Regulators to review abolition of Basel II op risk floor
Global banking regulators have asked their technical experts to look at the conditions necessary to eliminate the floor limiting gains for banks using advanced approaches to measuring operational risk under Basel II.
Regulators with the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, the architects of Basel II, want to ensure banks have adequate incentives to adopt sophisticated methods of measuring op risk using their own risk models and loss data.
Under current proposals, op risk charges for banks using advanced measurement methods are capped at 25% below those using cruder, gross-income based approaches. Regulators said they would review this floor two years after the introduction of the Accord, where they could abolish, lower or even raise it. Regulators fear an over-generous floor might result in banks reserving insufficient capital to guard against operational losses.
But critics argue that the 75% floor is not enough to make it worthwhile for banks to invest in the systems needed to qualify for the advanced approaches. One idea is to cut the floor to 50% with a review after two years. Another is to keep the floor at 75% for two years then remove it entirely, but many supervisors believe this provides too much leeway. Yet another is that the floor could be different for individual banks, according to their supervisors’ view of the efficiency of their risk management practices.
The Basel Committee’s capital task force, the senior Basel sub-grouping, decided in late April to seek a clearer definition of the circumstances under which the floor might be abolished, rather than adopt a particular solution at this stage. The Committee’s risk management group, responsible for developing the op risk aspects of Basel II, will handle the matter. “We’re not really going to know the right answer for some time,” said one regulator.
Regulators have wrestled with the incentive dilemma since last September, when they reduced the maximum amount of op risk capital to 12% of overall protective capital, down from an earlier 20% benchmark. The 12% figure reduced the scope for devising a floor that provided an effective incentive to move to the advanced approaches, although not all bankers agree.
So yet another option is to increase the 12% benchmark, which, according to some regulators, is regarded by a number of banks as too low. A higher benchmark would mean a 25% discount for the advanced approaches would be worth more than it would with a lower benchmark.
Basel II will determine the amount of capital banks will set aside to guard against the risks of banking, which includes operational risks like fraud, technology failure and trade settlement errors for the first time.
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 Risk management
Microsoft outage disrupts structured notes trading
Document-heavy OTC trades upended as term sheets and confirmations languished in outboxes
One-factor rates models sit behind most XVA calculations
Risk Benchmarking: Dealers coalesce around calibration depth, but runtimes and lookbacks vary sharply
Could a prediction market bet get you fired by your bank?
At least half of US systemic banks limit personal prediction trades, but mention markets still a concern
Dealers still split on XVA desks’ funding remit
Risk Benchmarking: Global dealers use XVA desks to manage swaps funding needs, but most treasuries retain some control
How enterprise risk rose to the top of the bank
Previously a support function, ERM is naturally positioned to identify strategic risks for the board
Can prediction markets pass the institutional sniff test?
Regulated firms need credible event determination methodologies and cross-product margining to enable use, say experts
Most dealers run central XVA desks, but remits vary
Risk Benchmarking: Many banks struggle to track XVA costs and share of derivatives compute
EU banks in India cut contingency costs after clearing deal
Esma MoU with two Indian regulators lifts threat to direct clearing for BNP, SocGen and Deutsche