evolution to basel ii(fdic)

7/31/2019 Evolution to Basel II(FDIC)

1/45


2/45

First Basel Accord

The first Basel Accord (Basel I) was

completed in 1988 Set minimum capital standards for banks

Standards focused on credit risk, the main riskincurred by banks

Became effective end-year 1992


3/45

Reason for the Accord

To create a level playing field for

internationally active banks Banks from different countries competing for the

same loans would have to set aside roughly thesame amount of capital on the loans


4/45

1988 Accord Capital Requirements

Capital was set at 8% and was adjusted by a

loans credit risk weight Credit risk was divided into 5 categories: 0%,

10%, 20%, 50%, and 100%

Commercial loans, for example, were assigned to

the 100% risk weight category


5/45

Risk-Based Capital

The Accord was hailed for incorporating risk

into the calculation of capital requirements


6/45


7/45


8/45

Risk Weights

Risk weights were based on what the parties

to the Accord negotiated rather than on theactual risk of each asset

Risk weights did not flow from any particularinsolvency probability standard, and were for the

most part, arbitrary


9/45

Operational and Other Risks

The requirements did not explicitly account

for operating and other forms of risk that mayalso be important

Except for trading account activities, the capitalstandards did not account for hedging,

diversification, and differences in riskmanagement techniques


10/45

Banks Develop Own Capital

Allocation Models

Advances in technology and finance allowed

banks to develop their own capital allocation(internal) models in the 1990s

This resulted in more accurate calculations ofbank capital than possible under Basel I

These models allowed banks to align theamount of risk they undertook on a loan withthe overall goals of the bank


11/45

Internal Models and Basel I

Internal models allow banks to more finely

differentiate risks of individual loans than ispossible under Basel I

Risk can be differentiated within loan categoriesand between loan categories

Allows the application of a capital charge toeach loan, rather than each category of loan


12/45

Variation in Credit Quality

Banks discovered a wide variation in credit

quality within risk-weight categories Basel I lumps all commercial loans into the 8%

capital category

Internal models calculations can lead to capital

allocations on commercial loans that vary from1% to 30%, depending on the loans estimatedrisk


13/45

Capital Arbitrage

If a loan is calculated to have an internal

capital charge that is low compared to the8% standard, the bank has a strong incentiveto undertake regulatory capital arbitrage

Securitization is the main means used by U.S.

banks to engage in regulatory capitalarbitrage


14/45

Example of Capital Arbitrage

Assume a bank has a portfolio of commercial loans with the followingratings and internally generated capital requirements AA-A: 3%-4% capital needed

B+-B: 8% capital needed B- and below: 12%-16% capital needed

Under Basel I, the bank has to hold 8% risk-based capital against all ofthese loans

To ensure the profitability of the better quality loans, the bank engagesin capital arbitrage--it securitizes the loans so that they are reclassifiedinto a lowerregulatory risk category with a lower capital charge

Lower quality loans with higher internal capital charges are kept on thebanks books because they require less risk-based capital than thebanks internal model indicates


15/45

New Approach to Risk-Based Capital

By the late 1990s, growth in the use of

regulatory capital arbitrage led the BaselCommittee to begin work on a new capitalregime (Basel II)

Effort focused on using banks internal rating

models and internal risk models June 1999: Committee issued a proposal for

a new capital adequacy framework to replacethe 1998 Accord


16/45

Basel II

Basel II consists of three pillars: Minimum capital requirements for credit risk,

market risk and operational riskexpanding the1988 Accord (Pillar I)

Supervisory review of an institutions capitaladequacy and internal assessment process (Pillar

II) Effective use of market discipline as a lever to

strengthen disclosure and encourage safe andsound banking practices (Pillar III)


17/45

Pillar I

In the United States, all banks that will be

required to conform to the new capitalstandard will use the Advanced InternalRatings Based approach (AIRB)


18/45

AIRB Approach Requirements

Collect sufficient data on loans to develop a

method for rating loans within variousportfolios

Develop a Probability of Default (PD) foreach rated loan

Develop a Loss Given Default (LGD) for eachloan


19/45

Example: Safe v. Risky Loans

Safe loans:

Over a 1-year period, only 0.25% of these loansdefault

If a loan defaults, the bank only loses 1% on theoutstanding amount

Risky loans:

Over a 1-year period, 1% of loans default everyyear

If a loan defaults, the bank loses 10% of theoutstanding amount


20/45


21/45

Example: Safe v. Risky Loans

(continued)

For a $100 million in a risky portfolio the

bank would expect to see $1 million indefaults in a year and a loss on the defaultsof $100,000

($100 million X 1% = $1 million)

($1 million X 10% = $100,000)


22/45

Goal of Pillar I

Although simplistic, this example

demonstrates what Pillar I is trying to achieve If the banks own internal calculations show thatthey have extremely risky, loss-prone loans thatgenerate high internal capital charges, theirformal risk-based capital charges should also behigh

