Featured Product

    NGFS Report Explores Quantification of Climate Risk Differentials

    The Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) published two reports to aid central banks and regulators in their oversight of the financial sector and in their central bank operations: one report examines the quantification of climate risk differentials in Pillars 1, 2, and 3; the other report presents key takeaways from a study on how, and to what extent, climate-related risks are incorporated into conventional credit ratings, also highlighting the expectations and needs of central banks as users of such ratings.

    Report on climate risk differentials

    The report provides an update on existing analyses and practices in relation to green/non-green classification frameworks and the methodologies used by financial institutions, credit rating agencies, and supervisors to assess and quantify financial risk differentials. The analyses finds that financial institutions are moving away from classification-based, backward-looking analysis of risk differentials to a more granular, forward-looking assessment of counterparties’ vulnerability to climate-related risks. The report also looks at the lessons learned from supervisory authorities and regulators’ perspectives on risk differentials and a possible way forward. The report notes that the supervisory community has been exploring ways to measure and mitigate the impact of these risks on financial stability and one of the avenues explored by supervisors is the adjustment of Pillar 1 capital requirements following a risk-based approach. However, given the current data and methodological limitations, introducing adjustment factors in the Pillar 1 capital framework using conventional risk differential analysis based on historical data remains a challenge.

    However, in light of the discussed practices, the report highlights that there may be greater potential to consider Pillar 2 measures, when addressing material idiosyncratic climate-related and environmental risks faced by individual financial institutions—though this does not exclude potential use of Pillar 1 tools. Considering climate-related and environmental risks as part of Pillar 3 requirements could also be beneficial, given the general use of disclosures in facilitating measurement and monitoring of these risks. Additionally, NGFS has identified three key strands of work for the supervisory community that could improve the resilience of financial institutions to climate-related and environmental risks:

    • Supervisors could seek to further their understanding of the range of potential risk differentials as manifested through scenario analysis and stress testing (including at the individual financial institution level).
    • With a view to enhancing the management and monitoring of transition risk in a forward-looking manner, supervisors could examine the relevance and extent to which financial institutions should consider their counterparties´ transition plans.
    • Supervisors could further advance their understanding of the impact of environmental and climate-related risks on credit ratings and internal credit risk modeling at financial institutions.

    Report on credit ratings

    The report examines how and to what extent credit rating agencies incorporate climate-related risk factors into their credit ratings. Monetary policy implementation at many central banks relies on credit ratings to assess the creditworthiness of issuers and other financial market entities. Therefore, the degree to which credit ratings reflect material risks, including climate-related risks, is of great interest to the central banking community. The report finds that despite credit rating agencies considering environmental, social, and governance (ESG) and climate-related risk factors in their credit ratings, there is still a lack of transparency surrounding the methodologies used by the rating agencies to incorporate climate-risk factors and how these factors contribute to the final rating. Central banks as well as market participants are aware of the current limitations of credit rating agencies’ credit ratings in fully capturing climate-related risks. More work and knowledge-sharing within the central banking community will be needed to properly address climate-related risks. In the meantime, central banks may apply their own analysis to complement the information in traditional ratings of credit rating agencies

     

    Related Links

     

    Keywords: International, Banking, Insurance, ESG, Climate Change Risk, Disclosures, Credit Risk, Scenario Analysis, Stress Testing, Credit Ratings, Basel, Pillar 1, Pillar 2, Pillar 3, Regulatory Capital, Credit Risk Modeling, NGFS, Headline

    Featured Experts
    Related Articles
    News

    EBA Clarifies Use of COVID-19-Impacted Data for IRB Credit Risk Models

    The European Banking Authority (EBA) published four draft principles to support supervisory efforts in assessing the representativeness of COVID-19-impacted data for banks using the internal ratings based (IRB) credit risk models.

    June 21, 2022 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EP Reaches Agreement on Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive

    The European Council and the European Parliament (EP) reached a provisional political agreement on the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD).

    June 21, 2022 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    PRA Consults on Model Risk Management Principles for Banks

    The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) launched a consultation (CP6/22) that sets out proposal for a new Supervisory Statement on expectations for management of model risk by banks.

    June 21, 2022 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EC Regulation Amends Standards for Calculating Credit Risk Adjustments

    The European Commission (EC) published the Delegated Regulation 2022/954, which amends regulatory technical standards on specification of the calculation of specific and general credit risk adjustments.

    June 21, 2022 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    BIS Hub Updates Work Program for 2022, Announces New Projects

    The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) Innovation Hub updated its work program, announcing a set of projects across various centers.

    June 17, 2022 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EIOPA Issues Cyber Underwriting Proposal, Statement on Open Insurance

    The European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) published two consultation papers—one on the supervisory statement on exclusions related to systemic events and the other on the supervisory statement on the management of non-affirmative cyber exposures.

    June 17, 2022 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    US Senate Members Seek Details on SEC Proposed Climate Disclosure Rule

    Certain members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs issued a letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

    June 16, 2022 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EIOPA Consults on Review of Securitization Framework in Solvency II

    The European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) published a consultation paper on the advice on the review of the securitization prudential framework in Solvency II.

    June 16, 2022 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    UK Authorities Issue Regulatory and Reporting Updates for Banks

    The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) issued a statement on PRA buffer adjustment while the Bank of England (BoE) published a notice on the statistical reporting requirements for banks.

    June 15, 2022 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    BCBS Issues Climate Risk Principles while HKMA Expresses Its Support

    The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) issued principles for the effective management and supervision of climate-related financial risks.

    June 15, 2022 WebPage Regulatory News
    RESULTS 1 - 10 OF 8286