Standardised approaches: the risks of reform
Comparing modelled and standardised capital may raise more questions than it answers
Risk-sensitivity, simplicity, comparability – these are the three attributes regulators are trying to balance in an ongoing review of the bank capital framework. Balance is the operative word, because it's generally thought impossible to promote all three of them, to the same extent, at the same time. Clearly, if bank capital is very risk-sensitive, it will not be simple.
Comparability, though, has a slightly more slippery relationship with the other attributes. Could bank capital be simple and comparable? Yes. Could it be risk-sensitive and comparable? Yes, although it might be more difficult. And while the other two attributes are inherently desirable – risk-sensitivity is a good thing, as is simplicity – comparability is not necessarily helpful to anyone if the things being compared are false or if the comparison yields no useful information. In fact, it could be harmful.
As part of their efforts to strike a balance, regulators plan to give standardised approaches a key role – these fixed formulas have always been seen as the poor relation of internal capital models, but are now being revamped to make them suitable for a new, expanded function.
The idea is for banks that have modelling approval to calculate standardised capital numbers as well. Both sets of numbers will be disclosed alongside each other; the modelled numbers will also be floored at some percentage of the appropriate standardised approach.
It has a lot to recommend it. The disclosures, in tandem with the floors, will promote the virtues of simplicity and comparability; risk-sensitivity will suffer – depending on precisely where the floors are struck – but the overhaul of the standardised approaches is intended to make them more sophisticated.
It certainly makes it easier to compare Bank A and Bank B, but what does it say about the actual level of risk each bank is running?
Despite that, the scheme is catching a lot of – predictable – flak. Modelling banks fear the loss of risk-sensitivity and a possible jump in capital levels. Standardised banks say the new approaches are too complex.
The more awkward questions, again, arise when considering comparability. If the capital numbers produced by the standardised approach for market risk really are 13 times higher than those obtained by internal models – as a study of unpublished data from the latest impact study suggests – what will that tell analysts and investors? It certainly makes it easier to compare Bank A and Bank B, but what does it say about the actual level of risk each bank is running? The conclusion, when confronted with that kind of gulf, is that both numbers are wrong, and the truth lies somewhere inbetween. But where?
Regulators should be applauded for trying to fix the problems with the capital regime, but there is a risk the results will undermine, rather than strengthen, the framework.
Read this month's In-depth articles on standardised approaches here and here
Further reading
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 Risk management
Buy side would welcome more guidance on managing margin calls
FSB report calls for regulators to review existing standards for non-bank liquidity management
Japanese megabanks shun internal models as FRTB bites
Isda AGM: All in-scope banks opt for standardised approach to market risk; Nomura eyes IMA in 2025
Benchmark switch leaves hedging headache for Philippine banks
If interest rates are cut before new benchmark docs are ready, banks face possible NII squeeze
Op risk data: Tech glitch gives customers unlimited funds
Also: Payback for slow Paycheck Protection payouts; SEC hits out at AI washing. Data by ORX News
The American way: a stress-test substitute for Basel’s IRRBB?
Bankers divided over new CCAR scenario designed to bridge supervisory gap exposed by SVB failure
Industry warns CFTC against rushing to regulate AI for trading
Vote on workplan pulled amid calls to avoid duplicating rules from other regulatory agencies
Top 10 op risks: change brings challenges as banks splash the cash
Higher interest margins and a trend toward insourcing drive major tech projects
Top 10 op risks: deepfakes drive rise in fraud fears
External fraud re-enters top 10 as artificial intelligence provides new tools for criminals
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