View
222
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
Comprehensive Assessment
Stefan Kerbl, Principal Expert, ECB
Sunday 26th October 2014
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu2
The three primary aims of the Comprehensive Assessment are transparency, repair and confidence building
Repair
Confidence building
Transparency
Identify and implement necessary corrective actions, if and where needed
Enhance the quality and quantity of information available on the condition of banks
Reassure all stakeholders that SSM banks are fundamentally sound and trustworthy
More broadly the exercise aims to facilitate banks’ provision of credit to the European economy by reducing uncertainty over their solvency
Introduction to the comprehensive assessment
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu3
The Comprehensive Assessment comprises of two main components – an Asset Quality Review and a Stress Test
1. Asset Quality Review
• In depth review of banks’ balance sheets: ‒ Assessment of data quality, asset valuations,
classifications of non-performing exposures, collateral valuation and provisioning
‒ Covers credit and market exposures, following a risk-based, targeted approach
2. Joint ECB / EBA Stress Test
• Forward-looking view of banks’ shock-absorption capacity under defined baseline and adverse scenarios
• Conducted in collaboration with the European Banking Authority (EBA)
Results of the Asset Quality Review were incorporated into the Stress Test
Introduction to the comprehensive assessment
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu4
Comprehensive in scope Comprehensive in nature
• 19 participating countries
• 130 participating banks
• 82% of total SSM banking assets covered
• Every portfolio of every participating bank examined and a risk-based sub-set selected for review in extensive detail
• 816 individual portfolios examined in detail
• 119,000 debtors analysed in detail
• 170,000 collateral items (re)valued
• 825 provisioning models challenged
• 4,500 securities revalued
• 70 derivative pricing models reviewed
The exercise was comprehensive in its scope and nature
Granular analysis with 40 million data points for the Stress Test alone, equivalent to 300,000 per bank
Introduction to the comprehensive assessment
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu5
Scenario building blocks: four main sources of risk starting with global vulnerabilities
Global sources of risk
• Increased risk aversion, broad-based sell-offs and re-pricing
• EMEs specifically impacted, with a severe decline in world trade
• Currency depreciation and funding stress in CEEs
Domestic demand confidence-driven
shocks
Sovereign bond yield differentiation
Access to and costs of bank
funding impacted
Stress Test recap
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu6
1. a comprehensive methodology• prescriptive also for parts of the stress that are less focussed on previously (NII,
PPP)
2. a systematic and centrally-led quality assurance process • Thoroughly defined QA approach in the CAST manual
• Each bank had to provide up to 307,000 data points (circa 40 million in aggregate)
• Involving 100FTEs at central ECB level and hundreds of FTEs across the SSM
3. The thorough assessment of starting values via the AQR• a join-up process for the AQR and stress test outcomes
• Both book values and risk parameters
• Mechanistic and comprehensive
• Detailed description of the methodology in the CAST manual
Three important features distinguish the ECB CA stress test from previous EU-wide stress test exercises
Stress Test recap
Annex
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu8
• The join-up process connects and reinforces the ‘point-in-time’ AQR and the
‘forward-looking’ stress test, thereby strengthening the overall exercise
• The join-up is in line with some previous national exercises (e.g. Spain, Cyprus,
Slovenia) – but unparalleled on the euro area level
• The AQR findings impact on the starting point CET1 ratio of all banks
• Where the AQR identifies material issues, these is also used to adjust bank’s
forward looking stress test results (e.g. loan losses)
AQR results will be used to adjust starting point and stress test projections
Stress Test recap
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu
Quality assurance (QA) was a key ingredient for ensuring credible results from a constrained bottom-up stress test
Enhance accuracy and credibility by providing a systematic review of individual bank results
• Key objective to minimise the risk that banks passing the stress-test will subsequently fail
• Also key for ensuring a level playing-field in a multi-country context
Quality Assurance scope:
• Stress test results (baseline and adverse scenario)
• Stress test results including the join-up impact
• Efficient framework for QA by focusing on material issues (traffic light approach)
Stress Test recap
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu10
A central QA framework has been put in place to review results from individual and cross-country perspectives and by risk dimension
The central QA framework
• Specify a number of quantitative checks to be performed on banks’ submitted
results. These constitute a minimum standard to be applied consistently
across all countries, with Red/ Amber/ Green (RAG) thresholds.
