Basel III Agreed [Finally]

The Bank for International Settlements has released the now agreed Basel III framework. Many of the measures will have a 2022 target implementation data. They will tend to lift capital requirements higher, and reduce the potential advantage of adopting advanced IRB models.  Investment mortgage lending will attract higher weights.

APRA will, we assume take account of this framework when their paper on capital is issued, now expected in the new year (presumably to take account of the BIS announcement).

Here is a quick summary, of some of the main take outs. However, the new revisions makes the Basel framework ever more complex.

The Basel III framework is a central element of the Basel Committee’s response to the global financial crisis. It addresses a number of shortcomings in the pre-crisis regulatory framework and provides a foundation for a resilient banking system that will help avoid the build-up of systemic vulnerabilities. The framework will allow the banking system to support the real economy through the economic cycle.

The initial phase of Basel III reforms focused on strengthening the following components of the regulatory framework:

  • improving the quality of bank regulatory capital by placing a greater focus on going-concern loss-absorbing capital in the form of Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) capital;
  • increasing the level of capital requirements to ensure that banks are sufficiently resilient to withstand losses in times of stress;
  • enhancing risk capture by revising areas of the risk-weighted capital framework that proved to be acutely miscalibrated, including the global standards for market risk, counterparty credit risk and securitisation;
  • adding macroprudential elements to the regulatory framework, by: (i) introducing capital buffers that are built up in good times and can be drawn down in times of stress to limit procyclicality; (ii) establishing a large exposures regime that mitigates systemic risks arising from interlinkages across financial institutions and concentrated exposures; and (iii) putting in place a capital buffer to address the externalities created by systemically important banks;
  • specifying a minimum leverage ratio requirement to constrain excess leverage in the banking system and complement the risk-weighted capital requirements; and
  • introducing an international framework for mitigating excessive liquidity risk and maturity transformation, through the Liquidity Coverage Ratio and Net Stable Funding Ratio.

The Committee’s now finalised Basel III reforms complement these improvements to the global regulatory framework. The revisions seek to restore credibility in the calculation of risk-weighted assets (RWAs) and improve the comparability of banks’ capital ratios by:

  • enhancing the robustness and risk sensitivity of the standardised approaches for credit risk, credit valuation adjustment (CVA) risk and operational risk;
  • constraining the use of the internal model approaches, by placing limits on certain inputs used to calculate capital requirements under the internal ratings-based (IRB) approach for credit risk and by removing the use of the internal model approaches for CVA risk and for operational risk;
  • introducing a leverage ratio buffer to further limit the leverage of global systemically important banks (G-SIBs); and
  • replacing the existing Basel II output floor with a more robust risk-sensitive floor based on the Committee’s revised Basel III standardised approaches.

Banks on the standard approach will need to incorporate mortgage risk weights depend on the loan-to-value (LTV) ratio of the mortgage and different risks for investment property.

They also changed the risk weights on commercial real estate and will reducing mechanistic reliance on credit ratings.

The financial crisis highlighted a number of shortcomings related to the use of internally modelled approaches for regulatory capital, including the IRB approaches to credit risk. These shortcomings include the excessive complexity of the IRB approaches, the lack of comparability in banks’ internally modelled IRB capital requirements and the lack of robustness in modelling certain asset classes.

To address these shortcomings, the Committee has made the following revisions to the IRB approaches: (i) removed the option to use the advanced IRB (A-IRB) approach for certain asset classes; (ii) adopted “input” floors (for metrics such as probabilities of default (PD) and loss-given-default (LGD)) to ensure a minimum level of conservativism in model parameters for asset classes where the IRB approaches remain available; and (iii) provided greater specification of parameter estimation practices to reduce RWA variability.

The Financial Stability Board welcomed the announcement.

The Financial Stability Board (FSB) welcomes the announcement by the Group of Central Bank Governors and Heads of Supervision (GHOS), the oversight body of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, that agreement has been reached on the finalisation of Basel III. The agreement improves the comparability of banks’ risk-weighted assets and reinforces the credibility of the bank capital framework. Agreement on these final elements means that one of the key reforms pursued to address the causes of the global financial crisis has been completed and can be fully implemented.

Fed Keeps Countercyclical Capital Buffer at 0 percent

The Federal Reserve Board announced on Friday it has voted to affirm the Countercyclical Capital Buffer (CCyB) at the current level of 0 percent. In making this determination, the Board followed the framework detailed in the Board’s policy statement for setting the CCyB for private-sector credit exposures located in the United States.

The buffer is a macroprudential tool that can be used to increase the resilience of the financial system by raising capital requirements on internationally active banking organizations when there is an elevated risk of above-normal future losses and when the banking organizations for which capital requirements would be raised by the buffer are exposed to or are contributing to this elevated risk–either directly or indirectly. The CCyB would then be available to help banking organizations absorb higher losses associated with declining credit conditions. Implementation of the buffer could also help moderate fluctuations in the supply of credit.

