For EU banks, there can be no ‘back to normal’
The ECB’s recent review of risk models shows lenders got it all wrong pre-pandemic
After 14 months of Covid-19 restrictions, “let’s get back to normal” has become a popular refrain among politicians and pundits alike. But when it comes to European banks, recent findings suggest that the pre-pandemic ‘normal’ was not good enough. In fact, the ‘normal’ risk profile of many banks was distorted, obscured, or underestimated to a concerning degree.
That’s according to the European Central Bank’s final report on the Targeted Review of Internal Models (Trim). The exercise, launched in 2016 and completed in April, set out to ensure banks’ internal risk models meet regulatory requirements and to root out unwarranted variability in risk-weighted asset (RWA) calculations across institutions. In total, 65 top lenders were investigated by the ECB.
The results overwhelmingly show that banks’ risk modelling practices were not up to scratch and, as a result, that their capitalisation of market, credit and counterparty exposures fell short of what the risks justified. In total, the ECB found over 5,800 weaknesses in participants’ models and issued 253 sanctions, known as ‘supervisory decisions’. These decisions led to a whopping €275 billion ($330 billion) (12%) increase in aggregate RWAs. With minimum Pillar 1 capital requirements set at 8% of RWAs, the effect of the Trim was to boost charges for participants by €22 billion.
Will banks have learnt enough from Trim to ensure they don’t underestimate their risks in the ‘new normal’ to come?
Put simply, banks lowballed their capital requirements ahead of the pandemic. This could have spelled disaster for some when the market crisis hit, as their buffers may have proved insufficient to absorb the losses inflicted over the first months of the coronavirus crisis. This outcome was averted thanks largely to a blitz of regulatory changes by European authorities and the quick action of governments to guarantee loans and approve payment moratoria. ECB analysis shows the median Common Equity Tier 1 capital ratio actually increased 30 basis points following the implementation of these and other measures.
But capital requirements, and asset risk-weighting, will become more stringent again over time as the pandemic recedes. Will banks have learnt enough from Trim to ensure they don’t underestimate their risks in the ‘new normal’ to come? As the ECB’s final report implies, much depends on whether and how they improve their data management capabilities. Shortcomings around internal ratings-based model data were found in almost all on-site investigations, with many failings linked to problematic control frameworks and “weaknesses in the allocation of roles and responsibilities” in data management.
Model deficiencies could also be reduced if banks strengthened their independent internal validation functions. The ECB wrote these are important “to ensure an ongoing internal challenge” and prevent “gaming” of capital requirements by model users.
Both of these remedies require manpower and investment. But with EU bank profitability in the doldrums, executives may be reluctant to spend on initiatives that don’t translate into higher earnings. Of course, in the long term, failure to upgrade internal model practices could saddle banks with huge costs in the form of higher RWAs or greater-than-expected losses if and when a major counterparty defaults. For their own sake, then, executives should reject going ‘back to normal’ and embrace a fundamentally different approach to handling their internal models going forward.
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 Our take
Podcast: Lorenzo Ravagli on why the skew is for the many
JP Morgan quant proposes a unified framework for trading the volatility skew premium
Quants see promise in DeBerta’s untangled reading
Improved language models are able to grasp context better
Counterparty risk model links defaults to portfolio values
Fed’s Michael Pykhtin proposes using copula models to capture effects of margin calls on default risk
Does Basel’s internal loss multiplier add up?
As US agencies mull capital reforms, one regulator questions past losses as an indicator of future op risk
Is JSCC-CFTC stalemate about to be broken?
Japan CCP gains allies in battle to clear yen swaps for US clients, but CFTC shakeup could dash hopes
What T+1 risk? Dealers shake off FX concerns
Predictions of increased settlement risk and later-in-the-day trading have yet to materialise
Go your own way: departures pose new challenges for CFTC
Loss of Democratic majority would impede chairman’s ambitions for regulatory agenda
Altice’s dropdown is a warning for European creditors
Carve-out used to shield assets from lenders may occur in a fifth of European deals