EBA欧洲银行-ST_Feedbackdocument_66页_677kb

Summary of CEBS's Feedback on Draft Revised Guidelines on Stress Testing (CP32)

Background and Introduction

On 14 December 2009, CEBS published a draft revised version of the Guidelines on Stress Testing, replacing the previous version from 2006. The public consultation period lasted until 31 March 2010 and generated significant interest from the industry, including a public hearing on 10 March and coverage in various industry publications.

Results of the Public Consultation

The consultation received responses from 14 industry bodies and individual institutions, with the majority published on the CEBS website. Key concerns raised by industry representatives included:

• Clarity and Prescription: A need for more clarity on how stress test results should be interpreted and a request to identify detailed points as 'good practices' rather than mandatory requirements.
• Proportionality and Complexity: Concerns about the level of prescription in the guidelines and the focus on quantitative aspects. There was a call for a balanced approach between qualitative and quantitative methods.
• Capital and Liquidity Buffers: Uncertainty about whether stress test results should necessarily lead to higher capital or liquidity requirements.
• Cross-Border Institutions: The need for consolidated stress testing and clarification on the role of supervisors in cross-border groups.
• Implementation Date: The proposed implementation date of 30 June 2010 was considered too early, with a request to delay it to December 2010 or January 2011.
• Reverse Stress Testing: Questions about its usefulness and the practicality of implementation, especially in Member States where it is not currently required.

Major Changes Introduced to the Guidelines

CEBS made several amendments in response to these concerns:

1. Qualitative vs. Quantitative Approach

   • Guidelines now describe both quantitative and qualitative aspects of stress testing.
   • Smaller and simpler institutions may focus more on qualitative aspects, while larger institutions require more sophisticated techniques.
   • A key qualitative narrative is expected to link the institution's risk appetite, business strategy, and the impact of external/internal events on its business model.

2. Link to Capital and Risk Management

   • CEBS clarified that stress testing is not directly used to determine capital requirements under Pillar 1.
   • It is a tool to enhance understanding of risk profiles and resilience to shocks, and should be integrated into internal risk management frameworks.

3. Supervisory Prescribed Scenarios

   • Supervisors may recommend scenarios for institutions, but should not impose common ones that do not account for firm-specific issues.
   • Supervisory scenarios can be used for system-wide analysis and micro-prudential assessments.

4. Supervisory Review and Evaluation

   • CEBS agreed with the industry's view that supervisors should first understand the bank's business, then engage in dialogue, challenge internal views, and only take corrective measures if necessary.
   • It also acknowledged the importance of using internal validation teams for complex groups.

5. Proportionality Principle

   • The principle of proportionality applies to all aspects of the guidelines, including methodology, frequency, and detail of stress tests.
   • Smaller institutions are encouraged to use qualitative methods and simple sensitivity analyses.
   • However, interactions between risks should still be considered, even for smaller institutions.

6. Cross-Border Institutions

   • Cross-border groups should implement stress testing at the consolidated level and, where applicable, at material entities and business lines.
   • Supervisors should coordinate the process through the college of supervisors, especially for capital buffer discussions.

7. Resource and Infrastructure Requirements

   • CEBS clarified that stress testing infrastructure should be proportionate to the institution's size, complexity, and risk profile.
   • It does not require the development of new IT systems solely for stress testing, but rather the use of existing data and systems for other internal purposes.

8. Reverse Stress Testing

   • Reverse stress testing is introduced as a scenario or combination of scenarios that threaten the viability of an institution's business model.
   • It is intended to help identify risk concentrations and combinations that may not be captured in regular stress testing.
   • Both qualitative and quantitative approaches are appropriate, depending on the institution's size and complexity.

9. Implementation Date

   • The implementation date was moved to 31 December 2010.
   • By this date, the guidelines should be transposed into national supervisory materials and reflected in supervisory practices.
   • Institutions are expected to develop implementation programs, including gap analysis and plans.

Key Takeaways

• Balance between qualitative and quantitative methods is emphasized, with proportionality as a central principle.
• Stress testing is not a capital requirement tool, but a key risk management process.
• Reverse stress testing is introduced as a complementary tool to enhance risk understanding.
• Flexibility in the supervisory process is encouraged, with a focus on firm-specific risk profiles.
• Cross-border coordination is important to ensure consistency and avoid duplication.
• Implementation is expected by December 2010, with a focus on transposition into national frameworks and internal alignment.