FSI published a paper that presents the findings of a comparative analysis on the system-wide stress tests for banks in the euro area, Japan, Switzerland, and the United States. The paper identifies three building blocks in the setup of any stress test—governance, implementation, and outcomes—and relates them to the policy objectives, which can be micro-prudential or macro-prudential.
On the basis of an extensive review of the choices that authorities need to make about the design of a stress test within each of these building blocks, the paper argues that stress tests are most effective when their design is fully aligned with the policy objectives associated with them. This is because micro-prudential and macro-prudential objectives may require different approaches. Consistency with the Basel Committee's high-level principles for stress testing is an important step in this regard. Stress tests are best used in combination with other tools available to the authorities to achieve their policy objectives, such as systemic risk monitoring or capital planning reviews.
The analysis suggests that stress testing is being continually improved and further developments could help to enhance the implementation and the policy use of stress tests. There are several areas in which stress tests could be improved, such as, on the implementation side, the joint treatment of solvency and liquidity risks, or the specification of second-round, spillover and contagion effects. On the policy side, more authorities could use stress tests as an input to the calibration of macro-prudential measures. Additionally, stress tests could be further integrated into regular supervisory reviews.
Some of these changes will be driven by progress in research or advances in technology, while others will be dependent on gaining enough practical experience, especially in the macro-prudential sphere. From a global perspective, a dialog among relevant authorities regarding a common scenario design for large and cross-border active banks would be a helpful addition to the stress testing landscape.
Keywords: International, Banking, Stress Testing, Systemic Risk, Macro-prudential Policy, FSI
Previous ArticleIASB Publishes November Issue of the Investor Update
PRA, via the consultation paper CP12/20, proposed changes to its rules, supervisory statements, and statements of policy to implement certain elements of the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD5).
EIOPA published the financial stability report that provides detailed quantitative and qualitative assessment of the key risks identified for the insurance and occupational pensions sectors in the European Economic Area.
EBA published its risk dashboard for the first quarter of 2020 together with the results of the risk assessment questionnaire.
EBA announced that the next stress testing exercise is expected to be launched at the end of January 2021 and its results are to be published at the end of July 2021.
PRA published the consultation paper CP11/20 that sets out its expectations and guidance related to auditors’ work on the matching adjustment under Solvency II.
MAS published a statement guidance on dividend distribution by banks.
APRA updated its capital management guidance for banks, particularly easing restrictions around paying dividends as institutions continue to manage the disruption caused by COVID-19 pandemic.
FSB published a report that reviews the progress on data collection for macro-prudential analysis and the availability and use of macro-prudential tools in Germany.
EBA issued a statement reminding financial institutions that the transition period between EU and UK will expire on December 31, 2020; this will end the possibility for the UK-based financial institutions to offer financial services to EU customers on a cross-border basis via passporting.
SRB published guidance on operational continuity in resolution and financial market infrastructure (FMI) contingency plans.