Likewise, lower risk loans should carry lower risk-based capital charges


23/45

Complexity of Pillar I

Banks have many different asset classes

each of which may require different treatment Each asset class needs to be defined and theapproach to each exposure determined

Minimum standards must be established for

rating system design, including testing anddocumentation requirements

The proposals must be tested in the real world


24/45

Assessing Basel II

To determine if the proposed rules are likely

to yield reasonable risk-based capitalrequirements within and between countriesfor banks with similar portfolios, fourquantitative impact studies (QIS) have been

undertaken


25/45


26/45

Operational Risk

Pillar I also adds a new capital componentfor operational risk Operational risk covers the risk of loss due to

system breakdowns, employee fraud ormisconduct, errors in models or natural or man-made catastrophes, among others


27/45

Pillars II and III

Progress has also been made on Pillars IIand III

Pillar II focuses on supervisory oversight

Pillar III looks at market discipline and publicdisclosure


28/45

Pillar II

Supervisory Oversight

Requires supervisors to review a banks capitaladequacy assessment process, which mayindicate a higher capital requirement than Pillar Iminimums


29/45

Pillar III

Market discipline and public disclosure

The United States is currently in the forefront ofdisclosure of financial data SEC disclosure requirements for publicly traded banks

Bank regulators require quarterly filing of call reports forall banks

U.S. authorities are currently considering whatbanks should publicly disclose about their Basel IIcalculations


30/45

U.S. Implementation of Basel II

Based on results for QIS4, which show thepotential for substantial declines in capital,the U.S. banking regulators have proposed arevised implementation timeline

The revised timeline includes a minimum three-

year transition period


31/45

Revised U.S. Timeline for Basel II

Implementation

Year Transistional Arrangements

2008 Parallel Run

2009 95% floor

2010 90% floor

2011 85% floor


32/45


33/45

Basel I-A: The Search for Equal

Capital Treatment

In the U.S., concerns that Basel II could givethose banks operating under it a competitiveadvantage over other banks has resulted in aproposal called Basel 1-A

Basel 1-A is designed to modernize the way

allU.S. banks and thrifts calculate theirminimum capital requirements


34/45

Implications

The practices in Basel II represent severalimportant departures from the traditional

calculation of bank capital The very largest banks will operate under a

system that is different than that used by otherbanks

The implications of this for long-term competitionbetween these banks is uncertain, but meritsfurther attention


35/45


36/45

Implications

The proposed Accord will elevate theimportance of human judgment in theprocess of capital regulation

Despite its quantitative basis, much will dependon the judgment of banks in formulating theirestimates and of supervisors in validating theassumptions used by banks in their models


37/45

I li i


38/45

ImplicationsAdditional Data Needed to Counterbalance to Changes inEnvironment

Higher

Leverage

Unproven

Rating

Systems

Evolving

Control

Structures

Three Year

Floors/Leverage

Ratio

Improved RiskManagement

Changes in environment

necessitate changes in riskanalysis for banks and

supervisors/insurers

Additional information will be

needed to:

Inform policy development.

Supplement other sources of

risk information used in

supervisory resource planningand overall risk assessments

Serve as an input into deposit

insurance pricing and overall

insurance funds adequacy

analyses


39/45

Why XBRL ?

Internal ratings based and standard approachmeasures require complex data model Common data requirements flow from Accord and

Quantitative Impact Studies (QIS I IV)

Domestic and international comparisons needed to ensureconsistent application

Taxonomy needed to compare banks internal ratings of

similar and diverse risks


40/45

Common Data Elements Flow from Accord:Standardized Internal Risk Estimates

Exposure

Internal RiskEstimate

P

D

LG

D

EA

D

M

Other

Wholesale X X X X -

Retail X X X - -

Securitization - - - - X

Equity - - - - X

Market Risk - - - - X

Operational

Risk

- - - - X

Data Types Reporting Granularity

Portfolio

Level Data

Individual

Exposure Data for

All Transactions

Summary

Data


41/45

Why XBRL ?

Internal ratings based measures and standard approach requirecomplex data model

Supervisors need detailed information to qualify banks foradvanced approaches (IRB, AMA, and Market Risk)

Data can be shared across different supervisory regimes

- Independent of systems, platforms, geography and languagetranslation

Consistent data needed to help identify risk estimates


42/45

Consistent data needed to help identify risk estimatesthat may be inconsistent with peer estimates.

Follow-up: Can differences between Banks PD and benchmark be adequately

explained by differences in risk?

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

AA or better A to AA BBB to A BB to BBB B to BB >B

Banks PD Distribution Mapped to S&P Rating Scale

Peer Banks PD Distribution Mapped to S&P Rating Scale

% of Wholesale Exposures


43/45

Why XBRL ?

XBRL provides a framework for complex datamodel

Open standard facilitates reuse and innovation

Analysts can spend more time analyzing data

Reduced reporting burden, especially for

organizations operating in multiple jurisdictions


44/45


45/45

Why XBRL ?

FINIS

evolution to basel ii(fdic)

Documents