The Board consulted with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency in making this determination. Should the Board decide to modify the CCyB amount in the future, banking organizations would have 12 months before the increase became effective, unless the Board establishes an earlier effective date.

APRA releases changes to the capital framework for mutual ADIs

The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) has released its final revisions to the capital framework for mutually owned authorised deposit-taking institutions (ADIs) in relation to changes that provide these ADIs with more flexibility in their capital management.

In 2014, APRA developed the Mutual Equity Interest (MEI) framework for mutually owned ADIs. The advent of MEIs enabled mutuals to issue capital instruments that met the criteria for Additional Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital under APRA’s capital adequacy framework. In July this year, APRA proposed extending the MEI framework to allow mutually owned ADIs to issue CET1-eligible capital instruments directly without jeopardising their mutual status.

APRA has today released its response paper on the consultation as well as the final Prudential Standard APS 111 Capital Adequacy: Measurement of Capital (APS 111). APRA received a number of submissions in response to its proposals. While submissions sought clarification of, and raised issues with, particular aspects of the proposed framework, submissions were supportive of the direction of the proposed changes, which improve the capital management flexibility available to mutually owned ADIs.

Facilitating the ability of mutually owned ADIs to directly issue CET1 instruments was also the first recommendation of the recent Independent Facilitator Review (Hammond Review) into the mutual ADI sector1.

The revised prudential standard APS111 will come into effect from 1 January 2018.

UK Lifts Counter Cyclical Buffer

The Bank of England release their Financial Stability Report today, which includes the results of recent stress tests.  Though the stress tests show that UK Banks could handle the potential losses in the extreme scenarios, the FPC is raising the UK counter cyclical buffer rate from 0.5% to 1% with binding effect from 28 November 2018. In addition buffers for individual banks will be reviewed in January 2018, to take account of the probability of a disorderly Brexit, and other risk factors hitting at the same time.

They highlighted risks from higher LTI mortgage and consumer lending, and the potential impact of rising interest rates. They still have their 15% limit on higher LTI income mortgages (above 4.5 times). They are concerned about property investors in particular  – defaults are estimated at 4 times owner occupied borrowers under stressed conditions! Impairment losses are estimated at 1.5% of portfolio.

Beyond this, they discussed the impact of Brexit, and potential impact of a disorderly exit.

Finally, from a longer term strategic perspective, they identified potential pressures on the banks (relevant also we think to banks in other locations). There were three identified , first competitive pressures enabled by FinTech may cause a greater and faster disruption to banks’ business models than they currently expect; next the cost of maintaining and acquiring customers in a more competitive environment could reduce the scope for cost reductions or result in greater loss of market share and third the future costs of equity for banks could be higher than the 8% level that banks expect either because of higher economic uncertainty or greater perceived downside risks.

Here is the speech and press conference.

The FPC’s job is to ensure that UK households and businesses can rely on their financial system through thick and thin. To that end, today’s FSR and accompanying stress tests address a wide range of risks to UK financial stability. And they will catalyse action to keep the system well‐prepared for potential vulnerabilities in the short, medium and long terms.

In particular, this year’s cyclical stress test incorporates risks that could arise from global debt vulnerabilities and elevated asset prices; from the UK’s large current account deficit; and from the rapid build‐up of consumer credit. Despite the severity of the test, for the first time since the Bank  began stress testing in 2014 no bank needs to strengthen its capital position as a result.

Informed by the stress test and our risk analysis, the FPC also judges that the banking system can continue to support the real economy even in the unlikely event of a disorderly Brexit. At the same time, the FPC has identified a series of actions that public authorities and private financial institutions need to take to mitigate some major cross cutting financial risks associated with leaving the EU.

The Bank’s first exploratory scenario assesses major UK banks’ strategic responses to longer term risks to banks from an extended low growth, low interest rate environment and increasing competitive pressures enabled by new financial technologies. The results suggest that banks may need to give more thought to such strategic challenges.

The Annual Cyclical Stress Test

Today’s stress test results show that the banking system would be well placed to provide credit to households and businesses even during simultaneous deep recessions in the UK and global economies, large falls in asset prices, and a very large stressed misconduct costs. The economic scenario in the 2017 stress test is more severe than the deep recession that followed the global financial crisis. Vulnerabilities in the global economy trigger a 2.4% fall in world GDP and a 4.7% fall in UK GDP falls.

In the stress scenario, there is a sudden reduction in investor appetite for UK assets and sterling falls sharply, as vulnerabilities associated with the UK’s large current account deficit crystallise. Bank Rate rises sharply to 4.0% and unemployment more than doubles to 9.5%. UK residential and commercial real estate prices fall by 33% and 40%, respectively. In line with the Bank’s concerns over consumer credit, the stress test incorporated a severe consumer credit impairment rate of 20% over the three years across the banking system as a whole. The resulting sector‐wide loss of £30bn is £10bn higher than implied by the 2016 stress test.

