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
Previous ArticleDNB Issues Banking Newsletter for February 2018
FSB published the annual report that examines to-date progress toward implementation of climate-related disclosure recommendations of the industry-led Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD).
PRA launched a consultation (CP18/20) setting out proposals for the "Contractual Recognition of Bail-in" and "Stay in Resolution" Rules.
APRA is consulting on the reporting standard for credit risk management (ARS 220.0).
EC published draft of a delegated regulation amending liquidity coverage rules for covered bond issuers.
ESMA published an update to its March 2019 statement on the endorsement of credit ratings from UK.
FASB is consulting on the XBRL US Data Quality Committee (DQC) Rules Taxonomy (DQCRT) along with two technical guides.
PRA published Version 2 of the questions and answers (Q&A) on the Branch Return form.
FCA and PRA in the UK, FED in the US, and the authorities in Singapore have fined Goldman Sachs for risk management failures in connection with the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB).
ISDA launched the IBOR Fallbacks Supplement and the IBOR Fallbacks Protocol, with both becoming effective on January 25, 2021.
BCBS announced that OSFI and the Bank of Canada hosted the 21st International Conference of Banking Supervisors (ICBS) virtually on October 19-22, 2020.