EBA published two annual reports that assess the consistency of risk-weighted assets (RWAs) across all EU institutions authorized to use internal approaches for the calculation of capital requirements. The reports cover market risk and credit risk for high- and low-default portfolios (LDPs and HDPs). The results of the 2019 benchmarking exercise confirm that the majority of risk-weight variability can be explained by fundamentals.
The credit risk report examines the different drivers leading to the observed dispersion across banks' models. The results are broadly in line with the previous exercises, with 50% of the difference in variability explained with simple risk drivers, a risk-weighted deviation on low-default portfolios below 10 percentage points and estimates for high-default portfolios generally on the conservative side when compared with empirical observed metrics. Furthermore, this year, for the first time, on high-default portfolios, EBA performed a comparison with the standardized approach risk-weights. The overall observed variability under the standardized approach is at a similar level than the one observed on internal rating-based (IRB) approach. Within a single exposure class, the variability under the IRB approach follows, in a conservative manner, the empirical variability of risk (observed via default rates). In addition to a questionnaire filled in by supervisors and interviews conducted with seven institutions, a survey was conducted among institutions to better assess the variability of practices in terms of rating scales. This survey highlights the variability of practices on the type of calibration of the probability of default.
The market risk report presents the results of the 2019 supervisory benchmarking and summarizes the conclusions drawn from a hypothetical portfolio exercise conducted by EBA during 2018-19. Compared to the previous exercises, the 2019 analysis shows a substantial reduction in terms of dispersion in the initial market valuation and some reduction in risk measures, especially for the aggregated portfolios. This improvement was expected and is likely due to the simplification in the market risk benchmarking instruments. The remaining dispersion is probably the result of new benchmarking instruments being used by banks for the first time. The quantitative analysis, which has been extended in terms of scope with respect to the previous exercises, was also complemented by a questionnaire to competent authorities. Although the majority of the causes were identified and actions were put in place to reduce the unwanted variability of the hypothetical RWAs, the effectiveness of these actions can be evaluated only with ongoing analysis. The 2019 exercise is the first exercise with the new set of hypothetical instruments and portfolios. The new set of instruments mainly consists of vanilla instruments and is more extensive in terms of the number of instruments to model with respect to the three previous benchmarking exercises.
- Press Release
- Results of Credit Risk Benchmarking (PDF)
- Annex: Charts from Credit Risk Benchmarking (PDF)
- Results of Market Risk Benchmarking (PDF)
Keywords: Europe, EU, Banking, Credit Risk, Market Risk, Benchmarking, Internal Models, 2019 Benchmarking Exercise, Regulatory Capital, EBA
Previous ArticleUS Agencies Find Risk Associated with Leveraged Lending to be High
ESAs (EBA, EIOPA, and ESMA) published the first joint report that assesses risks in the financial sector since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.
APRA has concluded its review of the comprehensive plans of authorized deposit-taking institutions for the assessment and management of loans with repayment deferrals.
ECB published a decision allowing the euro area banks under its direct supervision to exclude certain central bank exposures from the leverage ratio.
ESAs launched a survey seeking feedback on the presentational aspects of product templates under the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR or Regulation 2019/2088).
ECB published input of the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) into the EBA feasibility report on reducing the reporting burden for banks in EU.
EBA has decided to phase out the guidelines on legislative and non-legislative moratoria of loan repayments, in accordance with the earlier specified end of September deadline.
EC adopted a decision determining, for a limited period of time, that the regulatory framework applicable to central counterparties, or CCPs, in the UK and Northern Ireland is equivalent to the requirements laid down in the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR or Regulation 648/2012).
EBA published an Opinion addressed to EC to raise awareness about the opportunity to clarify certain issues related to the definition of credit institution in the upcoming review of the Capital Requirements Directive and Regulation (CRD and CRR).
ECB finalized the guide on assessment methodology for the internal model method for calculating exposure to counterparty credit risk (CCR) and the advanced method for own funds requirements for credit valuation adjustment (A-CVA) risk.
FED is proposing to temporarily revise the capital assessments and stress testing reports (FR Y-14A/Q/M) to implement the changes necessary to conduct stressed analysis in connection with the re-submission of capital plans, using data as of June 30, 2020.