The stress leads to total losses for banks of around £50 billion during the first two years ‐ losses that would have wiped out the entire equity capital base of the banking system ten years ago. Today, such losses can be fully absorbed within the capital buffers that banks must carry on top of their minimum capital requirements. This means that even after a severe stress, major UK banks would still have a Tier 1 capital base of over £275 billion or more than 10% of risk weighted assets to support lending to the real economy.

This resilience reflects the fact that major UK banks have tripled their aggregate Tier 1 capital ratio over the past decade to 16.7%.

Countercyclical Capital Buffer

Informed by the stress test results for losses on UK exposures, the FPC’s judgement that the domestic risk environment—apart from Brexit—is standard; and consistent with the FPC’s guidance in June; the FPC is raising the UK countercyclical buffer rate from 0.5% to 1% with binding effect from 28 November 2018. In addition, as previously announced, capital buffers for individual banks will be reviewed by the PRC in January. These will reflect the firm‐specific results of the stress test, including the judgement made by the FPC and PRC in September. These buffers can be drawn on as necessary during a downturn to allow banks to support the real economy.

Brexit

There are a range of possible outcomes for the future UK‐EU relationship. Consistent with its remit, the FPC is focused on scenarios that, even if the least likely to occur, could have the greatest impact on UK financial stability. These include scenarios in which there is no agreement or transition period in place at exit. The 2017 stress test scenario encompasses the many possible combinations of macroeconomic risks and associated losses to banks that could arise in this event. As a consequence, the FPC judges that, given their current levels of resilience, UK banks could continue to support the real economy even in the event of a disorderly exit from the EU.

That said, in the extreme event in which the UK faced a disorderly Brexit combined with a severe global recession and stressed misconduct costs, losses to the banking system would likely be more severe than in this year’s annual stress test. In this case where a series of highly unfortunate events happen simultaneously, capital buffers would be drawn down substantially more than in the stress test and, as a result, banks would be more likely to restrict lending to the real economy, worsening macroeconomic outcomes. The FPC will therefore reconsider the adequacy of a 1% UK countercyclical capital buffer rate during the first half of 2018, in light of the evolution of the overall risk environment. Of course, Brexit could affect the financial system more broadly. Consistent with the Bank’s statutory responsibilities, the FPC is publishing a checklist of steps that would promote financial stability in the UK in a no deal outcome.

It has four important elements:

– First, ensuring that a UK legal and regulatory framework for financial services is in place at the point of leaving the EU. The Government plans to achieve this through the EU Withdrawal Bill and related secondary legislation.
– Second, recognising that it will be difficult, ahead of March 2019, for all financial institutions to have completed all the necessary steps to avoid disruption in some financial services. Timely agreement on an implementation period would significantly reduce such risks, which could materially disrupt the provision of financial services in Europe and the UK.
– Third, preserving the continuity of existing cross‐border insurance and derivatives contracts. Domestic legislation will be required to achieve this in both cases, and for derivatives, corresponding EU legislation will also be necessary. Otherwise, six million UK insurance policy holders with £20 billion of insurance coverage, and thirty million EU policy holders with £40 billion in insurance coverage, could be left without effective cover; and around £26 trillion of derivatives contracts could be affected. HM Treasury is considering all options for mitigating these risks.
– Fourth, deciding on the authorisations of EEA banks that currently operate in the UK as branches. Conditions for authorisation, particularly for systemic firms, will depend on the degree of cooperation between regulatory authorities. As previously indicated, the PRA plans to set out its approach before the end of the year. Irrespective of the particular form of the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the EU, and consistent with its statutory responsibility, the FPC will remain committed to the implementation of robust prudential standards. This will require maintaining a level of resilience that is at least as great as that currently planned, which itself exceeds that required by international baseline standards.

Biennial Exploratory Scenario

Over the longer term, the resilience of UK banks could also be tested by gradual but significant changes to business fundamentals. For the first time, the FPC and PRC have examined the strategic responses of major UK banks to an extended low growth, low interest rate environment combined with increasing competitive pressures in retail banking from increased use of new financial technologies. FinTech is creating opportunities for consumers and businesses, and has the potential to increase the resilience and competitiveness of the UK financial system as a whole. In the process, however, it could also have profound consequences for the business models of incumbent banks. This exploratory exercise is designed to encourage banks to consider such strategic challenges. It will influence future work by banks and regulators about longer‐term issues rather than informing the FPC and PRC about the immediate capital adequacy of participants.

Major UK banks believe they could, by reducing costs, adapt to such an environment without major changes to strategy change or by taking more risk. The Bank of England has identified clear risks to these projections:
– Competitive pressures enabled by FinTech may cause a greater and faster disruption to banks’ business models than they currently expect.
– The cost of maintaining and acquiring customers in a more competitive environment could reduce the scope for cost reductions or result in greater loss of market share.
– The future costs of equity for banks could be higher than the 8% level that banks expected in this scenario either because of higher economic uncertainty or greater perceived downside risks.

