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.
Victor Calanog, Ph.D.
Leading economist; commercial real estate; performance forecasting, econometric infrastructure; data modeling; credit risk modeling; portfolio assessment; custom commercial real estate analysis; thought leader.
Previous Article
US Agencies Ease Requirement for Market Risk Amid COVID VolatilityRelated Articles
PRA Consults on Implementation of Certain Provisions of CRD5 and CRR2
PRA published the consultation paper CP17/20 to propose changes to certain rules, supervisory statements, and statements of policy to implement elements of the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD5).
US Agencies Finalize Rule on Net Stable Funding Ratio Requirements
US Agencies (FDIC, FED, and OCC) adopted a final rule that implements the net stable funding ratio (NSFR) for certain large banking organizations.
FSB Sets Out Effective Practices for Cyber Incident Recovery
FSB finalized the toolkit of effective practices to assist financial institutions in their cyber incident response and recovery activities.
HM Treasury Seeks Views on Review of Solvency II Regime for Insurers
HM Treasury issued a call for evidence seeking views to reform the prudential regulatory regime—also known as Solvency II—of the insurance sector in UK.
ESRB Responds to EC Consultation on Review of Solvency II
ESRB responded to the EC consultation on review of Solvency II regime.
ECB Publishes Eleventh Issue of the Macroprudential Bulletin
ECB published eleventh issue of the Macroprudential Bulletin, which provides insight into the ongoing work of ECB in the field of macro-prudential policy.
HKMA Urges Early Action for Adherence to IBOR Fallbacks Protocol
HKMA urged authorized institutions to take early action to adhere to the IBOR Fallbacks Protocol, which ISDA is expected to publish soon.
FSB Sets Out Roadmap for Transition to Alternative Reference Rates
FSB published a global transition roadmap for London Inter-bank Offered Rate (LIBOR).
HM Treasury Updates Statutory Instruments Under EU Withdrawal Act
HM Treasury issued an update on the financial services statutory instruments under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.
HM Treasury Publishes Response to Proposal on BRRD2 Transposition
HM Treasury published a document that summarizes the responses received from a consultation on the approach of UK to transposition of the revised Bank Resolution and Recovery Directive (BRRD2).