• employs ECB top-down stress test models, in-market and cross-market
comparisons
• harnesses complementary qualitative information on each bank (e.g. reviewing
explanatory notes)
• Three lines of defence: NCA bank teams – NCA centrally – ECB
ECB CONFIDENTIALStress Test recap
On the Results
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu
Comprehensive Assessment results
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu13
Comprehensive Assessment - key figures
Key results
•The Asset Quality Review (AQR) results in a gross impact on asset carrying values of €48 billion
•In total, a €136 billion increase in non-performing exposure was identified
•Combining the AQR with the stress test the Comprehensive Assessment results in:
- €263 billion capital depletion over the three-year horizon of the exercise under the adverse stress test scenario
-Median 4% reduction of the CET1 capital ratio of in scope banks
•In aggregate, the Comprehensive Assessment resulted in a €24.6 billion capital shortfall across 25 participant banks
Comprehensive Assessment results
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu
Comprehensive Assessment results
Note: Numbers do not add up due to rounding
Comprehensive assessment identified a capital shortfall of €24.6 billion across 25 banks
+10.7BN
Comprehensive assessment capital shortfall by driverSSM level (€ BN)
+2.7BN
14
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu
Capital shortfall was observed at banks from 11 of the 19 countries in scope of the exercise
Comprehensive assessment capital shortfall by driverBy country, as % RWAs
Total shortfall (€ BN)
2.37 8.72 1.14 9.68 0.07 0.86 0.87 0.54 0.23 0.13 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
15
Comprehensive Assessment results
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu
Comprehensive Assessment results
• Median bank’s CET1 ratio declines from 12.4% to 8.3%
Comprehensive assessment impact on CET1 ratio under the adverse scenarioMedian by country of participating bank, %
SSM median: 4.0%
The median bank’s CET1 ratio falls by 4% in the adverse scenario
16
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu
Asset Quality Review results
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu18
Across the SSM, the Asset Quality Review (AQR) led to a €48BN adjustment to asset carrying valuesAsset Quality Review impact on available CET1 capitalBy AQR workblock (€ billion)
Additional provisions
Other capital adjustments
Projection of findings
Impact from risk-based sample
Asset Quality Review results
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu19
The AQR led to an €136 BN increase in non-performing exposure, with increases across all asset segments
Change in NPE exposure, pre- and post-AQR By asset segment (€ billion)
• Divergent bank definitions of non-performing exposures were harmonised leading to €55 billion added non-performing exposure
• Following harmonisation, an increase in non-performing exposure of €81 billion was observed in the credit file review
• In total, non-performing exposure increased by €136 billion, representing a 18% total adjustment
Commentary
NP
E e
xp
os
ure
(€
BN
)
Individually assessed (credit file review)
Collectively assessed (collective provisioning)
+33%
+19%
+18%
+31%
+36%+73%
+14%
+4%
+1%
Asset Quality Review results
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu20
Individually assessed (credit file review)
Collectively assessed (collective provisioning)
Provisioning increased by a total €43 BN across all asset segments
Change in provisionsBy Asset Segment (€ billion)
• Total specific provisions increased by €43 billion, a 12% overall adjustment
• Provisions increased as a result of both the credit file review and collective provisioning workblocks
• Shipping (28%), Large SME (16%) and Large Corporates (16%) experienced largest relative increases
Commentary
Pro
vis
ion
s (
€B
N)
+16%
+16%
+10%
+28%+10% +5%
+12% +6% +5%
Asset Quality Review results
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu
ECB Quality Assurance had a tangible impact on NPE classification, ensuring harmonised treatment
• ECB identified banks in where debtors were hitting triggers but not being classified as NPE
• ECB discussed with NCAs and challenged auditor decisions at the individual debtor level
• In some cases the decision against reclassification was justified
• In a significant number of cases, decision was withdrawn and the debtor reclassified to NPE along with debtors in similar scenarios
Example of impact of ECB Quality Assurance Number of performing debtors hitting 2 or more impairment triggers, pre- and post- ECB Quality Assurance (%)
Remedial approach taken
21
Asset Quality Review results
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu
ECB Quality Assurance resulted in a significant increase in collateral haircut levels
Example of impact of ECB Quality Assurance Mean collateral haircuts pre- and post- ECB Quality Assurance (%)
Note: The exhibited number of banks is not necessarily exhaustive for the example NCA
• ECB reviewed haircut levels across NCAs for each asset segment
• ECB discussed with NCAs and challenged auditor decisions at the individual debtor level
• In some cases the ECB accepted the NCA submission
• In others additional haircuts were agreed and applied
Remedial approach taken
Asset Quality Review results
22
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu
In total, collective provisioning led to an increase in provisions of €16BN, of which 62% was IBNR
Collective provisioning adjustment – IBNRSSM-level, € billion
Collective provisioning adjustment – specific provisionsSSM-level, € billion
• In total, more than 800 portfolios across most AQR asset classes were assessed
• Collective Provisioning workblock identified the need for additional collective provisions of €16 billion,
- €6 billion of retail specific provisions
- €10 billion of additional IBNR
• Key drivers included• Application of EBA simplified
NPE definition• Credit file review findings leading
to adjustments in LGI parameter• Adjustments to RRE collateral
values impacting LGL• Bank use of non point-in-time
parameters
+23%
+6%
Asset Quality Review results
23
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu
Collective provisioning Quality Assurance aligned parameters to ECB defined fall back assumptions
Collective provisioning parameter distribution – emergence periodDistribution of performing exposures by emergence period
Asset Quality Review results
ECB defined fall back assumption
Parameter Fall back assumption
Observed average
LGL secured 60% 50.4%
LGL unsecured 90% 86.9%
Original effective interest rate 4% 3.6%
Sales ratio 75% 78.0%
Sales ratio volatility 18% 21.6%
Appraiser discount 5% 5.4%
Comparison of other fall back parameters
Nu
mb
er o
f ex
po
su
res
24
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu
The adjustment of the Fair value exposures review was €4.6 billion, with 66% from CVA adjustments
Fair value exposures review adjustmentBy workblock (€ billion)
• Non-derivative positions were assessed through independent revaluations leading to a €1.2 billion adjustment
• Adjustment on CVA reserves was significant, with a 27% increase of €3.1 billion identified
• Complex derivative pricing models were also reviewed, with modelling errors or inappropriate assumptions leading to a further €0.2 billion adjustment
Asset Quality Review results
25
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu
Stress Test & Join-up results
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu
1Stress Test results include the impact of the Join-Up
Note: Scenario capital depletion and the effect on required capital are based on the 2016 adverse scenario
Overall, total adverse scenario capital depletion is €263 billion
Contribution of the Stress Test
Comprehensive assessment adverse scenario capital depletionSSM level, (€ BN)
Key drivers
•Total gross AQR adjustment of €48 billion, and €34 billion net of tax offset
•The stress test (and Join-up with AQR results) led to a capital depletion of €182 billion in the adverse scenario
•In addition, the increase in RWA in the adverse scenario increases capital requirements in the amount of €47 billion
Gross AQR adjustment
27
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu
SSM banks' average CET1 ratio is projected to increase from 11.8% to 12.0% in the baseline
Key drivers
•Improvement in the solvency position under the baseline mainly reflects
– Projected accumulation of pre-provision profits (3.6 percentage point contribution to the change in the CET1 ratio)
– Projected loan losses (-2.5 percentage point contribution)
•The average development of participating banks’ solvency positions, however, masks variations across individual institutions and countries
Stress Test results
Aggregate post-JU stress test effect1 by risk drivers under the baseline scenario
1. Weighted means; excluding the AQR impact on starting point capital
28
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu
SSM banks' average CET1 ratio is projected to decrease from 11.8% to 8.8% in the adverse
Key drivers
•Increase in loan losses (-4.5 percentage point contribution to the change in the CET1 ratio)
•Lower pre-provision profits compared to the baseline (corresponding to a 1.3 percentage point lower positive contribution the change in the CET1 ratio)
•“Administrative and other expenses” have an impact on the overall results; however, they remain largely unchanged between the baseline and adverse scenario and mainly reflect staff and other administrative costs that regardless of the scenario have a negative impact on banks' loss absorption capacity
Stress Test results
Aggregate post-JU stress test effect by risk drivers under the adverse scenario
1. Weighted means; excluding the AQR impact on starting point capital
29
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu
Loan losses and net interest income are key drivers of divergence from baseline to adverse
Stress Test results
Aggregate post-JU stress test effect by risk drivers under the adverse scenario
1. Weighted means; excluding the AQR impact on starting point capital
30
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu
Corporate and retail portfolios are the key drivers of loan losses in both scenarios
Key drivers
•Loan losses across banks are mainly driven by the corporate and retail portfolios, both under the baseline and adverse scenarios
•Under the baseline scenario, the median CET1 percentage point reduction due to losses is:
– 0.9% in the corporate segment
– 0.5% in the retail segment
•Results under the adverse scenario are, however, more severe with a median CET1 percentage point reduction of
– 1.6% in the corporate segment
– 1.1% in the retail segment
Stress Test results
Baseline scenario Adverse scenario
Decomposition of loan losses across portfolios and banks under the baseline and adverse scenario