Conclusion

The FPC is taking action to address the major risks to UK financial stability. Given the tripling of their capital base and marked improvement in their funding profiles over the past decade, the UK banking system is resilient to the potential risks associated with a disorderly Brexit.

In addition, the FPC has identified the key actions to mitigate the impact of the other major cross cutting issues associated with a disorderly Brexit that could create risks elsewhere in the financial sector.

And on top of its existing measures to guard against a significant build‐up of debt, the FPC has taken action to ensure banks are capitalised against pockets of risk that have been building elsewhere in the economy, such as in consumer credit.

As a consequence, the people of the United Kingdom can remain confident they can access the financial services they need to seize the opportunities ahead.

Banks Pass Basel III Hurdle

The Basel Committee has published the results of its latest Basel III monitoring exercise based on data as of 31 December 2016. For the first time, the report provides not only global averages but also a regional breakdown for many key metrics. Data is included from 4 Australian “Group 1” banks and 1 “Group 2” bank.

Overall, banks now hold more capital, which is a good thing. Tier 1 capital ratios improved from 7.4% to 13.5%. In 2011 Tier 1 capital ratios were more than two percentage points lower in Europe and the Americas compared with the rest of the world. This relationship has now reversed.

  • Compared with the previous reporting period (June 2016) the average Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) capital ratio under the fully phased-in Basel III framework has increased from 11.9% to 12.3% for Group 1 banks while is stable for Group 2 banks.
  • All Group 1 banks would meet the CET1 minimum capital requirement of 4.5% and the CET1 target level of 7.0% (ie including the capital conservation buffer). This target also includes the G-SIB surcharge where applicable.
  • There is no CET1 capital shortfall for Group 2 banks both at the minimum and target levels.
  • Applying the 2022 minimum requirements, 12 of the 25 G-SIBs reporting total loss-absorbing capacity (TLAC) data have a combined shortfall of €116.4 billion, compared with €318.2 billion at the end of June 2016.
  • Group 1 banks’ average Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) improved by 5.0 percentage points to 131.4%, while the average Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR) increased from 114.0% to 115.8%. For Group 2 banks, the LCR and NSFR are more stable.
  • CET1 capital ratios for Group 1 banks have increased by 5.1 percentage points from 7.2% to 12.3% since June 2011, total capital ratios have increased by 6.6 percentage points from 8.7% to 15.3%.
  • Tier 1 capital ratios improved from 7.4% to 13.5%, mainly driven by increases in capital which more than offset a slight overall increase in risk-weighted assets (RWA).
  • In 2011 Tier 1 capital ratios were more than two percentage points lower in Europe and the Americas compared with the rest of the world. However, this relationship has reversed in the meantime. The reasons are twofold. First, the increase in capital since June 2011 was lower in Europe as compared to the other regions. Second, RWA fell for European Group 1 banks while RWA increased for banks in the Americas and, in particular, the rest of the world.
  • Since 2011, annual profits after tax have always been higher in the Americas and the rest of the world than in Europe.
  • Overall, around 20% of the profits have been generated by Group 1 banks in Europe, more than 30% in the Americas and almost half in the rest of the world.
  • Conversely, almost 60% of the CET1 capital raised has been raised by Group 1 banks in Europe.

Data have been provided for a total of 200 banks, comprising 105 large internationally active banks. These “Group 1 banks” are defined as internationally active banks that have Tier 1 capital of more than €3 billion, and include all 30 banks that have been designated as global systemically important banks (G-SIBs). The Basel Committee’s sample also includes 95 “Group 2 banks” (ie banks that have Tier 1 capital of less than €3 billion or are not internationally active).

The Basel III minimum capital requirements are expected to be fully phased-in by 1 January 2019 (while certain capital instruments could still be recognised for regulatory capital purposes until end-2021). On a fully phased-in basis, data as of 31 December 2016 show that all banks in the sample meet both the Basel III risk-based capital minimum Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) requirement of 4.5% and the target level CET1 requirement of 7.0% (plus any surcharges for G-SIBs, as applicable). Between 30 June and 31 December 2016, Group 1 banks continued to reduce their capital shortfalls relative to the higher Tier 1 and total capital target levels; in particular, the Tier 2 capital shortfall has decreased from €3.4 billion to €0.3 billion. As a point of reference, the sum of after-tax profits prior to distributions across the same sample of Group 1 banks for the six-month period ending 31 December 2016 was €239.5 billion. In addition, applying the 2022 minimum requirements for Total Loss-Absorbing Capacity (TLAC), 12 of the G-SIBs in the sample have a combined incremental TLAC shortfall of €116.4 billion as at the end of December 2016, compared with €318.2 billion at the end of June 2016.

