Banks relieved as EBA punts on dual-track stress tests
2022-08-22 15:09:07
·
Steve Marlin
European banks breathed a sigh of relief last month after the European Banking Authority backed away from a long-mooted split structure for its 2023 stress tests, opting instead for a hybrid approach.
Reforms proposed by the EBA in 2020 would have divided the biennial stress test into two parts: a bottom-up leg, where banks use internal models to gauge how they would perform in pre-set stress scenarios; and a top-down leg, where supervisory models are used to assess these same shocks. The results of the top-down leg would then be used to set non-binding capital add-ons, known as Pillar 2 guidance (P2G).
Banks complained this dual-track approach would increase their workload and put them in the difficult position of having to explain differences between the two sets of results to stakeholders and investors.
“We are against the dual approach,” says a capital expert at one European bank. “What are we going to do with these two legs? It requires additional work from the bank and the timeline for this exercise is already quite tight.” The EBA appears to have taken these concerns on board. The draft methodology for the 2023 stress tests, released on July 21, relies heavily on the bottom-up bank leg, with the top-down supervisory approach only used to project net fee and commission income (NFCI). “With this hybrid approach they took the uncertainties away. In the end, there will be one figure that will be published that the markets can use in their assessments of the EBA stress-test outcome and that supervisors can use for setting the P2G,” says the capital expert, adding: “We welcome this hybrid approach, and we hope that will be the future solution.” The EBA described the draft methodology for its 2023 stress tests as “a first step” towards a hybrid approach. The regulator has agreed to speak with Risk.net in the coming weeks about its planned reforms to stress-testing.
First, please LoginComment After ~