Cross-sector risk transfer regulations should be reviewed, say FSA respondents
The UK's Financial Services Authority (FSA) recently released feedback on responses to Discussion Paper 11, which focused on the effects of risk transfer between the banking industry and the insurance industry via credit derivatives and related products, and how this area should be regulated in the future.
In the response paper, published in December, respondents suggested five key issues should be addressed more specifically in the review of the proposed revisions to the Basel Accord, including: disproportionately high capital deductions on retained risks; the need for tail risk to be transferred; the lack of appropriate treatment of unexpected losses; the lack of recognition of double default risk; and the absence of even a partial benefit where risk-sharing occurs.
Respondents also noted that regulators should look at the capital differential between banks and insurers, as well as the capital reduction that can be achieved through a swap transaction that cannot be achieved through a nearly identical insurance solution.
While the FSA’s reactions to these responses were somewhat general, the regulatory body did say it would seek to monitor the credit risk transfer markets “through our firm-specific supervision and further occasional thematic initiatives”. The FSA also said it does not “propose at present to issue guidance on the boundary between credit derivatives and insurance”.
Said the FSA: “We continue to keep credit risk transfers on our risk radar as part of our oversight of market developments and of our firm-specific supervision. Where these activities are significant, we take them into account in our risk assessment and risk mitigation programme for individual firms.”BaselAlert.com
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
FRTB models find salvation in US Basel III proposal
Changes to P&L attribution test and NMRFs make IMA viable for US banks, risk managers say
US blows the floors off Basel III
Barr criticises “downward deviations” in US rule; Bowman rejects “blind adherence” to global standards
Basel III endgame – a timeline
A review of Risk.net’s coverage of the US implementation saga
Leaked EU plans offer extra temporary relief for FRTB models
Risk factors would need only two observations to be modellable. Do changes foreshadow US Basel III?
Iosco chief talks cyber, AI and clearing
Buenaventura discusses Iosco’s role in aiding market resilience and cross-border co-operation
US regulators bid to save FRTB IMA, but it’s no small task
Even if industry wish-list is granted, a 2028 start date might be too soon for model adoption
Hopes rise for cross-product netting under SA-CCR
Banks want rule change in Basel III endgame to lower capital costs of clearing UST repos
Long way round: EU banks lament credit spread saga
EBA ditches some of banks’ preferred qualitative reasonings – and shortcuts – for CSRBB exclusion