Last orders at the VAR
Inaccurate risk-of-loss estimates threaten to load extra capital charges on US dealers
If a hangover is punishment for a night of heavy drinking, higher capital charges are banks’ penance for running greater risks in their trading portfolios.
The wild market swings of end-2018 hit dealers’ market risk models like shots of tequila to the stomach. Yet the latest quarterly market risk disclosures suggest the hangover was relatively mild.
The eight US global systemically important banks (G-Sibs) saw their value-at-risk-based capital charges surge 23% compared with the quarter before.
This component of the market risk capital requirement tracks each bank’s average daily projected maximum risk of loss, estimated using VAR models. As such, it reflects banks’ own guesses of the amount of capital needed to absorb trading losses.
But much like the optimistic imbiber underestimating their alcohol tolerance, banks’ VAR models can underestimate their maximum daily risk of loss. When actual losses exceed modelled estimates, a VAR breach is the result. These are red flags to regulators. Frequent breaches imply a bank’s VAR model is not fit for purpose. The VAR-based capital charge is calculated by multiplying a bank’s projected average daily loss estimate by three. But if a bank sees more than four VAR breaches over a rolling 250-day period, the multiplier climbs in increments to a maximum of four with every additional breach.
Much like the optimistic imbiber underestimating their alcohol tolerance, banks’ VAR models can underestimate their maximum daily risk of loss. When actual losses exceed modelled estimates, a VAR breach is the result
After a rocky fourth quarter, some banks are facing the prospect of multiplier increases. State Street has seen four VAR breaches over the past 250 trading days. The US unit of Credit Suisse is in the same position. Bank of America has three breaches. BNP Paribas is already over the limit with eight, and is subject to a 3.75 multiplier. That should dissuade these banks from lowballing their loss estimates in the months ahead.
Still, the consequences of frequent VAR breaches should not be overstated. The US market risk requirements include five other components, which act as an extra layer of protection. The stressed VAR charge, for example, forces dealers to hold enough capital to cover expected maximum losses in a period of severe market tumult. The specific risk add-on and de minimis positions add-on capture risks that may not be fully covered in a bank’s VAR model.
The VAR-based capital charge accounts for less than 10% of US G-Sibs market risk capital charges. So, models and standardised formulas used to capture other aspects of market risk are of much greater importance. But the threat of multiplier increases may prompt banks to be more conservative with their VAR estimates in future.
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.
You may share this content using our article tools. Printing this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
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. Copying this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Our take
Hedge funds must race the clock to check their dealer-rule status
Working out whether a firm is caught by SEC registration requirement could take months
Filling gaps in market data with optimal transport
Julius Baer quant proposes novel way to generate accurate prices for illiquid maturities
Why Europe still awaits a private credit CLO
Tricky questions face managers that plan to launch the structure on the continent
The signs of tacit collusion in the dividend play trade
Game theory and real-world data point to a different understanding of how arbitrage in markets works
Decades of history says you can beat high inflation with quality
Factors such as momentum and value generally outperform the market irrespective of inflation, but new research suggests quality stocks are best when prices are rising rapidly
Esma faces tough task in implementing Emir 3.0
EU regulator must contend with tight timeframes and increasing workload without additional resources
Quants are using language models to map what causes what
GPT-4 does a surprisingly good job of separating causation from correlation
China stock sell-off will test securities firms’ risk managers
Regulatory measures to support stock market could add to risks facing securities sector
Most read
- Top 10 operational risks for 2024
- Top 10 op risks: third parties stoke cyber risk
- Japanese megabanks shun internal models as FRTB bites