EBA published a report analyzing the impact of the unwind mechanism of the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) for a sample of European banks over a three-year period, from the end of 2016 to the first quarter of 2020. The impact is evaluated in terms of both the quantification of the Level 1 component of high-quality liquid assets (HQLA) and the quantification of the LCR. The functioning of the mechanism under particular situations and the opportunity to change some technical aspects of the mechanism have been also discussed in the report. The analysis shows that the impact of the unwind mechanism on the LCR is practically null; it is also not possible to affirm that it could have an effect on the stability and orderly functioning of financial markets. Overall, the empirical evidence does not support the hypothesis that the unwind mechanism has a detrimental impact on the business and risk profile of credit institutions.
The report provides an introduction to the rationale and the functioning of the unwind mechanism, including providing some theoretical examples. The empirical analysis is based on common reporting (COREP) data covering a sample of about 120 credit institutions in each year. The sample covers both globally active institutions and other credit institutions. The report includes scenario analysis in which it is assumed that the amount of central bank reserves has been substantially cut. Furthermore, an analysis of alternative definitions of the unwind mechanism and an analysis of the functioning of the unwind mechanism in the event of reverse repo operations has been presented.
The report shows, via theoretical examples, that, in the absence of the unwind mechanism, it would be possible for institutions to improve the amount of HQLA (and potentially the LCR) by borrowing liquid assets through short-term repos, particularly when transactions are undertaken with the domestic central bank. The case of reverse repo operations has been studied, showing that, theoretically, in this case the unwind mechanism may produce an increase in the amount of HQLA that might not be justified from a prudential point of view. For this reason, it could be helpful to include, in the regulation, the systematic comparison between the amount of HQLA with application of the unwind mechanism and the amount of HQLA without, in order to take the lower one. However, it has been empirically shown that the materiality of these situations is limited. In the observed period, and with the available sample of credit institutions, it was not possible to detect detrimental impact on the stability of the institutions.
In aggregate terms, it was found that the unwind mechanism has an effect on only the determination of the amount of Level 1 assets and this effect is positive, whereas the effect on the LCR is null. In addition, at the bank level, few cases could be detected in which the unwind mechanism caused a relevant reduction in the LCR; in all these cases, the LCR would also have been lower than the minimum without the unwind mechanism. The report highlights that, at the end of 2020, through the Euclid project, EBA is going to receive data on regular basis, not only from a subset of banks but from all the EU banks. It is recommended that the analysis be extended over the next years to gain more experience and to be able to include in the sample smaller banks after the Euclid project has entered into force.
Keywords: Europe, EU, Banking, LCR, HQLA, Unwind Mechanism, COREP, Liquidity Risk, Basel, EBA
Previous ArticleGFIN Invites Applications for Fintech Cross-Border Testing
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) found that Heritage Bank Limited had incorrectly reported capital because of weaknesses in operational risk and compliance frameworks, although the bank did not breach minimum prudential capital ratios at any point and remains well-capitalized.
The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) released the annual report for 2020-2021.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) published, along with a summary of its response to the consultation feedback, an information paper that summarizes the finalized capital framework that is in line with the internationally agreed Basel III requirements for banks.
The Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI) and the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) issued a consultative report focusing on access to central counterparty (CCP) clearing and client-position portability.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) released the final Prudential Practice Guide on management of climate change financial risks (CPG 229) for banks, insurers, and superannuation trustees.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) Single Rulebook Question and Answer (Q&A) tool updates for this month include answers to 10 questions.
The European Commission, or EC, finalized the Implementing Regulation 2021/2017 with respect to the benchmark portfolios, reporting templates, and reporting instructions for the supervisory benchmarking of internal approaches for calculating own funds requirements.
The European Commission (EC) has adopted a package of measures related to the Capital Markets Union.
The European Council adopted its position on two proposals that are part of the digital finance package adopted by the European Commission in September 2020, with one of the proposals involving the regulation on markets in crypto-assets (MiCA) and the other involving the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA).
The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) is proposing, via the consultation paper CP21/21, to apply group provisions in the Operational Resilience Part of the PRA Rulebook (relevant for the Capital Requirements Regulation or CRR firms) to holding companies.