Related News
EBA worries about how banks view risks
Source: Agencies |
February 27, 2013, Wednesday
|
Print Edition
Print Edition
Regulatory action may be needed to end variations in the ways banks add up the risks on their books to determine how big their capital buffers should be, the European Banking Authority said.
As regulators put in place tougher capital requirements, known as Basel III, following the 2007-09 financial crisis, they want to be sure calculations used by banks to meet them are sound.
Faith in figures that banks publish is seen as core to restoring investor and public trust in the financial sector.
The EBA released interim results yesterday of its probe into risk-weighted assets on the main banking books of 89 banks from 16 European Union countries.
It found material differences between banks, with half caused by different regulatory approaches and the structure of a bank's loan portfolio, and the other half because of the way banks calibrated in-house financial models for adding risks.
Greater disclosure will not be enough to ease concerns raised by investors and market analysts on the reliability of banks' calculations, EBA chairman Andrea Enria said.
Taking the top 20 banks in its study, the EBA said the difference between the maximum and minimum values for risk was 46 percent.
Enria said that was "significant and calls for further investigations and possibly policy solutions."
The EBA said it will complete further studies by the end of this year, looking into areas such as banks' exposure to small and medium-sized enterprises and the home loans market.
Some regulators and bankers have questioned how risk weighted assets are being added up, amid reports some lenders may be gaming the system so as to have to hold less capital.
The global Basel Committee on Banking Supervision published a study last month into how 16 top banks use its rules to add up risks on their trading books and found considerable variations, mainly due to the use of in-house models at banks.
The committee is now studying risk weightings on banking books and its secretary general, Wayne Byres, said yesterday in a speech in South Korea it was reasonable for investors to complain that current risk disclosures are opaque.
Remedies could include a combination of better disclosures, stricter supervision and forcing banks to show risk calculations based on their own and a standardized model.
As regulators put in place tougher capital requirements, known as Basel III, following the 2007-09 financial crisis, they want to be sure calculations used by banks to meet them are sound.
Faith in figures that banks publish is seen as core to restoring investor and public trust in the financial sector.
The EBA released interim results yesterday of its probe into risk-weighted assets on the main banking books of 89 banks from 16 European Union countries.
It found material differences between banks, with half caused by different regulatory approaches and the structure of a bank's loan portfolio, and the other half because of the way banks calibrated in-house financial models for adding risks.
Greater disclosure will not be enough to ease concerns raised by investors and market analysts on the reliability of banks' calculations, EBA chairman Andrea Enria said.
Taking the top 20 banks in its study, the EBA said the difference between the maximum and minimum values for risk was 46 percent.
Enria said that was "significant and calls for further investigations and possibly policy solutions."
The EBA said it will complete further studies by the end of this year, looking into areas such as banks' exposure to small and medium-sized enterprises and the home loans market.
Some regulators and bankers have questioned how risk weighted assets are being added up, amid reports some lenders may be gaming the system so as to have to hold less capital.
The global Basel Committee on Banking Supervision published a study last month into how 16 top banks use its rules to add up risks on their trading books and found considerable variations, mainly due to the use of in-house models at banks.
The committee is now studying risk weightings on banking books and its secretary general, Wayne Byres, said yesterday in a speech in South Korea it was reasonable for investors to complain that current risk disclosures are opaque.
Remedies could include a combination of better disclosures, stricter supervision and forcing banks to show risk calculations based on their own and a standardized model.
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 娌狪CP璇侊細娌狪CP澶05050403鍙-1
- |
- 浜掕仈缃戞柊闂讳俊鎭湇鍔¤鍙瘉锛31120180004
- |
- 缃戠粶瑙嗗惉璁稿彲璇侊細0909346
- |
- 骞挎挱鐢佃鑺傜洰鍒朵綔璁稿彲璇侊細娌瓧绗354鍙
- |
- 澧炲肩數淇′笟鍔＄粡钀ヨ鍙瘉锛氭勃B2-20120012
Copyright 漏 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
