Credit derivatives disclosure still lacking, says Basel Committee
The disclosure by banks related to their credit mitigation techniques is still lacking, according to a survey released today by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. The survey analysed public disclosure by banks in 2001 and found that, although the overall level of public disclosure by banks on items disclosure hit 63% compared with 59% in 2000, there was still scope for significant improvement.
Overall qualitative reporting of derivatives information, excluding credit derivatives, remained fairly high, with 80% of banks discussing their objectives for the use of non-trading derivatives and how these are used to hedge risks. But quantitative information on derivatives use was less widely available. Apart from the gross positive (81%) and negative (70%) market values of derivatives that were disclosed, only 35% of banks disclosed the future potential exposures for derivatives, and 39% disclosed the notional amounts and average marked values for trading and non-trading portfolios. Qualitative information on the use of credit derivatives was disclosed by 51% of respondents, with 54% disclosing their notional amounts of these products. Only 30% of respondents listed a breakdown of the different types of credit derivatives products in their portfolios.
The most noteworthy improvement from the previous year was in the disclosure of information on ‘other risks’, such as operational, liquidity and interest rate risk, up from 65% in 2000 to 84%. The report also points to the enhanced transparency in the area of securitisation, which has grown alongside the general growth in the industry. But this still remains fairly limited compared with other activities, with only 45% of all banks reporting their securitisation activities, both quantitatively and qualitatively.
The report said banks should further enhance their transparency, particularly pointing to disclosure on the use of credit risk mitigation techniques, including credit derivatives. This is especially important, as disclosure in these areas will be qualifying criteria for the recognition or use of these techniques for capital relief under the new capital Accord, Basel II.
The survey, focusing on the annual reports of 54 banks, posed 104 questions addressing quantitative and qualitative disclosures on issues such as capital structure, capital adequacy, market risk modelling, credit risk modelling, securitisation and derivatives.
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
Review of 2025: It’s the end of the world, and it feels fine
Markets proved resilient as Trump redefined US policies – but questions are piling up about 2026 and beyond
BofA urges horizontal CCP fix after CME outage, others demur
Analysts say clearing meltdown bolsters case for futures-for-futures exchange with FMX
One in five banks targets a 30-day liquidity survival horizon
ALM Benchmarking research finds wide divergence in liquidity risk appetites, even among large lenders
Bank ALM tech still dominated by manual workflows
Batch processing and Excel files still pervade, with only one in four lenders planning tech upgrades
Many banks ignore spectre of SVB in liquidity stress tests
In ALM Benchmarking exercise, majority of banks have no internal tests focusing on stress horizons of less than 30 days
Quant Finance Master’s Guide 2026
Risk.net’s guide to the world’s leading quant master’s programmes, with the top 25 schools ranked
ALM Benchmarking: explore the data
View interactive charts from Risk.net’s 46-bank study, covering ALM governance, balance-sheet strategy, stress-testing, technology and regulation
Staff, survival days, models – where banks split on ALM
Liquidity and rate risks are as old as banking; but the 46 banks in our benchmarking study have different ways to manage them