The monitoring reports also collect bank data on Basel III’s liquidity requirements. Basel III’s Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) was set at 60% in 2015, increased to 70% in 2016 and will continue to rise in equal annual steps to reach 100% in 2019. The weighted average LCR for the Group 1 bank sample was 131% on 31 December 2016, up from 126% six months earlier. For Group 2 banks, the weighted average LCR was 159%, slightly up from 158% six months earlier. Of the banks in the LCR sample, 91% of the Group 1 banks (including all G-SIBs) and 96% of the Group 2 banks reported an LCR that met or exceeded 100%, while all Group 1 and Group 2 banks reported an LCR at or above the 70% minimum requirement that was in place for 2016.

Basel III also includes a longer-term structural liquidity standard – the Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR). The weighted average NSFR for the Group 1 bank sample was 116%, while for Group 2 banks the average NSFR was 114%. As of December 2016, 94% of the Group 1 banks (including all G-SIBs) and 88% of the Group 2 banks in the NSFR sample reported a ratio that met or exceeded 100%, while 100% of the Group 1 banks and 96% of the Group 2 banks reported an NSFR at or above 90%.

Note that in general, the estimates presented generally assume full implementation of the Basel III requirements as agreed up to end-2015 based on data as of 31 December 2016. The main part of this report does not reflect any standards agreed since the beginning of 2016, such as the revisions to the market risk framework which are presented separately in a special feature. No assumptions have been made about banks’ profitability or behavioural responses, such as changes in bank capital or balance sheet composition, either since this date or in the future. Furthermore, the report does not reflect any additional capital requirements under Pillar 2 of the Basel II framework, any higher loss absorbency requirements for domestic systemically important banks, nor does it reflect any countercyclical capital buffer requirements.

APRA consults on changes to mutually owned ADIs’ capital framework

The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) has released for consultation a discussion paper on proposed revisions to the capital framework for mutually owned authorised deposit-taking institutions (ADIs) to enable them to directly issue Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) capital instruments.

In 2014, APRA developed a Mutual Equity Interest (MEI) framework for mutually owned ADIs that enables them to issue Additional Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital instruments that meet requirements for conversion into CET1 capital in certain circumstances. Because of their structure, mutually owned ADIs have traditionally not been able to issue ordinary shares that could qualify as CET1 capital.

The consultation announced today concerns proposed amendments to this MEI framework to allow mutually owned ADIs to issue CET1-eligible capital instruments directly. The proposed changes are intended to give mutually owned ADIs more flexibility in their capital management.

These proposed CET1-eligible capital instruments would share many of the same characteristics as ordinary shares and would, for example, be perpetual, subject to discretionary dividends and accounted for as equity. However, because these instruments are untested, APRA is proposing some restrictions on the amount that may be included in CET1 and, to accommodate the mutual corporate structure of issuing ADIs, proposes limits on MEI holders’ share of residual assets.

Following consideration of submissions received through this consultation, APRA anticipates it will release the final revised APS 111 in late 2017 for commencement as soon as practicable thereafter.

Australian Banks’ Stricter Capital Requirements Are Credit Positive – Moody’s

From Moody’s

On 19 July, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) announced that it will raise the minimum common equity Tier 1 (CET1) ratio for banks. The stricter capital requirements will make the banking system more resilient to any weakening of credit conditions, a credit positive.

Australia’s four biggest banks, the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. (Aa3/Aa3 stable, a22), Commonwealth Bank of Australia (Aa3/Aa3 stable, a2), National Australia Bank Limited (Aa3/Aa3 stable, a2), and Westpac Banking Corporation (Aa3/Aa3 stable, a2), which use internal ratings based models for calculating risk-weighted assets, will be most affected. APRA increased the four banks’ minimum CET1 ratio 150 basis points to 9.5%, including a 1% charge for domestic systemically important banks (D-SIBs). Although the higher capital requirements will take effect in early 2021, APRA said that it expects banks to exceed the new requirement and have CET1 ratios of 10.5% by 1 January 2020 at the latest.

The minimum CET1 ratio for Macquarie Bank Limited (A2 stable, baa1), which also uses an internal ratings-based approach but is not a D-SIB, was similarly raised 150 basis points to 8.5%, effective 1 January 2020. For all the other banks, which use standardized models, the minimum CET1 ratio is 7.5%, a 50 basis point increase.

The new minimum CET1 ratio is an incremental increase from the banks’ current capital levels. The APRA has for some time indicated that it would tighten capital rules, and our Australian bank ratings fully reflect that possibility. To meet a CET1 target of 10.5%, the four big banks will need to raise their CET1 ratios between 40 and 90 basis points from their reported levels at March 2017 (see Exhibit 1). That translates into an aggregate capital shortfall of about AUD9.1 billion. However, the banks’ normalized annual internal capital generation is already around AUD6.5-AUD7.5 billion after dividend payments and dividend reinvestments. Also, in practice, they may need less additional capital because they have been actively reducing their risk-weighted assets by changing their business mixes.

Macquarie Bank’s CET1 ratio was 11.1% as of March 2017, well above its new 8.5% minimum. Smaller banks subject to a 7.5% minimum also mostly have CET1 ratios exceeding the requirement, so any capital shortage for them will be minimal.

