EBA organized, on November 27 and 28, a research workshop on approaches, governance, and methodologies with respect to the future of stress tests in the banking sector. The EBA Chair José Manuel Campa opened the workshop by highlighting the importance of approaching long-term discussion on the future of stress tests and explaining the commitment to widely consult different stress test users before making any final decisions. The EBA Chair also summarized the identified shortcomings in EU stress tests in comparison to other jurisdictions and briefly discussed the potential top-down and bottom-up approaches. Additionally, Andrea Enria, Chair of the Supervisory Board of ECB, suggested a way to redesign the stress test by splitting it into three elements—a supervisory view, a bank view, and a macro view.
According to him, redesigning would ensure that the results can still be compared across banks and that the exercise does not consume too many resources. The supervisory view would, by and large, be a more efficient version of the current stress test. That is, it would still be based on a constrained bottom-up approach. The main difference is that because of a shift in focus when publishing the results, the supervisory view requires fewer resources than the current approach. The focus for publication would be on the capital depletion per bank. Compared with the current approach, this would require far less granular quality assurance by supervisors.
The bank view would not only help to make the results more realistic and relevant but it would also help to maintain transparency, which would be more limited in the supervisory view. The bank view would be the new element of the exercise. It would be run in parallel to the supervisory view and would give banks more freedom. They would have to apply the EBA methodology, but would be allowed to relax some of the constraints. Banks could thus better account for their individual risk profile and vulnerabilities. Overall, this would allow them to predict more accurately how the stress scenario would affect their balance sheet.
Finally, the macro view would make it possible to simulate events that are relevant at the macro level. However, the macro view should not provide a third set of stress test results but should rather supplement the supervisory view with a top-down sensitivity analysis. It would help illustrate how the results might change if the central scenario were modified or different methodological assumptions were used. This would support the high-level narrative of the supervisory view. Mr. Enria concluded that the guiding principles for any future changes to the European stress test should be "realism, relevance, cost-efficiency (for both supervisors and the industry), and transparency."
Keywords: Europe, EU, Banking, Stress Testing, Supervisory View, Bank View, Macro View, Bottom-Up Stress Test, Top-Down Stress Test, ECB, EBA
Previous ArticleBCBS Issues Guiding Principles to Operationalize Sectoral CCyB
BoE published a statistical notice (Notice 2020/9) explaining the approach for treatment of payment holidays on the profit and loss return or Form PL.
BoE updated the known issues document for the statistical reporting Forms AS and FV.
FED announced individual capital requirements for 34 large banks and these requirements go into effect on October 01, 2020.
SRB published a set of documents to give operational guidance to banks on implementation of the bail-in tool.
BIS published an update on the G20 TechSprint Initiative, which was launched in April 2020 and aims to highlight the potential for technologies to resolve regulatory compliance (regtech) and supervisory (suptech) challenges.
OSFI published a letter that provides an update on the milestones for the implementation of the IFRS 17 standard on insurance contracts.
EBA updated the report on the implementation of selected COVID-19 policies.
The Financial Stability Institute (FSI) of BIS published a brief note that examines the supervisory challenges associated with certain temporary regulatory relief measures introduced by BCBS and prudential authorities in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
BCBS is consulting on the principles for operational resilience and the revisions to the principles for sound management of operational risk for banks.
BoE updated the reporting template for Form ER as well as the Form ER definitions, which contain guidance on the methodology to be used in calculating annualized interest rates.