Basel Capital Adequacy Framework
description
Transcript of Basel Capital Adequacy Framework
1Moody’s Risk Management Services
Basel Capital Adequacy Framework
Eric FalkensteinVice President
ICM Credit Risk Management for Asian Financial InstitutionsJune 28, 2000
2Moody’s Risk Management Services
TopicsTopics
The current capital regulations The current Basel dialogue Next Steps
3Moody’s Risk Management Services
What is Bank Capital?
Bank Capital is: Bank Capital is not: - Common Equity - Customer Deposits - Preferred Equity - Short-term Debt - Subordinated Debt - Other Liabilities - Loan Loss Reserve - Goodwill
4Moody’s Risk Management Services
Regulatory Capital MeasuresRegulatory Capital Measures
A) Tier I or Core Capital Ratio- Tier I equity divided by risk-weighted assets- Risk-weighted assets have 100% weighting for loans, 20% weighting
for OECD bank debt, 0% for Treasury debt- Tier I equity consists mainly of common stock, perpetual preferred
stock, minus intangibles
B) Total Capital Ratio- Tier I + Tier II equity divided by risk-weighted assets. Tier II capital
consists mainly of qualifying subordinated debt and long-term preferred stock, plus Loan Loss Reserve (up to 1.25% of risk-weighted assets)
5Moody’s Risk Management Services
Regulatory Requirements for Risk-based Capital Regulatory Requirements for Risk-based Capital RatiosRatios
Basic “Well-Capitalized”
Tier 1 or Core Capital 4% 6%
Tier 1 + Tier 2 or Total Capital 8% 10%
6Moody’s Risk Management Services
Limitations of the Current Risk-based Limitations of the Current Risk-based Capital ApproachCapital Approach
Risk-weightings are not truly risk sensitive: an Aaa loan has the same risk-weighting as a B loan.
Capital methodology falling behind financial innovations: securitization, derivatives, netting, etc.
Ignores capital needed for operating, interest rate, market and other risks.
7Moody’s Risk Management Services
Credit Risk Modeling: Current Practice Credit Risk Modeling: Current Practice and Applicationsand Applications
Purpose:
1) Provide summary of best practices of credit models
2) Assess the potential applications and limitations of credit risk models for supervisory and regulatory purposes
3) Solicit feedback
8Moody’s Risk Management Services
Basel, Key LiteratureBasel, Key Literature
No. 4 International Convergence of Capital Measurement and Capital Standards, July 1988 (the Basel Capital Accord)
No. 55 Credit Risk Modeling: Current Practices and Applications, April 1999
No. 50, A new capital adequacy framework, June 1999 No. 71, Summary of responses received on the report "Credit Risk
Modeling: Current Practices and Applications", May 2000
download at www. bis.org
9Moody’s Risk Management Services
Credit Risk Modeling: Current Practice Credit Risk Modeling: Current Practice and Applications (4/99)and Applications (4/99)
Current credit management methods potentially rational direction for future refinements, yet there are limitations:
1) Lack of Data.2) Validation (see #1).
Key quotes:“Regulators would have to be confident that models were used to actively manage risk, and
that conceptually sound, empirically validated, and produce capital assessments comparable across financial institutions.”
“Significant hurdles, principally concerning data availability and model validation, still need to be cleared before these objectives can be met, and the Committee sees difficulties in overcoming these hurdles in the timescale envisaged for amending the capital Accord."
10
Moody’s Risk Management Services
A New Capital Adequacy Framework (6/99)
3 pillars to the revised capital framework
1) minimums (most of the focus)
2) supervisory review (probably more important!)
3) market discipline (good idea, but need broad liquid debt markets)
New ideas: May have more or less than 100% weightings on corporate loans Internal credit models could guide capital allocations Address derivatives and netting agreements more logically
11
Moody’s Risk Management Services
A New Capital Adequacy Framework 6/99
Aaa to Aa3 A1 to A3 Baa1 to Baa3
Ba1 to B3 Below B3 Unrated
Sovereigns 0% 20% 50% 100% 150% 100%Option 1 20% 50% 100% 100% 150% 100%Option 2 20% 50% 50% 100% 150% 50%
Corporates 20% 100% 100% 100% 150% 100%* option 1 is a risk weighting depending on the sovereign* option 2 is a risk weighting depending on the individual bank
Banks
Claim Assessment
An example of the new refinements put forth by Basel:
12
Moody’s Risk Management Services
Summary of Responses (5/00)
Subject: Loss Given Default
comment: US and European data is all that's really available
Subject: Shape of the density function of losses
comment: Unknown (lognormal? Normal?), but not considered a major limitation
Subject: Conditional upon the economy
comment: Need sound linkage
13
Moody’s Risk Management Services
Summary of Responses (5/00)
Subject: Conceptual Approaches
Comments: Credit Value-at-Risk and/or Scenario
Subject: Default mode and Mark-to-Market Mode
Comments: Mark-to-market superior perhaps
Subject: Horizon
Comments: Not a big issue, 1 year likely
14
Moody’s Risk Management Services
Summary of Responses (5/00)
Subject: Parameter SpecificationsComments:
US corporate bond rating information goodUse conservative assumptions when missing dataProxiesStart collecting data as soon as possible
Subject: ValidationComments:
Stress testsPanel data set compiled from regulatory bodies
15
Moody’s Risk Management Services
Summary of Responses (5/00)
Subject: Supervision and Regulatory Application
Comments:
Portfolio by portfolio
Link evaluation of credit models to how models are actually used
General comment:
Simple models not necessarily bad
Don't use US data to parameterize models
16
Moody’s Risk Management Services
Next StepsNext Steps
Best Case Scenario:
Basel will make preliminary proposal by February 2001.
Phase-in will start in January 2003.
Probable Scenario: year or two later...