposit-taking or insurance subsidiary meets these criteria, use the concessional approach in paragraph 9(f). APRA expects an authorized deposit-taking institution wishing to use this approach in respect of an offshore deposit-taking or insurance subsidiary to notify APRA.
APRA also clarified differences in the treatment of equity and debt exposures to overseas deposit-taking and insurance subsidiaries held through non-operating holding companies for capital purposes at Level 1. APRA expects that any debt provided to these non-operating holding companies, which funds equity or capital investments in overseas deposit-taking or insurance subsidiaries, will not be risk-weighted as debt. Instead, this debt will be included as part of the indirect equity exposure in the overseas deposit-taking or insurance subsidiary.
Related Links
Keywords: Asia Pacific, Australia, Banking, Regulatory Capital, APS 111, Basel, Risk-Weighted Assets, FAQ, APRA
Featured Experts
María Cañamero
Skilled market researcher; growth strategist; successful go-to-market campaign developer
Nicolas Degruson
Works with financial institutions, regulatory experts, business analysts, product managers, and software engineers to drive regulatory solutions across the globe.
Patrycja Oleksza
Applies proficiency and knowledge to regulatory capital and reporting analysis and coordinates business and product strategies in the banking technology area
Previous Article
ACPR Publishes Corrective Version of RUBA TaxonomyRelated Articles
BIS and Central Banks Experiment with GenAI to Assess Climate Risks
A recent report from the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) Innovation Hub details Project Gaia, a collaboration between the BIS Innovation Hub Eurosystem Center and certain central banks in Europe
Nearly 25% G-SIBs Commit to Adopting TNFD Nature-Related Disclosures
Nature-related risks are increasing in severity and frequency, affecting businesses, capital providers, financial systems, and economies.
Singapore to Mandate Climate Disclosures from FY2025
Singapore recently took a significant step toward turning climate ambition into action, with the introduction of mandatory climate-related disclosures for listed and large non-listed companies
SEC Finalizes Climate-Related Disclosures Rule
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has finalized the long-awaited rule that mandates climate-related disclosures for domestic and foreign publicly listed companies in the U.S.
EBA Proposes Standards Related to Standardized Credit Risk Approach
The European Banking Authority (EBA) has been taking significant steps toward implementing the Basel III framework and strengthening the regulatory framework for credit institutions in the EU
US Regulators Release Stress Test Scenarios for Banks
The U.S. regulators recently released baseline and severely adverse scenarios, along with other details, for stress testing the banks in 2024. The relevant U.S. banking regulators are the Federal Reserve Bank (FED), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC).
Asian Governments Aim for Interoperability in AI Governance Frameworks
The regulatory landscape for artificial intelligence (AI), including the generative kind, is evolving rapidly, with governments and regulators aiming to address the challenges and opportunities presented by this transformative technology.
EBA Proposes Operational Risk Standards Under Final Basel III Package
The European Union (EU) has been working on the final elements of Basel III standards, with endorsement of the Banking Package and the publication of the European Banking Authority (EBA) roadmap on Basel III implementation in December 2023.
EFRAG Proposes XBRL Taxonomy and Standard for Listed SMEs Under ESRS
The European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG), which plays a crucial role in shaping corporate reporting standards in European Union (EU), is seeking comments, until May 21, 2024, on the Exposure Draft ESRS for listed SMEs.
ECB to Expand Climate Change Work in 2024-2025
Banking regulators worldwide are increasingly focusing on addressing, monitoring, and supervising the institutions' exposure to climate and environmental risks.
