IMF published a working paper that measures the performance of different metrics in assessing banking system vulnerabilities. The study finds that metrics based on equity market valuations of bank capital are better than regulatory capital ratios and other metrics in spotting banks that failed. The paper proposes that these market-based ratios could be used as a surveillance tool to assess vulnerabilities in the banking sector.
The approach of the study presented in this paper was to test and calibrate different metrics using the banks that both failed and survived the global financial crisis. The out of sample performance of these metrics was then assessed using the banks that have since run into trouble (as well as those that have continued operating). The results show how the metrics can be implemented in practice and what they suggest about the risk of bank failures in the current environment. The paper has confirmed results of certain previous studies, which suggest that equity market-based capital ratios would have been better at signaling bank distress in the run-up to the global financial crisis than regulatory capital ratios—particularly the tier 1 capital ratio. In addition, the study tested the market-based capital ratios against other market and balance sheet indicators and found that the market-based capital ratios would have been better at predicting bank stress than these other metrics in the pre-crisis period. The analysis showed that the market-based capital ratios also performed well in the post-crisis period. This further supports the case for using these augmented capital ratios in assessing vulnerabilities in the banking sector.
The equity market-based capital ratios suggest there are still vulnerabilities in euro area banks, some years after the end of the euro area crisis. Additionally, there are some banks in the Asia-Pacific and Other European regions that are flagged by these metrics. These measures inevitably provide a somewhat fuzzy signal, where one can expect false alarms and perhaps overshooting in its predictions in periods of market turbulence. They also do not provide a sense of exactly when problems might arise in banks and may only provide a few months, or even weeks, of advance warning of distress. They are also, obviously, only available for banks that are traded on stock markets. However, these metrics are a valuable surveillance tool for financial stability authorities assessing vulnerabilities in the banking sector.
Related Link: Working Paper
Keywords: International, Banking, Regulatory Capital, Market-based Ratios, Tier 1 Capital, Stress Testing, Capital Ratios, Research, IMF
Previous ArticleDNB Publishes Banking and Insurance Newsletters for April 2019
FDIC is seeking comments on a rule to amend the interagency guidelines for real estate lending policies—also known as the Real Estate Lending Standards.
MAS revised Notices 637 and 1111 on the risk-based capital adequacy requirements, along with Notice 656 on the exposures to single counterparty groups for banks incorporated in Singapore.
ISDA is consulting on the implementation of fallbacks for the sterling LIBOR ICE Swap Rate and for the USD LIBOR ICE Swap Rate.
SEC announced that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs released the Spring 2021 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.
BIS and BoE launched the BIS Innovation Hub Center in London, which is the fourth new Innovation Hub Centre to be opened in the past two years.
ESRB published recommendations on the reciprocation of macro-prudential measures in Belgium, France, Luxembourg, Norway, and Sweden.
MAS revised multiple notices that are applicable to banks and merchant banks in Singapore and have been issued pursuant to the Banking Act (Cap 19).
EC published the Delegated Regulation 2021/931, which supplements the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR or Regulation 575/2013) with regard to the regulatory technical standards specifying the method for identifying derivative transactions with one or more than one material risk driver.
BCBS is consulting on preliminary proposals for the prudential treatment of cryptoasset exposures of banks.
EBA issued a revised list of validation rules under the implementing technical standards on supervisory reporting.