The tighter capital requirement reflects the APRA’s concern about Australian banks’ reliance on foreign wholesale funding, which makes them vulnerable to sudden shifts in foreign investor sentiment. Australian banks issue around 70% of their long-term debt and 40% of their short-term debt to foreign investors (see Exhibit 2).
 The APRA has also flagged further increases in capital requirements in 2021. The regulator plans to increase the risk weights of certain assets, particularly for investor property loans and higher loan-to-value ratio loans. Although loss rates on mortgages remain low, housing loans make up 60% of Australian banks’ loan portfolios. Furthermore, a high and rising level of household debt has elevated risks within the household sector, making Australian banks’ credit quality more vulnerable to a shock. APRA also stated that its assessment of bank capital assumes that a framework for total loss-absorbing capacity will be introduced at a later date.

APRA Imposes Higher Capital Requirements

APRA has announced the new capital ratios, to meet the‘unquestionably strong’ benchmark. The four major Australian banks will need to have CET1 capital ratios of at least 10.5 per cent by effectively increasing requirements for all IRB banks by the equivalent of around 150 basis points. For other ADIs, the effective increase in capital requirements to meet the ‘unquestionably strong’ benchmark will be around 50 basis points. All ADIs are expected to meet the new benchmarks by 1 January 2020.

There will be another paper from APRA later looking at risk weights for mortgages given the industry concentration, so more changes to come?

Loans will become more expensive! It also re-balances competition between smaller banks and the larger players, and makes a move to advanced IRB less attractive, which will be a pain for those players in transition! Banks will probably need another $10-15 billion of capital, which is manageable, but will depress returns, and require loan repricing some more. Around 10 basis points needs to be recovered to maintain current profitability. If applied to mortgages and small business borrowers only, we estimate this to be a 20-25 basis point hike (varies by bank, and business mix).

The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) today announced its assessment on the additional capital required for the Australian banking sector to have capital ratios that are considered ‘unquestionably strong’.

The 2014 Financial System Inquiry (FSI) endorsed the benefits of a strong and well capitalised banking system and recommended that APRA set capital standards such that capital ratios of authorised deposit-taking institutions (ADIs) are ‘unquestionably strong’. The Australian Government subsequently endorsed this recommendation.

The FSI’s endorsement of the benefits of a strongly capitalised banking system recognised Australia’s reliance on foreign borrowings, the need to ensure that Australia’s financial system continues to provide its core economic functions, even in times of stress, and the benefits that flow from reducing the perception of an implicit government guarantee and the associated economic inefficiency this creates.

APRA has today released an Information Paper which outlines APRA’s conclusions with respect to the quantum and timing of capital increases that will be required for Australian ADIs to achieve unquestionably strong capital ratios. The analysis draws on international comparisons, as suggested by the FSI, as well as other information that allows capital strength to be viewed from different perspectives.

In its assessment, APRA has focussed on the appropriate calibration of Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) capital requirements, recognising that CET1 is the highest quality capital and therefore most likely to engender confidence in an ADI’s financial strength.

APRA has distinguished in its analysis between those ADIs using the more conservative standardised approach to capital adequacy, and those banks that are accredited to use internal models to determine their capital requirements.

ADIs using the internal ratings-based (IRB) approach to capital adequacy

For ADIs that use the internal ratings-based approach to credit risk, APRA has concluded that it is necessary to raise minimum capital requirements by around 150 basis points from current levels to achieve capital ratios that would be consistent with the goal of ‘unquestionably strong’.

This calibration recognises that ADIs using the IRB approach are currently operating with a higher capital surplus above regulatory minimums, in anticipation of APRA’s implementation of the FSI’s recommendation. APRA therefore expects that some of the increase in minimum requirements might be met through the surplus these ADIs hold in excess of minimum regulatory requirements.

In the case of the four major Australian banks, APRA expects that the increased capital requirements will translate into the need for an increase in CET1 capital ratios, on average, of around 100 basis points above their December 2016 levels. In broad terms, that equates to a benchmark CET1 capital ratio, under the current capital adequacy framework, of at least 10.5 per cent.

ADIs using the standardised approach to capital adequacy

For ADIs that use the standardised approach to credit risk, APRA has concluded that it is necessary to raise minimum capital requirements by approximately 50 basis points from current levels to achieve capital ratios that would be consistent with the goal of  ‘unquestionably strong’.

Given the diversity of capital ratios currently reported by ADIs that use the standardised approach, it is not possible to translate this into an expected increase in actual capital ratios. Many ADIs already hold a capital surplus substantially in excess of current minimum regulatory requirements, and will likely absorb this increase within their existing capital resources without any need to raise additional capital.

Implementation and timetable

APRA considers that ADIs should, where necessary, initiate strategies to increase their capital strength to be able to meet these capital benchmarks by 1 January 2020 at the latest.

