The European Commission welcomes the political agreement reached on the “banking package” which implements Basel III standards, making EU banks more resilient and addressing sustainability risks. The package also strengthens supervision and provides tools for EU banks. Beyond the implementation of Basel III standards, the package also contains a number of standards on crypto currencies and contributes to Europe’s transition to climate neutrality. The new rules are expected to apply from 2025, but certain elements will be phased in over a longer period.

The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) has emphasized the importance of a swift transformation to the new Basel III rules. The implementation of the rules has already been delayed several times. Also the Dutch Central Bank (DNB) recently stated that the implementation of Basel III is crucial. They noted that the implementation of Basel III would help to address the risks posed by climate change, which are becoming increasingly important for the banking sector.

Forbearance involves providing concessions to borrowers who may struggle to repay their loans, aiming to return them to a sustainable repayment path. The analyses revealed areas for improvement, including the proper identification of clients in financial difficulties, granting appropriate and sustainable measures, and establishing robust monitoring processes for forborne exposures. Effective forbearance frameworks and efficient processes are crucial, particularly in the current economic environment, to prepare for potential increases in distressed debt and refinancing risk. These measures not only support viable distressed debtors but also mitigate losses for banks and the economy.

At the start of March, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in conjunction with several central banks concluded Project Icebreaker in which the potential benefits and challenges of using retail central bank digital currencies (CBDC) in international payments were studied. At the end of March, the European Banking Federation (EBF) published a vision paper on a Digital Euro Ecosystem, stating that a retail digital euro, a wholesale CBDC and bank-issued money tokens could all play a role in enabling innovation, supporting customer needs and ensuring that Europe stays at the forefront of digital finance. The digital euro should add value to consumers, mitigate ex-ante the accompanying risks, and be appropriately designed in close cooperation with the private sector.

At the end of April, the ECB stated in their latest progress report that a digital euro could be made available via existing banking apps or via a dedicated Eurosystem app. The digital euro would be accessible to Euro area citizens (and non-Euro area citizens with a Euro area-based payment service provider) in its initial release. In further releases, other areas could have access too, while also functionalities with other CBDCs are potentially provisioned. Finally, a paper produced for the European Parliament suggested that the digital euro system should not limit users’ holdings, arguing that the risks to financial stability of people deserting conventional banks are overstated. Holdings could be limited if the digital euro is intended for day-to-day transactions only. A final decision on issuing a digital euro has yet to be made, with the launch coming in 2026 at the earliest.

Meanwhile the EU has approved the world’s first comprehensive crypto rules, aiming to protect investors and combat money laundering. Expected to roll out in 2024, the rules put pressure on other countries to follow suit. Related to this, IOSCO, the global standard setter for securities markets, has issued detailed recommendations for regulating crypto assets, aiming to enhance client protection and align crypto trading with public market standards. With support from its board, IOSCO intends to address investor protection and market integrity risks.

The new threshold is set at a 5% decline of Tier 1 capital, replacing the previous level of 2.5%. The EBA plans to review and update the threshold regularly and may revise the methodology in the longer term. The NII SOT is an additional metric in the supervisory review of institutions’ exposures to interest rate risk in the banking book (IRRBB). The EBA states that a breach would not lead to automatic supervisory measures. Integrating the threshold into institutions’ internal systems would not necessarily require recalibration actions.

This increase in the threshold is not deemed sufficient, however, by the banking sector. According to Risk.net, the sector proposes a 7.5% limit. The EBA has calibrated the limit such that the number of banks violating the Economic Value of Equity (EVE) SOT should be similar as for the NII SOT. The sector claims that a 7.5% NII SOT will ensure this, as the original 2.5% was estimated in a low interest rate environment. The new threshold must still be approved by the European Commission (EC). Without this approval, the status of both the SOT for Economic Value of Equity (EVE) and NII is unclear.

Meanwhile, the European Central Bank (ECB) has started to analyse the unrealized losses that banks (could) face due to the recent interest rate movements. The ECB has requested banks to provide detailed information on their interest rate risk models and how they are affected by rising rates. The ECB states that it will use, among other, the results of the ongoing stress test to analyze the resilience of the banks.

In the broader context of banking supervision, the Financial Stability Institute (FSI) of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) has highlighted the impact of rapid interest rate hikes on banks’ solvency and liquidity positions. Banks’ accounting choices, balance sheet characteristics, and business models play a role in how these effects are experienced. While Pillar 1 sets baseline requirements, rising interest rates and declining asset values expose vulnerabilities that require robust supervision under Pillar 2. Supervisors need to assess risks such as IRRBB and unsustainable business models. Market turmoil has emphasized the need for additional measures, both quantitative and qualitative, to address bank-specific vulnerabilities and enhance risk management. Implementing Pillar 2 consistently across jurisdictions is a challenge, however, that may require further guidance.