31
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu
Under the adverse scenario, the median decline in NII is larger and more varied across banks
Key drivers
•While the picture is heterogeneous across banks, the median decline in net interest income is larger under the adverse than the baseline scenario
•Moreover, the distribution of changes in net interest income across banks is in general wider under the adverse scenario
Stress Test results
Net interest income development across banks under the baseline and adverse scenario, year-on-year % changes
32
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu
RWAs grow in net terms across the horizon, resulting in higher capital requirements
Stress Test results
RWA development across banks under the baseline and adverse scenario, year-on-year % changes
Key drivers
•Risk-weighted assets experience net growth across the horizon, albeit at a declining rate
•For the large majority of banks under the static balance sheet assumption, the nominal balance sheet size remains the same by design
•Risk weights for the median bank grow under the baseline scenario from 1.0% in the first year to 0.7% in the third year, and under the adverse scenario 3.2% in the first year to 0.9% in the third year
•Increased RWAs result in higher capital requirements
33
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu
The stress test impact differs across banks under the static and dynamic balance sheet assumption
Stress Test results
Distribution of changes to CET1 ratios across banks following the static vs. dynamic balance sheet assumption under the baseline and adverse scenario, cumulative % changes
Key drivers
•Banks under the dynamic balance sheet assumption are less heavily affected under the baseline scenario
•In the adverse scenario larger CET1 ratio declines are observed for banks under the dynamic balance sheet assumption. This could reflect that restructuring banks
– Are generally weaker and more vulnerable to stress tests
– May be located in countries with relatively more severe scenarios
•In cases where banks provided both, static and dynamic templates, the dynamic version generally resulted in less severe effects
34
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu
Join up effect varies by bank but is driven by bank AQR impact
Join-up effect by bank in relation to AQR impact Key drivers
•Join up effect is highly correlated with the magnitude of AQR findings
•The strongest join-up effect (above 1% of RWA) is observed for banks where AQR had a major impact
•For banks with small or negligible AQR findings, the join-up effects on average were similarly small (<0.2% of RWA)
Join-up results
35
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu
Impairments are the major driver of join-up effect by change in CET1 in the baseline scenario
Join-up results
CET1 effect of join-up by type (credit vs. other effects) under the baseline scenario
36
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu
Distribution of join-up effect by type is similar, but for greater impacts overall, in the adverse scenario
Join-up results
CET1 effect of join-up by type (credit vs. other effects) under the adverse scenario
37
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu
The post-JU impact of the Stress Test is 0.2% in the baseline and -3.0% in the adverse
Stress test component (€ billion)Stress test results (post-JU)
Baseline Adverse
NII 760 686
Net fee and commission income 377 362
Net trading income 25 6
Sovereign FVO/AFS -1 -28
Admin. and other expenses -865 -865
Loan losses -209 -378
Taxes, dividends and other -45 38
Total CET1 impact (€ billion) 43 -181
Total CET1 ratio change (percentage points) 0.2% -3.0%
of which: Join-up CET1 impact (€ billion) -6 -12
Stress Test and Join-up results
38
On the Scenario
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu40
PROCESS / STORY
DERIVED RESULTS
1
4
ASSUMPTIONS / DRIVERS2
RESULTS / SEVERITY3
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu41
Scenario building process
• The baseline scenario was prepared by the European Commission
• The adverse scenario was proposed by the ESRB, working in close collaboration with the ECB and the EBA, and it was finally approved by the EBA Board of Supervisors
• It captures the prevailing view of systemic risks facing the EU financial system, as identified by the ESRB General Board
• It includes forward-looking paths for key macroeconomic and financial variables for all EU countries and a large number of non-EU countries over a three-year horizon
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu
• Starting point: global sources of risk- Increased risk aversion, broad-based sell-offs and re-pricing
- EMEs specifically impacted, with a severe decline in world trade
- Currency depreciation and funding stress in CEEs
• Triggering EU-specific risks- Domestic demand confidence-driven shocks (real estate too)
- Sovereign bond yield differentiation re-appearing
- Access to and costs of bank funding impacted
Scenario narrative
42
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu4343
Scenario building blocks: Four main sources of risk leading to a set of drivers
Source of risk: Financial and economic shocks:
Increase in global bond yields amplified by an
abrupt reversal in risk assessment, including
towards EMEs, and pockets of market liquidity
Financial market shocks worldwide (sovereign bonds, corporate bonds, stock
prices, etc.).