In parallel with this build up in capital strength, APRA intends to release a discussion paper on proposed revisions to the capital framework, designed to establish capital requirements that will underpin ADIs having unquestionably strong capital ratios, later in 2017. Subject to finalisation of the international reforms, this will outline the direction of APRA’s implementation of the forthcoming Basel III changes to risk weights as well as measures to address Australian ADIs’ structural concentration of exposures to residential mortgages. It will also outline options APRA is considering to improve transparency and international comparability of ADI capital ratios. Following the discussion paper, APRA expects to consult on draft prudential standards giving effect to the new framework in late 2018, leading to the release of final prudential standards in 2019 which are anticipated to take effect in early 2021.

APRA’s expectation that ADIs meet the capital benchmarks outlined in the Information Paper by 2020, a year ahead of the expected effective date of the new prudential standards, reflects the importance to Australia of ADIs having unquestionably strong capital ratios, and that this should be achieved in a timely manner. By 2020, five years would have elapsed since the release of the final FSI report. Against that background, APRA encourages ADIs to consider whether they can achieve the capital benchmarks more quickly.

APRA Chairman Wayne Byres said: “APRA’s objective in establishing unquestionably strong capital requirements is to establish a banking system that can readily withstand periods of adversity without jeopardising its core function of financial intermediation for the Australian community.

“Today’s announcement is the culmination of nearly a decade’s financial reform work aimed at building capital strength in the financial system following the global financial crisis. Australia has a robust and profitable banking industry and APRA believes this latest capital strengthening can be achieved in an orderly way.

“Capital levels that are unquestionably strong will undoubtedly equip the Australian banking sector to better handle adversity in the future, and reduce the need for public sector support. However, a strong capital position still needs to be complemented by sound governance and risk management within ADIs, and on-going proactive supervision by APRA,” Mr Byres said.

In combination, the increases outlined in the Information Paper will complete a significant strengthening of risk-based capital ratios within the Australian banking system in recent years. In meeting this new benchmark, for example, the four major banks will have, on average, increased their CET1 ratios by the equivalent of more than 250 basis points since the release of the FSI report.

The Information Paper is available on APRA’s website here: www.apra.gov.au/adi/Publications/Pages/other-information-for-adis.aspx

US Banks Now Significantly More Capitalised

The US Federal Reserve Board has announced it has completed its review of the capital planning practices of the nation’s largest banks and reports that their ratios have more than doubled from 5.5 percent in the first quarter of 2009 to 12.5 per-cent in the fourth quarter of 2016.

Each US bank is listed, so we can make comparisons, unlike the “behind closed door” arrangements in Australia, where regulatory disclosure is so poor.

CCAR, in its seventh year, evaluates the capital planning processes and capital adequacy of the largest U.S.-based bank holding companies, including the firms’ planned capital actions such as dividend payments and share buybacks. Strong capital levels act as a cushion to absorb losses and help ensure that banking organizations have the ability to lend to households and businesses even in times of stress.

“I’m pleased that the CCAR process has motivated all of the largest banks to achieve healthy capital levels and most to substantially improve their capital planning processes,” said Governor Jerome H. Powell.

Figure A provides the aggregate ratio of common equity capital to risk-weighted assets for the firms in CCAR from 2009 through the fourth quarter of 2016. This ratio has more than doubled from 5.5 percent in the first quarter of 2009 to 12.5 per-cent in the fourth quarter of 2016. That gain reflects a total increase of more than $750 billion in common equity capital from the beginning of 2009 among these firms, bringing their total common equity capital to over $1.2 trillion in the fourth quarter of 2016.

The decline in the common equity ratio in the first quarter of 2015 resulted from the incorporation of risk-weighted assets calculated under the standardized approach under the capital rules that the Board adopted in 2013, which had a one-time effect of reducing all risk-based capital ratios. However, the aggregate common equity capital ratio of the 34 firms increased by around 65 basis points between the first quarter of 2015 and the fourth quarter of 2015. Previously, risk-weighted assets were calculated under a prior version of the capital rules.

In the aggregate, the 34 firms participating in CCAR 2017 have estimated that their common equity will remain near current levels between the third quarter of 2017 and the second quarter of 2018, based on their planned capital actions and net income projections under their baseline scenario.

When considering a firm’s capital plan, the Federal Reserve considers both quantitative and qualitative factors. Quantitative factors include a firm’s projected capital ratios under a hypothetical scenario of severe economic and financial market stress. Qualitative factors include the strength of the firm’s capital planning process, which incorporate risk management, internal controls, and governance practices that support the process.

This year, 13 of the largest and most complex banks were subject to both the quantitative and qualitative assessments. The 21 other firms in CCAR were subject only to the quantitative assessment. The Federal Reserve may object to a capital plan based on quantitative or qualitative concerns, and if it does, a firm may not make any capital distribution unless authorized by the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve did not object to the capital plans of Ally Financial, Inc.; American Express Company; BancWest Corporation; Bank of America Corporation; The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation; BB&T Corporation; BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc.; BMO Financial Corp.; CIT Group Inc.; Citigroup, Inc.; Citizens Financial Group; Comerica Incorporated; Deutsche Bank Trust Corporation; Discover Financial Services; Fifth Third Bancorp; Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.; HSBC North America Holdings, Inc.; Huntington Bancshares, Inc.; JP Morgan Chase & Co.; Keycorp; M&T Bank Corporation; Morgan Stanley; MUFG Americas Holdings Corporation; Northern Trust Corp.; The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.; Regions Financial Corporation; Santander Holdings USA, Inc.; State Street Corporation; SunTrust Banks, Inc.; TD Group US Holdings LLC; U.S. Bancorp; Wells Fargo & Company; and Zions Bancorporation.

