General Information & Client Service
  • Americas: +1.212.553.1653
  • Asia: +852.3551.3077
  • China: +86.10.6319.6580
  • EMEA: +44.20.7772.5454
  • Japan: +81.3.5408.4100
Media Relations
  • New York: +1.212.553.0376
  • London: +44.20.7772.5456
  • Hong Kong: +852.3758.1350
  • Tokyo: +813.5408.4110
  • Sydney: +61.2.9270.8141
  • Mexico City: +001.888.779.5833
  • Buenos Aires: +0800.666.3506
  • São Paulo: +0800.891.2518
October 11, 2018

During a speech at the 2018 Stress Testing Research Conference in Boston, Beverly Hirtle of NY FED discussed the evolution of design of the supervisory stress testing. She briefly reviewed how stress testing emerged as a key supervisory policy tool and how the original goals of the Supervisory Capital Assessment Program (SCAP), Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR), and Dodd-Frank Act Stress Testing (DFAST) affected modeling and design choices. She then highlights the gaps left by the current approach, before finally suggesting the areas where new research could help push forward the frontier of stress test modeling, both of specific elements that go into the stress test calculation and of the broader impact of the stress testing programs implemented in the United States and elsewhere.

She detailed the design choices made for stress testing and highlighted three important tactical issues in supervisory stress test modeling that research can help address:

  • Additional ways of projecting revenues and non-credit expenses in stressed environments is a particularly ripe area for additional work.
  • Concerns about measuring model risk. How to assess errors from models intended to capture performance under stressed conditions when those conditions have not yet been realized and might not be in the historical data?  How to assess the uncertainty or margin of error around loss and revenue projections derived from models that can be quite complex, often involving multiple estimation steps?  How to assess the error around the ultimate calculation of stressed capital ratios? Howto measure correlation in model errors in a tractable and practical way? How much model risk owes to the decision to develop complex models for many individual pieces of the net income and regulatory capital ratio calculations, instead of using simpler, "top down" estimation approaches?
  • Role of simpler, easier to estimate models of net income and its key components. Federal Reserve modeling teams have already developed a set of these "benchmark" models that produce loss and revenue estimates as a comparison to the projections from the more sophisticated and complex production models. Increasing deviations between benchmark and production projections could highlight emerging (or declining) areas of risk. A related area of research could address optimal ways for supervisors to assess the signal when benchmark and production model results deviate significantly from one another. Also, these simpler models could potentially form the basis of a more dynamic, system-focused stress test analysis that builds in the linkages and feedback not currently captured in CCAR and DFAST stress testing programs. 

Next, she highlighted issues where additional research could help guide the evolution of the supervisory stress testing regime. A related set of questions concerns how stress testing affects the cyclicality of capital requirements and what degree of cyclicality is appropriate. How does cyclicality of stress testing interact with other cyclical elements, such as the countercyclical capital buffer and the incoming current expected credit loss (CECL) approach to loan-loss provisioning? Finally, one concern that has been raised about the FED approach to stress testing and integration into the CCAR program is that of "model monoculture," which is the idea that banks will be "incented" to develop models that mimic the FED models rather than developing their own independent approaches: "Significant commonality in modeling approaches in the banking system could result in banks adopting similar risk exposures and hedging techniques, exposing the sector to additional systemic risk and potential future instability. How do we measure this risk? What should we think about differences (and similarities) between bank-generated and supervisory stress test results, both for a particular stress test cycle and over time? What disclosure and transparency policies about supervisory models can address these concerns, while still supporting insight and credibility into the DFAST and CCAR stress testing programs?"

She concluded by saying that these are the questions that challenge policymakers as the regulatory and supervisory regime that was put in place following the crisis is re-examined and evolves in the wake of that re-examination. "A disciplined analytical approach to these topics is critical in weighing future design choices, such as those made during the initial implementation of SCAP, CCAR and DFAST stress testing. Research on these topics could make substantial and meaningful contributions."


Related Link: Speech

Keywords: Americas, US, Banking, Stress Testing, DFAST, SCAP, CCAR, NY FED, BIS

Related Articles

HKMA Decides to Maintain Countercyclical Capital Buffer at 2.5%

HKMA announced that, in accordance with the Banking (Capital) Rules, the countercyclical capital buffer (CCyB) ratio for Hong Kong remains at 2.5%.

April 16, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

EP Approves Agreement on Package of CRD 5, CRR 2, BRRD 2, and SRMR 2

The European Parliament (EP) approved the final agreement on a package of reforms proposed by EC to strengthen the resilience and resolvability of European banks.

April 16, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

FDIC Consults on Approach to Resolution Planning for IDIs

FDIC approved an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) and is seeking comment on ways to tailor and improve its rule requiring certain insured depository institutions (IDIs) to submit resolution plans.

April 16, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

EP Resolution on Proposal for Sovereign Bond Backed Securities

The European Parliament (EP) published adopted text on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on sovereign bond-backed securities (SBBS).

April 16, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

PRA Seeks Input and Issues Specifications for Insurance Stress Tests

PRA announced that it will conduct an insurance stress test for the largest regulated life and general insurers from July to September 2019.

April 15, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

PRA Finalizes Policy on Approach to Managing Climate Change Risks

PRA published the policy statement PS11/19, which contains final supervisory statement (SS3/19) on enhancing banks’ and insurers’ approaches to managing the financial risks from climate change (Appendix).

April 15, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

EBA Single Rulebook Q&A: First Update for April 2019

EBA published answers to nine questions under the Single Rulebook question and answer (Q&A) updates for this week.

April 12, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

EIOPA Statement on Application of Proportionality in SCR Supervision

EIOPA published a supervisory statement on the application of proportionality principle in the supervision of the Solvency Capital Requirement (SCR) calculated in accordance with the standard formula.

April 11, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

FED Updates Form and Supplemental Instructions for FR Y-9C Reporting

FED updated the form and supplemental instructions for FR Y-9C reporting. FR Y-9C is used to collect data from domestic bank holding companies, savings and loan holding companies, U.S intermediate holding companies, and securities holding companies with total consolidated assets of USD 3 billion or more.

April 11, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

OSFI Finalizes Guidelines on Liquidity Adequacy and NSFR Disclosures

OSFI published the final Liquidity Adequacy Requirements (LAR) guideline and the net stable funding ratio (NSFR) disclosure requirements guideline.

April 11, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
RESULTS 1 - 10 OF 2920