Demand shocks in EMEs
EU countries: foreign demand shocks via a decline in world trade
Currency depreciation and funding stress in CEEs
Further deterioration of credit quality in countries
with feeble demand, with weak fundamentals and
still vulnerable banking sectors
EU country-specific aggregate demand shocks (via fixed capital formation and
private consumption)
EU country-specific aggregate supply shocks (via shock on user cost of capital,
nominal wages)
EU country-specific house price shocks
Stalling policy reforms jeopardising confidence in
the sustainability of public finances
EU country specific sovereign bond spread shocks
Lack of necessary bank balance sheet repair to
maintain affordable market funding
EU-wide shock to short-term interbank interest rates
EU country-specific shocks to borrowing costs for households and corporates (via
shocks to respectively, wealth and user cost of capital)
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu44
PROCESS / STORY
DERIVED RESULTS
1
4
ASSUMPTIONS / DRIVERS2
RESULTS / SEVERITY3
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu45
A selection of shocks – aggregated summary
Shocks (deviations from baseline, in basis points or percentage)
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu46
Equity price shocks for EU-countries – country specific(percentage deviation from baseline levels in 2016)
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu47
Adverse scenario – respective role of ‘drivers’
•Global shocks account for c. 40% of the total GDP impact
•Shocks to domestic real economic variables account for c. 45-50% of the total GDP impact
•Sovereign debt shocks and bank funding shocks together account for c. 12-13% of the total GDP impact
Contributions of scenario components to GDP impact (percentage point deviation from baseline levels in 2016)
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu48
PROCESS / STORY
DERIVED RESULTS
1
4
ASSUMPTIONS / DRIVERS2
RESULTS / SEVERITY3
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu49
Key scenario variables – output for the areas
Deviations from baseline levels by end-2016
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu50
Cumulative GDP impacts in previous CEBS/EBA stress test exercises (Deviation of adverse from baseline growth rates in percentage points)
Comparison with past EU-wide stress tests
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu51
Cumulated impact on domestic GDP (percentage deviation from baseline)
Domestic GDP levels incl. baseline(pre-stress Q0 GDP is scaled to 100)
Pre-stress GDP level
Assessing the severity of the scenario w.r.t. CCARDomestic GDP scenarios
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu52
PROCESS / STORY
DERIVED RESULTS
1
4
ASSUMPTIONS / DRIVERS2
RESULTS / SEVERITY3
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu53
Market risk benchmarks – derived from the scenario
• Derived as a function of and consistent with the underlying macro-financial baseline and adverse scenarios; no additional exogenous shocks
• 170 market risk parameters including interest rates, equity prices, commodity prices, swap spreads, credit spreads, dividends, as well as volatilities of market risk parameters
• For major economies such as the euro area, the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, other developed markets, and major emerging market regions
• Next to historical “scenarios”; different exercise
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu54
Market risk benchmarks – already available
Calibrated market risk parameters
Rubric
www.ecb.europa.eu55
Credit risk benchmarks – to come next…
• Derived as a function of and consistent with the underlying macro-financial baseline and adverse scenarios; no additional exogenous shocks
• Loss rates projections computed for the EU countries and 20 non-EU countries and regions
• Main portfolio segments includes the non-financial corporate sector (real-estate related and non- real-estate related), household mortgage loans, consumer credit, as well as financial institutions.
Recommended