BoE published a paper that examines risk sensitivity and risk shifting in banking regulation. The paper provides evidence that the more risk‐sensitive Basel II framework may have reduced banks’ incentives to engage in higher‐risk mortgage lending in the UK. The analysis suggests the need for a robust regulatory framework with several complementary standards interacting and reinforcing each other, even if subjecting banks to a number of regulatory constraints adds to complexity.
The paper reviews the history of risk sensitivity in capital standards and assesses whether a higher degree of risk sensitivity necessarily leads to a better measurement of risk. The paper provides a sketch of the history of risk‐weighted capital requirements, a history that reached its pinnacle with the introduction of the advanced internal ratings‐based approach of Basel II. The paper then reviews whether Basel II has improved the way risk is measured, in particular why ex‐ante risk sensitivity may not lead to greater ex‐post risk sensitivity. Finally, the paper assesses whether Basel II led to less regulatory arbitrage and less risk shifting, as was the intention, before offering a conclusion.
The financial crisis exposed enormous failures of risk management by financial institutions and of the authorities’ regulation and supervision of these institutions. Reforms introduced as part of Basel III have tackled some of the most important fault‐lines. As the focus now shifts toward the implementation and evaluation of these reforms, it will be essential to assess where the balance has been struck between the robustness and the risk sensitivity of the capital framework. This paper contributes to this assessment by stepping back from the details of the recent reforms and instead taking a bird’s eye view on the fundamental trade‐offs that may exist between robustness, complexity, and risk sensitivity.
Related Link: Financial Stability Paper No. 44
Keywords: Europe, UK, Banking, Risk Sensitivity, Risk Shifting, Banking Regulation, Basel III, Basel II, BoE
BCBS is consulting on the principles for operational resilience and the revisions to the principles for sound management of operational risk for banks.
The Financial Stability Institute (FSI) of BIS published a brief note that examines the supervisory challenges associated with certain temporary regulatory relief measures introduced by BCBS and prudential authorities in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
HKMA, together with the Banking Sector Small and Medium-Size Enterprise (SME) Lending Coordination Mechanism, announced a ninety-day repayment deferment for trade facilities under the Pre-approved Principal Payment Holiday Scheme.
The Advisory Scientific Committee of ESRB published a response, in the form of an Insights Paper, to the EBA proposals for reforms to the stress testing framework in EU.
MAS announced several initiatives to support adoption of the Singapore Overnight Rate Average (SORA), which is administered by MAS.
BoE updated the reporting template for Form ER as well as the Form ER definitions, which contain guidance on the methodology to be used in calculating annualized interest rates.
PRA published the policy statement PS19/20 on the final policy for extending coverage under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) for Temporary High Balance.
EBA published the final draft implementing technical standards for disclosures and reporting on the minimum requirements for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL) and the total loss-absorbing capacity (TLAC) requirements in EU.
EBA published an erratum for the phase 2 of technical package on the reporting framework 2.10.
EC published the Implementing Regulation 2020/1145, which lays down technical information for calculation of technical provisions and basic own funds.