The Federal Reserve did not object to the capital plan of Capital One Financial Corporation, but is requiring the firm to submit a new capital plan within six months that addresses identified weaknesses in its capital planning process.

 

APRA On Basel and Local Standards

Wayne Byers spoke at The American Chamber of Commerce in Australia Business Briefing on International standards and national interests.

He described the current state of play with Basel III:

Although the core components of Basel III – a strengthening of the framework for bank capital, liquidity and funding – was agreed in 2010, the final points of detail still remain to be agreed. This is frustrating for regulators and banks alike. A decade on from the onset of the financial crisis, I don’t think anyone could say it is being rushed! And with a number of bank failures just in recent weeks in Canada, Italy and Spain, at a time when economic conditions are not particularly volatile, I also don’t think anyone could say the need to be vigilant about strengthening the financial system has diminished.

Although the finishing line for Basel III is in sight, we still haven’t yet found the alignment of interests that will allow the drafters to put down their pens and publish the final version. What is at the heart of the delay? Ultimately, it is the difficulty in aligning national interests with the common good. To have a common standard, all jurisdictions – and there are 27 of them at the Basel Committee table, represented by 45 individual agencies, who operate by consensus – are essentially agreeing to give up some degree of freedom as to their own domestic standard-setting. In many cases, this won’t be problematic since – as I will come back to in a minute – the minimum standard produced around the table in Basel will be lower than one would want to apply domestically. But in others it may involve a genuine trade-off between domestic considerations and the benefits of consistent international practice. Those trade-offs can be hard, even for experts, to measure and assess, let alone explain to non-experts.

The good news, though, is that the effort to find agreement continues. And it was pleasing to see the US Treasury, in its first report in response to the President’s Executive Order on financial regulation, acknowledge that ‘U.S. engagement in international financial regulatory standard-setting bodies remains important’3 and that it ‘supports efforts to finalize remaining elements of the international reforms at the Basel Committee…to strengthen the capital adequacy of global banks.’4 At a time when there is genuine concern about the potential for fragmentation of global financial markets, such statements can only be welcomed.

Nevertheless, I think the current work in Basel will largely mark the end of the cycle, and we are largely done when it comes to major new international standards.

But the question is how to implement locally. In Australia he says

APRA does not see any case for implementing a domestic regulatory framework that is less robust than the international norms. Australia cannot simultaneously rely more than most on cross-border funding, and seek to be exempted from some or all of the regulatory requirements applying in other parts of the world. In any event, even if we attempted to implement a weaker set of domestic rules, international markets and counterparties would hold Australian banks to the international standards and measures anyway. So we see little value in trying to stand apart from the rest of the world, claiming to know better.

But it is also true that international standards are not always settled in the exact form that we would prefer if we had complete freedom to write the rules ourselves. We have a seat at the table, and seek to use our influence to shape the final form of any agreement, but compromise is inevitably necessary.

And the standards should be higher than the minimum:

…even within international standards, there are often areas in which national discretion is granted. That is, the standard allows a choice, usually on narrow technical issues, that is deliberately and explicitly left to the domestic authority. In these cases, we can make a decision we think works best for Australian circumstances and, regardless of the decision taken, still be seen as in compliance with the international standard.

But the most important factor in balancing international standards and national interests is that, at least in the financial regulatory world, international standards are minimum standards. It is quite open to us to improve upon them, reflecting our own circumstances. In Australia, we have long taken the view that we should aspire to a higher standard of safety than provided by solely adhering to minimum Basel standards. In part that reflects the nature of our highly concentrated banking system, and also the lack of pre-funded deposit insurance. We seek to ensure that Australia’s banking system is considerably more resilient than has generally been the case for international banking in recent decades. It is all too evident that the incidence of banking crises has been too frequent, their costs have been extraordinarily high, and many communities around the world are still wearing the consequences. We think we should try to do better.

So this leaves the door firmly open for higher capital ratio in the approach which we expect soon. Worth remembering that every 1% uplift on capital for the majors costs around $15bn, or slightly more.  We think it is likely the majors will be required to hold more capital, either by way of a counter-cyclical buffer, or a change to the DSIB buffer.  We also think mortgage risk weights may continue to rise.

Any change will put further upward pressure on mortgage interest rates.  Worth too reflecting on the UK announcement, we covered this morning, there the Bank of England is lifting the counter-cyclical buffer by 1%, half now and half in November!