
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standardised approach for market risk really are 13 times higher than those obtained by internal models – as a study of unpublished data from the latest impact study suggests – what will that tell analysts and investors?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
After SVB downfall, EBA stress test seeks out unrealised losses
European regulator asks for data on the fair value and sensitivity of bonds and their hedges
Risk modellers navigate fearful new world of depositor behaviour
Silicon Valley Bank suffered fastest bank run in history, but how should others respond?
Eurex scrambles to avert Treasury collateral ban on US default
Current policy prevents CCP from selectively excluding eligible collateral
Quant Finance Master’s Guide 2023
Risk.net’s guide to the world’s leading quant master’s programmes, with the top 25 schools ranked
UBS found no advantage in quantum computing – ex data chief
Swiss bank tested various use cases in the trading business before giving up on the technology
Op risk data: Frank fiasco costs JP Morgan $175m
Also: Internal fraud burns fewer fingers, but flame is far from out. Data by ORX News
Eurex clearing chief calls for active account carve-outs
Isda AGM: Müller says EU clearing thresholds should exempt market-making and US client trades
CCPs mull collateral options amid debt ceiling deadlock
Isda AGM: Raising haircuts and minimum maturities are among measures on the table to avoid a cliff-edge