Featured Product

    APRA to Transition to Annual Stress Testing of Large Banks in 2020

    February 21, 2020

    APRA published key findings of the stress testing assessment conducted on authorized deposit-taking institutions. APRA conducted a qualitative assessment of the internal stress testing capabilities of 28 authorized deposit-taking institutions in 2018-19, with focus on governance, scenario development, and use of stress testing. The assessment identified a number of areas requiring ongoing improvements among authorized deposit-taking institutions. APRA has outlined the identified improvements in a letter to the industry. APRA plans to consult on a prudential practice guide on stress testing in the second half of 2020 and to transition to annual stress testing of large institutions in 2020.

    The assessment covered the most recent enterprise-wide stress tests, or EWSTs, and the most recent internal capital adequacy assessment process (ICAAP) reports of authorized deposit-taking institutions. Participants were split into two peer groups to facilitate more meaningful comparisons. Group 1 constituted larger diversified institutions and Group 2 constituted other participants with total assets ranging from $3 billion to $25 billion. The appendix to the APRA letter to industry lists the participating banks in Group 1 and Group 2. The assessment was informed by the Prudential Standard on Capital Adequacy (APS 110), the Prudential Practice Guide on ICAAP and Supervisory Review (CPG 110), the 2018 BCBS Stress testing principles, regulatory stress tests, and expert judgment. The key findings for the focus areas of this assessment include: 

    • Governance. Most Group 1 institutions had enterprise-wide stress tests frameworks with formalized governance structures, clear roles and accountabilities, and documentation to support most aspects of their stress testing process. Group 2 participants generally did not have specific frameworks for stress testing and instead relied in part on various risk-specific management frameworks and ICAAP documentation. When compared to Group 2, Group 1 entities typically had broader engagement across the organization in their stress testing activities. 
    • Scenario Development. Most Group 1 institutions have structured and integrated scenario development processes that engage stakeholders across the organization. Stress parameters and impacts were generally well-considered, with scenarios typically covering all or most material risks identified by the entity. The process at most Group 2 institutions tended to be less structured and integrated, with the scenarios and stress parameters typically having been designed with less sophisticated considerations. Many participants used previous APRA industry stress test scenarios, either as a substitute for their own internal ICAAP scenarios or as a reference to inform the macroeconomic settings of their own internal scenarios.
    • Use of Stress Testing. Group 1 institutions generally made better use of stress test results and used stress testing in a wider range of decision-making than those in Group 2. Their ICAAP reports included details of the stress tests undertaken and the implications the results had on their main capital management decisions. Group 1 institutions typically used a set of capital adequacy criteria to express their risk appetite and assess their stress test results. The role of stress testing appeared much less prominent in Group 2 institutions, where ICAAP stress testing results were generally only used for the validation of their main internal capital targets. They typically did not have well-defined risk appetites around their capital adequacy. 

    The results of this self-assessment and actions to improve capabilities should be incorporated in subsequent ICAAP reports. The findings of this assessment will inform the further development of the guidance on stress testing. APRA intends to consult with industry in the second half of 2020 on a prudential practice guide on stress testing to promote industry better practice and consistency. To complement the ongoing improvement in stress testing capabilities and application, APRA is moving toward greater frequency and depth of stress testing for these institutions. This includes transitioning in 2020 to annual stress testing of large institutions. APRA also plans to test resilience to broader scenarios, including the impact from operational and climate change financial risks. 


    Related Links

    Keywords: Asia Pacific, Australia, Banking, Stress Testing, ICAAP, APS 110, CPG 110, Enterprise Wide Risk Stress Tests, Operational Risk, Climate Change Risk, BCBS, APRA

    Featured Experts
    Related Articles
    News

    APRA on Changes to Reporting Obligations for Banks Due to COVID-19

    APRA, in collaboration with the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) and the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), published a letter outlining temporary changes in reporting obligations for authorized deposit-taking institutions and registered financial corporations, in response to COVID-19.

    April 01, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    OSFI Outlines Capital Treatment for Some COVID-19 Mitigation Measures

    OSFI issued a letter outlining how federally regulated banks should treat the new capital made available to small and medium-size enterprises (SME) through the recently announced government programs.

    March 30, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    APRA Announces Deferral of Capital Reform Implementation

    APRA announced that it is deferring the scheduled implementation of Basel III reforms in Australia by one year.

    March 30, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    BaFin Explains Regulatory Measures to Address Impact of COVID-19

    BaFin has released new developments and important information about COVID-19 and its effects on the financial and banking system.

    March 30, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    ECB Updates Recommendation on Dividend Distribution Policy of Banks

    ECB updated its recommendation to banks on dividend distributions.

    March 30, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EC Amends Implementing Standards on Supervisory Reporting Under CRR

    EC published Regulation 2020/429 that amends the Regulation 680/2014, which sets out implementing technical standards on supervisory reporting of institutions under the Capital Requirements Regulation or CRR (575/2013).

    March 30, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    HKMA Announces Deferral of Implementation of Final Basel III Package

    HKMA announced its plans to defer the implementation of final Basel III package, inline with the timeline announced by the Group of Central Bank Governors and Heads of Supervision (GHOS).

    March 30, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    BCBS Defers Implementation of Final Basel III Standards by One Year

    BCBS has announced deferral of the implementation date of the final Basel III standards by one year, to January 01, 2023.

    March 27, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EC Regulation on CCR Mitigation for Covered Bonds and Securitizations

    EC published the Delegated Regulation 2020/447 with regard to regulatory technical standards on the specification of criteria for establishing the arrangements to adequately mitigate counterparty credit risk, or CCR, associated with covered bonds and securitizations.

    March 27, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    IFRS Publishes Statement on Its Work During the COVID-19 Crisis

    IFRS, in its statement, emphasized that it shares global concerns about the impact of COVID–19 and is supporting its stakeholders by reconsidering timelines of its meetings and publications, providing information on the application of IFRS 9 on financial instruments, and offering calendar updates on ongoing activities.

    March 27, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    RESULTS 1 - 10 OF 4913