The International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA), along with several other associations, submitted a joint response to the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) consultation on preliminary proposals for the prudential treatment of cryptoasset exposures. The BCBS consultation was published in June 2021. ISDA and the other associations support the BCBS decision to engage in an iterative approach for the prudential treatment of cryptoassets and suggest certain improvements to the proposal. Overall, the response letter reinforces that making greater use of the existing international prudential framework (Basel III) is the best way to achieve the principles underpinning the consultation.
The Associations agree with BCBS that the approach should follow the principle of “same risk, same activity, same treatment” and that the prudential framework should be technology-neutral. However, adjustments are needed to achieve true technological neutrality. The Associations also believe that the framework should be as simple as possible and suggest that certain aspects of the proposal should be further simplified and/or made more risk-sensitive. Given the cross-border nature of the cryptoasset markets, the Associations support having minimum global standards, supported by coordination across jurisdictions to help ensure an approach that is consistent and comparable. The Associations recommend BCBS to ensure that the framework is not overly conservative, so that it does not preclude regulated bank involvement in certain segments of cryptoasset markets. The Associations recommend to BCBS that the framework for cryptoassets should utilize the existing prudential framework for all other bank exposures that has been developed over many years taking into account the following criteria:
- The framework would allow for technological neutrality and be designed to reflect underlying risk.
- The availability and use of effective hedging should be recognized in the prudential framework.
- The need for differences in the capital treatment of cryptoassets held in the banking book versus the trading book should be recognized in the framework as it is for other bank exposures; this will help to appropriately capitalize the different risks of trading and banking book activities. For certain Group 2 cryptoassets, the exposure to changes in price is best captured through the market risk framework. Thus, for banking book exposures to this set of cryptoassets, applying the market risk framework would be appropriate, similar to the treatment of foreign exchange and commodities risk in the banking book under the current framework and net short credit and equity risk in the banking book in the future.
- The capital treatment of Group 2 cryptoassets should be tied to the risks of the assets, not their accounting treatment. This approach should help avoid disparate treatment across jurisdictions resulting from different accounting regimes. Assets with different risk profiles should be subject to correspondingly different capital standards.
Keywords: International, Banking, Securities, Cryptoassets, Basel, Credit Risk, Market Risk, Large Exposures, Regulatory Capital, Hedging, Banking Book, Trading Book, BCBS, ISDA
Previous ArticleHMT Announces First Issuance of Government Green Bonds in UK
The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) published the final policy statement PS21/21 on the leverage ratio framework in the UK. PS21/21, which sets out the final policy of both the Financial Policy Committee (FPC) and PRA
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) proposed to amend Regulation B to implement changes to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) under Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act.
The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) decided to maintain, at the 2019 levels, the buffer rates for the Other Systemically Important Institutions (O-SII) for another year, with no new rates to be set until December 2023.
The Financial Stability Board (FSB) published a progress report on implementation of its high-level recommendations for the regulation, supervision, and oversight of global stablecoin arrangements.
In a letter to the authorized deposit taking institutions, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) announced an increase in the minimum interest rate buffer it expects banks to use when assessing the serviceability of home loan applications.
The Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI) and the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) are consulting on the preliminary guidance that clarifies that stablecoin arrangements should observe international standards for payment, clearing, and settlement systems.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) and the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) have set out their respective work priorities for 2022.
The Malta Financial Services Authority (MFSA) updated the guidelines on supervisory reporting requirements under the reporting framework 3.0, in addition to the reporting module on leverage under the common reporting (COREP) framework.
The European Commission (EC) published the Implementing Decision 2021/1753 on the equivalence of supervisory and regulatory requirements of certain third countries and territories for the purposes of the treatment of exposures, in accordance with the Capital Requirements Regulation or CRR (575/2013).
EC published the Implementing Regulation 2021/1751, which lays down implementing technical standards on uniform formats and templates for notification of determination of the impracticability of including contractual recognition of write-down and conversion powers.