OSFI Outlines Capital Management Expectations for Banks Amid Pandemic
OSFI published a letter that provides additional information on supervisory expectations about capital management for deposit-taking institutions amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The letter clarifies expectations on the use of Pillar 2 capital buffers by deposit-taking institutions using the standardized approach to credit risk and outlines prudent capital management actions in the current environment. With respect to the frequently asked questions (FAQs) on COVID-19 measures, OSFI added clarifications on use of capital buffers and prudent capital management.
The current capital regime for deposit-taking institutions is multi-layered and includes minimum capital requirements, along with the Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 capital buffers. Pillar 1 capital buffers include a capital conservation buffer for all deposit-taking institutions and an additional surcharge of 1% of risk-weighted assets for domestic systemically important banks or D-SIBs. Pillar 2 capital buffers include institution-specific buffers and domestic stability buffer for domestic systemically important banks. OSFI clarifies that the ability to use Pillar 2 capital buffers in times of stress, like the current COVID-19 pandemic, applies to all deposit-taking institutions, including those using the standardized approach to credit risk. Deposit-taking institutions that plan to use Pillar 2 buffers by operating below their internal capital targets should discuss this with their designated Lead Supervisor. Additionally, OSFI expects small and medium-sized banks to be closely tracking their credit portfolios and reporting on developments to OSFI on a regular basis.
Within the FAQs, OSFI specifies that changes to the capital risk-weights under the standardized approach for credit risk as a result of the circumstances stemming from COVID-19 are not currently under consideration. As stated in its letter, OSFI expects all deposit-taking institutions, including those using the standardized approach to credit risk, to consider the appropriateness of their capital management actions in the current environment. This includes the following:
- In cases where deposit-taking institutions are using their capital buffers, they should use the capacity prudently and consider appropriate capital conservation actions. An institution should also have a plan for how it expects to manage its risks and restore capital.
- Deposit-taking institutions should consider stress testing information (including plausible future adverse scenarios) as part of the capital management decision-making process.
- Deposit-taking institutions must ensure that they undertake prudent capital management actions to protect depositors and other creditors while taking reasonable risks.
Related Links
Keywords: Americas, Canada, Banking, COVID-19, Credit Risk, Pillar 1, Pillar 2, Standardized Approach, Regulatory Capital, FAQ, OSFI
Featured Experts
María Cañamero
Skilled market researcher; growth strategist; successful go-to-market campaign developer
Nicolas Degruson
Works with financial institutions, regulatory experts, business analysts, product managers, and software engineers to drive regulatory solutions across the globe.
Pierre-Etienne Chabanel
Brings expertise in technology and software solutions around banking regulation, whether deployed on-premises or in the cloud.
Related Articles
HKMA Consults on Supervisory Policy for OTC Derivatives Transactions
HKMA is consulting on revisions to the Supervisory Policy Manual module CR-G-14 on margin and other risk mitigation standards for non-centrally cleared over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives transactions.
PRA on Regulatory Capital and IFRS 9 Requirements for Payment Holidays
PRA provided further information on the application of regulatory capital and IFRS 9 requirements to payment holidays granted or extended to address the challenges arising from COVID-19 outbreak.
HKMA on Fintech Adoption and Innovation by Banks in Hong Kong
HKMA announced the publication of a report on fintech adoption and innovation in the banking industry in Hong Kong.
BIS on Impact of Increasing Use of Cloud Technology on Cyber Risk
BIS published a working paper that examines the drivers of cyber risk, especially in context of the cloud services.
ECB Consults on Guide for Managing Climate and Environmental Risks
ECB launched consultation on a guide specifying how the Banking Supervision expects banks to consider climate-related and environmental risks in their governance and risk management frameworks and when formulating and implementing their business strategy.
ECB Issues Opinion on Revisions to CRR in Response to COVID Crisis
ECB published an opinion (CON/2020/16) on amendments to the prudential framework in EU in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
EBA Assesses Interlinkages Between Recovery and Resolution Planning
EBA published a report that examines the interlinkages between recovery and resolution planning under the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD).
SRB Publishes Final MREL Policy Under the Banking Package
SRB published the final Minimum Requirements for Own Funds and Eligible Liabilities (MREL) policy under the Banking Package.
US Agencies Amend Interim Final Rule on Transition Period for CECL
US Agencies (FDIC, FED, and OCC) published a final rule that makes technical changes to the March 31, 2020 interim final rule that provides a five-year transition period for the impact of the current expected credit loss (CECL) methodology on regulatory capital.
ECB Releases Results of March Survey on Credit Terms and Conditions
ECB published results of the March 2020 survey on credit terms and conditions in euro-denominated securities financing and over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives markets.
