Blog
Grip on your EVE SOT
Over the past decades, banks significantly increased their efforts to implement adequate frameworks for managing interest rate risk in the banking book (IRRBB). These efforts typically focus
Find out moreManaging Capital Adequacy ratios through an open Foreign Exchange position
This exemption has been applied in a diverse way by supervisors and therefore, the treatment of Structural FX risk has been updated in recent regulatory publications. In this article we discuss these publications and market practice around Structural FX risk based on an analysis of the policies applied by the top 25 banks in Europe.
Based on the 1996 amendment to the Capital Accord, banks that apply for the exemption of Structural FX positions can exclude these positions from the Pillar 1 capital requirement for market risk. This exemption was introduced to allow international banks with subsidiaries in currencies different from the reporting currency to employ a strategy to hedge the capital ratio from adverse movements in the FX rate. In principle a bank can apply one of two strategies in managing its FX risk.
As can also be seen in the exhibit below, the FX scenario that has an adverse impact on the bank differs between both strategies. In strategy 1, an appreciation of the currency will result in a decrease of the capital ratio, while in the second strategy the value of the equity will increase if the currency appreciates. The scenario with an adverse impact on the bank in strategy 2 is when the foreign currency depreciates.
Until now, only limited guidance has been available on e.g. the risk management framework, (number of) currencies that can be in scope of the exemption and the maximum open exposure that can be exempted. As a result, the practical implementation of the Structural FX exemption varies significantly across banks. Recent regulatory publications aim to enhance regulatory guidance to ensure a more standardized application of the exemption.
With the publication of the Fundamental Review of the Trading Book (FRTB) in January 2019, the exemption of Structural FX risk was further clarified. The conditions from the 1996 amendment were complemented to a total of seven conditions related to the policy framework required for FX risk and the maximum and type of exposure that can be in scope of the exemption. Within Europe, this exemption is covered in the Capital Requirements Regulation under article 352(2).
To process the changes introduced in the FRTB and to further strengthen the regulatory guidelines related to Structural FX, the EBA has issued a consultation paper in October 2019. A final version of these guidelines was published in July 2020. The date of application was pushed back one year compared to the consultation paper and is now set for January 2022.
The guidelines introduced by EBA can be split in three main topics:
One of the reasons presented by the EBA to publish these additional guidelines is a growing interest in the application of the Structural FX exemption in the market.
To understand the current policy applied by banks, a review of the 2019 annual reports of the top 25 European banks was conducted. Our review shows that almost all banks identify Structural FX as part of their risk identification process and over three quarters of the banks apply a strategy to hedge the CET1 ratio, for which an exemption has been approved by the ECB. While most of the banks apply the exemption for Structural FX, there is a vast difference in practices applied in measurement and disclosure. Only 44% of the banks publish quantitative information on Structural FX risk, ranging from the open currency exposure, 10-day VaR losses, stress losses or Economic Capital allocated.
The guideline that will have a significant impact on Structural FX management within the bigger banks of Europe is the limit to include only the top five open currency positions in the exemption: of the banks that disclose the currencies in scope of the Structural FX position, 60% has more than 5 and up to 20 currencies in scope. Reducing that to a maximum of five will either increase the capital requirements of those banks significantly or require banks to move back to maintaining a matched position for those currencies, which would increase the capital ratio volatility.
The EBA guidelines on Structural FX that will to go live by January 2022 are expected to have quite an impact on the way banks manage their Structural FX exposures. Although the Structural FX policy is well developed in most banks, the measurement and steering of these positions will require significant updates. It will also limit the number of currencies that banks can identify as Structural FX position. This will make it less favourable for international banks to maintain subsidiaries in different currencies, which will increase the cost of capital and/or the capital ratio volatility.
Finally, a topic that is still ambiguous in the guidelines is the treatment of Structural FX in a Pillar 2 or ICAAP context. Currently, 20% of the banks state to include an internal capital charge for open structural FX positions and a similar amount states to not include an internal capital charge. Including such a capital charge, however, is not obvious. Although an open FX position will present FX losses for a bank which would favour an internal capital charge, the appetite related to internal capital and to the sensitivity of the capital ratio can counteract, resulting in the need for undesirable FX hedges.
The new guidelines therefore present clarifications in many areas but will also require banks to rework a large part of their Structural FX policies in the middle of a (COVID-19) crisis period that already presents many challenges.
Over the past decades, banks significantly increased their efforts to implement adequate frameworks for managing interest rate risk in the banking book (IRRBB). These efforts typically focus
Find out moreWhile SAC is a planning tool to be considered, it requires further exploration to evaluate its fit with business requirements and how it could unlock opportunities to potentially streamline
Find out moreAfter the collapse of Credit Suisse and the subsequent orchestrated take-over by UBS, there are widespread calls for increasing capital requirements for too-big-too-fail banks to prevent
Find out moreThis article provides a thorough comparison of the Survival Analysis and Migration Matrix approach for modeling losses under the internal ratings-based (IRB) approach and IFRS 9. The optimal
Find out moreThe Zanders purpose Our purpose is to deliver financial performance when it counts, to propel organizations, economies, and the world forward. Recently, we have embarked on a process
Find out moreTo fully leverage the benefits of this technology, it’s essential to understand and address security threats when implementing blockchain solutions. As a decentralized distributed
Find out moreThe start of the migration from the SWIFT FIN format to the new ISO 20022 XML format, which is a banking industry migration that must be completed by November 2025. Whilst at this stage
Find out moreIn today’s world, supply chain disruptions are consequences of operating in an integrated and highly specialized global economy. Along with affecting the credit risk of impacted
Find out moreLarge systemic financial institutions have to show that they are resolvable during times of great stress. In this article, we discuss a specific requirement for resolution planning: the
Find out moreA 19th century book on Indian proverbs1 contains a story about a man who went on a journey with his son: “He came to a stream. As he was uncertain of its depth, he proceeded to sound
Find out moreWith the potential of Blockchain technology to transform businesses, we aim to guide our clients through the complexities of this technology and help them leverage it to improve their
Find out moreLate last year, ChatGPT emerged online as the next phase in this fast-growing and exciting technological space. Many of us tried it out already, and I have yet to meet anyone who is not left
Find out moreThis article may help SAP system owners re-think or change their approach towards bespoke custom solutions in the system. Over the past 14 years, my colleagues and I
Find out moreThe Federal Council in Switzerland wants to make sure that the Swiss financial sector will play a leading role in sustainability. To help accomplish this, it published an action plan in
Find out moreAn increasing number of policy makers and regulators have embedded the recommendations in industry guidance and laws. In this article we summarize the TCFD recommendations, taking into account
Find out moreToday’s interest rates are positive, the yield curve relatively flat and, in some currencies, even (slightly) inverse. The rise in interest rates poses a significant challenge for banks.
Find out moreWith every improvement, fraudsters look for and find new opportunities to exploit. When the opportunity arises, some people see a big incentive or pressure to commit fraud, and most will be
Find out moreMore simply put, the EBA was asked to investigate whether the current prudential framework properly captures environmental and social risks. In response, the EBA published a Discussion Paper
Find out moreThese risks stem from the transition towards a low carbon economy and from the physical risks of damages due to extreme weather events. To address climate-related financial risks within the
Find out moreIn the below overview, we present an overview of the main ESG-related publications from the European Commission (EC), the European Central Bank (ECB), and the European Banking Authority (EBA).
Find out more