HKMA published a circular that provides guidance to authorized institutions about the prudential issues recently addressed in the set of frequently asked questions (FAQs) published by BCBS with respect to the recent developments on benchmark rate reforms. These issues cover the definition of capital, market risk, counterparty credit risk, liquidity risk, and operational risk. BCBS published the recent set of FAQs on June 05, 2020.
The following are the key highlights of the guidance provided by HKMA:
- Regarding the question on whether amendments to the contractual terms of capital instruments would potentially trigger a reassessment of their eligibility as regulatory capital, HKMA adopts an approach that is in line with the BCBS clarification. Where a capital instrument is amended solely for the purpose of implementing benchmark rate reforms, this will not result in the instrument being assessed anew on whether it meets the minimum maturity and call date requirements under Schedules 4B and 4C of the Banking (Capital) Rules (BCR).
- HKMA allows authorized institutions, in conducting the real price observation test for a new benchmark rate, to count real price observations of the old benchmark rate from before its discontinuation as well as those of the new benchmark rate, until one year after the discontinuation of the old benchmark rate.
- With respect to the calculation of expected shortfall in the revised market risk framework, in line with the clarification by BCBS, if the new benchmark rate is eligible for modeling but was not available during the stressed period, HKMA allows authorized institutions to use, for the current period, the new benchmark rate in the full set of risk factors and in the reduced set of risk factors. For the stressed period, HKMA allows the institutions to use the old benchmark rate in the reduced set of risk factors.
- For purposes of sections 226BZE(4), (5), and (6) under the SA-CCR approach of the future version of the BCR and sections 226M(3), (6), and (7) under the IMM(CCR) approach of the current and future versions of the BCR, authorized institutions may, during the one-year period starting from the date of discontinuation of an old benchmark rate, disregard any transitional illiquidity of collateral and OTC derivative transactions that reference the relevant new benchmark rate when determining whether the collateral is illiquid collateral and whether the OTC derivative transactions cannot be easily replaced.
- When a type of instrument that references an old benchmark rate and has historically qualified as high quality liquid assets (HQLA) under the Liquidity Coverage Ratio is being replaced with an equivalent type of instrument that references a new benchmark rate, an authorized institution could take into account anticipated increases in the market liquidity of the replacement instrument when determining whether it qualifies as HQLA.
- With respect to the revised operational risk framework, the BCBS FAQs provide a few clarifications related to the reform of benchmark reference rates and other technical issues, which the HKMA intends to adopt when implementing the framework locally.
Keywords: Asia Pacific, Hong Kong, Banking, Basel, Benchmark Reforms, Market Risk, Credit Risk, Operational Risk, Liquidity Risk, Regulatory Capital, FAQ, BCBS, HKMA
Previous ArticleRBNZ Outlines Regulatory Priorities for 2020-2023
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).
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.
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.
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.
Banking regulators worldwide are increasingly focusing on addressing, monitoring, and supervising the institutions' exposure to climate and environmental risks.
The use cases of generative AI in the banking sector are evolving fast, with many institutions adopting the technology to enhance customer service and operational efficiency.
As part of the increasing regulatory focus on operational resilience, cyber risk stress testing is also becoming a crucial aspect of ensuring bank resilience in the face of cyber threats.
A few years down the road from the last global financial crisis, regulators are still issuing rules and monitoring banks to ensure that they comply with the regulations.
The European Commission (EC) recently issued an update informing that the European Council and the Parliament have endorsed the Banking Package implementing the final elements of Basel III standards
The Swiss Federal Council recently decided to further develop the Swiss Climate Scores, which it had first launched in June 2022.