Blog
Treasury 4.x - Trends for Insurers
The productivity and performance of the treasury function within insurance companies have undergone a transformative evolution, driven by the emergence of what is now termed Treasury 4.x.
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.
The productivity and performance of the treasury function within insurance companies have undergone a transformative evolution, driven by the emergence of what is now termed Treasury 4.x.
Find out moreIn the second instalment of the Zanders series on the DRM model, the Risk Management Strategy (“RMS”) and the DRM process are introduced and with it the new concepts that the IASB have
Find out moreIn January 2022, the OECD incorporated Chapter X to the latest edition of their Transfer Pricing Guidelines, a pivotal step in regulating financial transactions globally. This addition
Find out moreIn the first half of 2024, European treasurers are confronted with a new item on their agenda: the updated EMIR Refit. The new EMIR reporting rules will be implemented in the EU on the
Find out moreOur technology partnerships are core, foundational elements of our risk and treasury transformations at Zanders. For us to guide our clients through their digitalization journeys and keep
Find out moreIn large organizations, the tendency is to select large scale ERP systems to support as much of the organization's business processes within this system. This is a goal that is driven
Find out moreThe current standards for hedge accounting present significant challenges for financial institutions engaged in dynamically hedging their portfolios. The corresponding type of hedging
Find out moreEconomic instability, a pandemic, geopolitical turbulence, rising urgency to get to net zero – a continuousstream of demands and disruption have pushed businesses to their limits in recent
Find out moreThe European Committee (EC) has approved the regulatory technical standards (RTS) that include the specification of the Net Interest Income (NII) Supervisory Outlier Test (SOT). The
Find out moreThe European Banking Authority (EBA) published its roadmap on the Banking Package, which implements the final Basel III reforms in the European Union. This roadmap develops over four phases,
Find out moreThis paper offers a straightforward analysis of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision's standards on crypto asset exposures and their adoption by 2025. It critically assesses
Find out moreIn recent years, consumers’ and investors’ interest in sustainability has been growing. Since 2015, assets under management in ESG funds have nearly tripled, the outstanding value of
Find out moreModel risk from risk models has become a focal point of discussion between regulators and the banking industry. As financial institutions strive to enhance their model risk management
Find out moreWe touch upon the main difficulties experienced by financial institutions in the Netherlands based on a combination of project experience, results of a survey, main attention points from
Find out moreIn October 2023, the European Banking Authority (EBA) published a report[1] with recommendations for enhancements to the Pillar 1 prudential framework to reflect environmental and social
Find out moreLiquidity and funding risk While European banks generally have sufficient liquidity, there are potential challenges on the horizon. Recent events, including bank failures in the United
Find out moreBut what happens after implementation, when the project team has packed up and handed over the reins to the employees and support staff? The first months after a system implementation can
Find out moreIn this article, we explore this stablecoin payments trial, examine the advantages of digital currencies and how they could provide a matching solution to tackle the hurdles of international
Find out moreAdditionally, business partners are essential in SAP for recording information related to securities issues, such as shares and funds. The SAP Treasury Business Partner (BP) serves as a
Find out moreBut the adoption of ISO 20022 XML messaging goes beyond SWIFT’s adoption in the interbank financial messaging space – SWIFT are currently estimating that by 2025, 80% of the RTGS (real
Find out more