Stress Tests of Banks’ Regulatory Capital Adequacy: Application to Tier 1 Capital and to Pillar 2 Stress Tests

Esa Jokivuolle and Samu Peura

Contents
1.

Development and Validation of Key Estimates for Capital Models

2.

Explaining the Correlation in Basel II: Derivation and Evaluation

3.

Explaining the Credit Risk Elements in Basel II

4.

Loss Given Default and Recovery Risk: From Basel II Standards to Effective Risk Management Tools

5.

Assessing the Validity of Basel II Models in Measuring Risk of Credit Portfolios

6.

Measuring Counterparty Credit Risk for Trading Products under Basel II

7.

Implementation of an IRB-Compliant Rating System

8.

Stress Tests of Banks’ Regulatory Capital Adequacy: Application to Tier 1 Capital and to Pillar 2 Stress Tests

9.

Advanced Credit Model Performance Testing to Meet Basel Requirements: How Things Have Changed!

10.

Designing and Implementing a Basel II Compliant PIT–TTC Ratings Framework

11.

Basel II in the Light of Moody’s KMV Evidence

12.

Basel II Capital Adequacy Rules for Retail Exposures

13.

IRB-Compliant Models in Retail Banking

14.

Basel II Capital Adequacy Rules for Securitisations

15.

Regulatory Priorities and Expectations in the Implementation of the IRB Approach

16.

Market Discipline and Appropriate Disclosure in Basel II

17.

Validation of Banks’ Internal Rating Systems – A Supervisory Perspective

18.

Rebalancing the Three Pillars of Basel II

19.

Implementing a Basel II Scenario-Based AMA for Operational Risk

20.

Loss Distribution Approach in Practice

21.

An Operational Risk Rating Model Approach to Better Measurement and Management of Operational Risk

22.

Constructing an Operational Event Database

23.

Insurance and Operational Risk

INTRODUCTION

The internal ratings-based capital regimes of the new Basel Accord (Basel II) will expose banks to potentially significant variation in their minimum capital requirements on credit risk due to credit ratings migration. This variation and its consequences, often referred to as the procyclicality of risk-sensitive capital requirements (see, eg, Erwin and Wilde 2001), are a concern both for both banks themselves and financial regulators alike. Individual banks will face an increasing challenge to steer their capital adequacy over time in order to meet the requirements of the regulator and the markets. Authorities in turn will have the stability of the financial system at their peril.

Many people in the industry have suggested that banks can accommodate the volatility in the minimum capital requirement through an adjustment of their capital buffers over the regulatory minimum requirements (see, eg, Borio, Furfine and Lowe 2001; Lowe 2002). This recommendation has also been adopted by the Basel Committee itself, which expects banks to conduct stress tests of capital adequacy as a means of determining the sufficiency of the capital buffers.11Basel Committee (2002) already

Sorry, our subscription options are not loading right now

Please try again later. Get in touch with our customer services team if this issue persists.

New to Risk.net? View our subscription options

You need to sign in to use this feature. If you don’t have a Risk.net account, please register for a trial.

Sign in
You are currently on corporate access.

To use this feature you will need an individual account. If you have one already please sign in.

Sign in.

Alternatively you can request an individual account here