
The long-term effect of Covid-19 on market risk capital
Covid-19 has replaced the global financial crisis in some banks’ stressed VAR calculations
The feral markets that accompanied the start of the coronavirus pandemic may be a thing of the past, but they continue to affect banks’ capital charges – and will do so for some time to come.
Trading book capital requirements are set using a series of risk indicators, one of which is stressed value-at-risk (SVAR). A bank measures this by calculating how much its current portfolio would fall in value if subjected to a 12-month period of historic stress.
Most banks anchor this stress period to the global financial crisis. But the record-breaking moves witnessed earlier this year have compelled some to instead use a 12-month period that includes the coronavirus outbreak.
Royal Bank of Canada is one example. In fiscal Q3, the firm said it had switched to using a stressed period that included the coronavirus outbreak. This pushed its SVAR-based capital requirement up 30%, or C$64 million.
US banks change the historical period used for SVAR dynamically as their portfolio changes. A capital manager at one large dealer tells Risk.net the Covid shock would have been included in many banks’ calculations during the second quarter.
On its own, SVAR makes up just a fraction of a bank’s overall market risk capital charge. But the ‘regular’ VAR-based requirement – calculated using the most recent 12 months of historical market data – has also rocketed, as banks’ internal models have factored in the wild swings earlier this year.
Some banks have therefore been hit with a double whammy as VAR- and SVAR-based charges jumped higher in tandem. JP Morgan has seen its VAR- and SVAR-based charges climb 377% and 39%, respectively, since the end of 2019. Together, they made up almost half of its total market risk capital requirement at end-June, up from 31% six months prior.
‘Regular’ VAR-based charges will stay elevated at most banks for at least a year, after which time the Covid shock will start rolling out of the observation data. But for those banks that have to retain the Covid period for their SVAR-based charge, market risk capital requirements may remain stuck at a higher level for many, many years.
This may affect capital-allocation decisions across trading desks. For example, a trading desk that did particularly poorly during the first quarter of this year – say, equity derivatives – may be more capital-intensive under an SVAR measure that incorporates the Covid shock than under the global financial crisis stress.
To paraphrase William Faulkner, “the (market) past is never dead. It’s not even past”.
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: Alexandre Antonov turns down the noise in Markowitz
Adia quant explains how to apply hierarchical risk parity to a minimum-variance portfolio
Why did UK keep the pension fund clearing exemption?
Liquidity concerns, desire for higher returns and clearing capacity all possible reasons for going its own way
UBS’s Iabichino holds a mirror to bank funding risks
Framing funding management as an optimal control problem affords an alternative to proxy hedging
Trump 2.0 bank supervision: simpler but no soft touch?
Republican FDIC vice-chair Travis Hill wants more focus on financial risk instead of process
Lots to fear, including fear itself
Binary scenarios for key investment risks in this year’s Top 10 are worrying buy-siders
Podcast: Alexei Kondratyev on quantum computing
Imperial College London professor updates expectations for future tech
Quants mine gold for new market-making model
Novel approach to modelling cointegrated assets could be applied to FX and potentially even corporate bond pricing
Thin-skinned: are CCPs skimping on capital cover?
Growth of default funds calls into question clearers’ skin in the game