2014年-FSB全球金融稳定委员会_Progress_Report_on_Increasing_the_Intensity_and_Effectiveness_of_Supervision_18页_298kb

Summary of Supervisory Intensity and Effectiveness

Core Content

The document outlines the evolution of supervisory practices for Systemically Important Financial Institutions (SIFIs), particularly Global Systemically Important Financial Institutions (G-SIFIs), in the wake of the 2008 global financial crisis. It emphasizes the need for more intense and effective supervision to prevent systemic risks and ensure financial stability. Key areas of focus include improving supervisory mandates, resources, independence, and the ability to act; enhancing interactions with boards and senior management; deepening understanding of SIFIs' business models; ensuring more reliable information; advancing stress testing; and integrating recovery and resolution planning into supervision.

Main Points

1. Supervisory Practices in 2008

• Insufficient Attention to SIFI Supervision: Prior to the crisis, SIFI supervision was not adequately prioritized, with many supervisors relying on basic criteria and lacking a comprehensive understanding of risk governance.
• Weak Risk Governance: Risk appetite and culture were not commonly addressed, and boards often lacked the necessary expertise to oversee financial institutions effectively.
• Inadequate Data and Models: Supervisors had limited data and poor models, with insufficient focus on stress testing and business model analysis.
• Poor Coordination: There was a lack of communication between supervisory agencies and within institutions, leading to fragmented oversight.

2. What Has Been Done

• Enhanced Supervisory Standards: Standard-setting bodies have updated core principles, leading to more rigorous FSAP assessments.
• Improved Risk Governance: Supervisors now focus more on risk appetite frameworks and risk culture, supported by new guidance.
• Better Business Model Understanding: Supervisors are applying more rigorous analysis of SIFIs' business models, including both quantitative and qualitative assessments.
• Robust Stress Testing: Stress testing has become more widespread and rigorous, with improved methodologies and scenarios.
• Resolution Planning: Recovery and resolution planning has been integrated into supervision, helping to identify new risk sources.
• Increased Oversight of FMIs: Financial market infrastructures (FMIs) are now receiving more attention in supervisory frameworks.

3. Remaining Work

• Implementation of Enhancements: Supervisors must ensure that changes are properly embedded in their "steady state" practices.
• Strengthen Risk Management and Measurement: Continued focus is needed on improving risk data aggregation and reporting, as well as IT systems.
• Improve Models: There are ongoing issues with the quality and consistency of capital models, requiring better oversight and skills.
• Enhance Stress Testing: More creative and comprehensive stress test scenarios are needed, with better collaboration between supervisors and macroeconomists.
• Strengthen Resources: Supervisory agencies need more skilled personnel and greater independence to implement changes effectively.
• Continue Benchmarking: Supervisory intensity and resource allocation for G-SIBs should be regularly benchmarked.
• Assess Supervisory Effectiveness: New methods are required to measure the effectiveness of supervisory actions and their impact on institutions.
• Define Supervisory Risk Appetite: Authorities must clarify their own risk appetite and ensure mechanisms for identifying and managing risks.

Key Information

• Supervisory Independence: A major concern, with some jurisdictions requiring ministerial approval for prudential actions and lacking clear procedures for personnel dismissal.
• FSAP and Peer Reviews: These assessments have become more rigorous, but require more frequent and comprehensive evaluations.
• G-SIBs and Common Data Templates: The FSB has developed a common data template for G-SIFIs to improve transparency and risk assessment.
• Risk Appetite Frameworks: While documented, these frameworks need better integration with business strategy and organizational culture.
• Stress Testing: Supervisors are encouraged to use more comprehensive and forward-looking scenarios, including second-round effects.
• Resolution Planning: This has become a critical component of supervision, helping to identify structural and operational risks.
• Board Engagement: Greater interaction with boards is now a priority, with efforts to monitor board composition and risk culture.

Conclusion

The shift towards more intense and effective supervision of SIFIs has been a significant step forward since the financial crisis. However, the journey is ongoing, requiring continuous improvement in governance, risk management, and data analysis. The FSB and international standard-setting bodies continue to play a vital role in guiding and supporting this transformation.