EBA欧洲银行-10-Kruger-Libertucci-Slides_33页_1mb

Summary of the Document: "Does the Basel III Countercyclical Capital Buffer Mitigate Regulatory Capital (Pro)cyclicality?"

Core Content

This document investigates the effectiveness of the Countercyclical Capital Buffer (CCB), a key component of the Basel III framework, in mitigating the procyclicality of regulatory capital requirements. The authors analyze the performance of the CCB against alternative approaches, such as GDP growth-based adjustments, to assess its ability to reduce excessive capital requirement volatility.

The study is based on empirical tests using data from German and Italian firms, employing two different rating models for each country to estimate default probabilities (PDs), which are used to calculate capital requirements under Basel II. The authors then apply a Hodrick-Prescott (HP) filter to derive a time trend component of the capital requirement series, serving as a benchmark to evaluate the volatility reduction of different adjustment methods.

Main Viewpoints

• The CCB was introduced to counteract the procyclicality of risk-sensitive capital requirements, which can amplify economic cycles through the lending channel.
• The Basel Committee's BCBS 2009 consultative document proposed multiple instruments to address procyclicality, but the final Basel III framework only included the capital conservation buffer and the CCB, leaving out a direct approach to tackle capital requirement cyclicality.
• The CCB is designed to increase banks' loss-absorbing capacity during periods of excessive credit growth and to influence credit costs through its activation.
• The authors argue that the CCB's ability to mitigate capital requirement volatility is limited, and that its implementation may not effectively reduce procyclicality in practice.

Key Information

Stylized Facts of Financial Cycles in Germany and Italy

• The behavior of private sector credit and property prices is the best indicator of financial cycles, while equity bubbles are considered minor fluctuations.
• Financial cycle peaks often coincide with financial distress, but not always with crises.
• Early warning indicators for financial crises can be built using private credit and property price data.

Empirical Estimation of Default Probabilities

• The authors estimate PDs for German and Italian firms using two distinct rating models:
  • Germany: Krüger, Stötzel, and Trück (2005) model
  • Italy: Chionsini, Fabi, and Laviola (2007) model
• The data for Germany includes annual balance sheet information, split into two sub-samples due to data quality and structural issues: 1988-2001 and 2005-2011.
• The Italian data comes from the Central Credit Register, which includes all credit transactions above EUR 35,000.

Methodology

• The authors use a performance criterion based on the reduction of the Root Mean Square Deviation (RMSD) between the adjusted capital requirement series and the HP-filtered time trend of the original PIT capital requirements.
• The formula for performance is:

$$
\text {Performance} = \frac {\text {R M S D} _ {\mu , \text {b e n c h m a r k}} - \text {R M S D} _ {\text {P I T , b e n c h m a r k}}}{\text {R M S D} _ {\text {P I T , b e n c h m a r k}}}
$$

• A negative performance value indicates less cyclical capital requirements, while a positive value indicates more cyclical ones.
• The authors test different adjustment options, including:
  • CCB textbook (purely mechanical implementation based on credit-to-GDP gap)
  • CCB lag (allowing for a 12-month buffer build-up)
  • CCB textbook discretion (pulling down the buffer in inappropriate periods)
  • Business cycle adjustments based on GDP growth, credit growth, housing market, and stock market
  • Time-varying LGD (loan-to-value) adjustments

Results

• The CCB performs poorly in reducing the volatility of capital requirements, often increasing the distance from the ideal benchmark.
• A purely mechanical implementation of the CCB provides the lowest performance.
• Allowing for variations, such as a lagged buffer build-up or discretionary adjustments, slightly improves its performance.
• Adjustments based on GDP growth outperform those based on credit or property price growth.
• The use of time-varying LGD does not significantly affect the performance of the CCB.
• The Through-The-Cycle (TTC) PD approach, which smooths the output, performs well in line with GDP growth-based adjustments.

Policy Implications

• The CCB may not be effective in achieving its secondary goal of reducing capital requirement volatility.
• It may even amplify the inherent procyclicality of the Basel framework.
• The authors suggest that a more micro-based approach, such as PD-smoothing, could be more effective.
• The final design of the Basel III anti-cyclical toolkit is considered incomplete and lacking a proper micro-perspective.
• Further research is needed to evaluate the potential unintended consequences of the CCB and to explore alternative methods for mitigating procyclicality.

Conclusion

• The preliminary findings indicate that the CCB is not well-suited to reduce the cyclicality of capital requirements.
• The study highlights the need for a more comprehensive and micro-based approach to counteract procyclicality in the regulatory framework.
• The authors emphasize that the CCB's effectiveness is limited, and that alternative adjustment procedures, such as those based on GDP growth, may offer better results in mitigating capital requirement volatility.