Nyheder Høringssvar Presse Udgivelser og pjecer Aktiviteter Om os Extranet
English
Logo
  • Aktuelt
    AKTUELLE EMNER
    Bekæmpelse af svindel Bæredygtig finans
    Det digitale samfund Forebyggelse af hvidvask
    Konkurrence Kriminalitet
    NYHEDER
    Nyheder Analyser
    Se alle emner
  • Gode råd
    Bolig & Realkredit
    Forstå dit realkreditlån Køb af bolig Sådan klager du over dit realkreditinstitut Den danske realkreditmodel
    Bank & privatøkonomi
    Lån i banken Forbered din finansielle fremtid Adgang til kontanter Indsigelse ved brug af betalingskort Sådan skifter du bank Sådan opretter du en erhvervskonto Sådan klager du over din bank Sammenlign bankernes priser Gældsrådgivning Derfor spørger banken om ID
    Investering
    Investering - om at investere Investeringsfonde Sådan klager du over din investeringsfond Investering i aktier og obligationer Skat og investering
    Det digitale samfund
    Sikkerhed på nettet Stop bankrøveriet i din egen stue
    Se alle gode råd
  • Tal & data
    Bolig & Realkredit
    Boligmarkedsstatistikken Boligudbudsstatistik Udlånsstatistik Restancer Flere tal om realkredit Udgivelseskalender for statistikker
    Bank & økonomi
    Finanssektorens bidrag til samfundet Svindel med netbank og betalinger Regnskabs- og nøgletal Kriminalitet og hvidvask Institutter, filialer & ansatte
    Renter
    Aktuel rente ved udbetaling af ratepension De danske referencerenter Ny risikofri referencerente for det danske kronemarked
    Investering
    Afkast, risiko og omkostninger Lukkede fonde Active share and tracking error Forklaring til statistikker Statistikker i Excel
  • Fagområder
    Fagområder
    Analyse Bank Europapolitik
    Investering Kapitalmarked Realkredit
  • Vælg site
    Arbejdsgiver
  • Aktuelt
    AKTUELLE EMNER
    Bekæmpelse af svindel Bæredygtig finans
    Det digitale samfund Forebyggelse af hvidvask
    Konkurrence Kriminalitet
    NYHEDER
    Nyheder Analyser
  • Gode råd
    Bolig & Realkredit
    Forstå dit realkreditlån Køb af bolig Sådan klager du over dit realkreditinstitut Den danske realkreditmodel
    Bank & privatøkonomi
    Lån i banken Forbered din finansielle fremtid Adgang til kontanter Indsigelse ved brug af betalingskort Sådan skifter du bank Sådan opretter du en erhvervskonto Sådan klager du over din bank Sammenlign bankernes priser Gældsrådgivning Derfor spørger banken om ID
    Investering
    Investering - om at investere Investeringsfonde Sådan klager du over din investeringsfond Investering i aktier og obligationer Skat og investering
    Det digitale samfund
    Sikkerhed på nettet Stop bankrøveriet i din egen stue
  • Tal & data
    Bolig & Realkredit
    Boligmarkedsstatistikken Boligudbudsstatistik Udlånsstatistik Restancer Flere tal om realkredit Udgivelseskalender for statistikker
    Bank & økonomi
    Finanssektorens bidrag til samfundet Svindel med netbank og betalinger Regnskabs- og nøgletal Kriminalitet og hvidvask Institutter, filialer & ansatte
    Renter
    Aktuel rente ved udbetaling af ratepension De danske referencerenter Ny risikofri referencerente for det danske kronemarked
    Investering
    Afkast, risiko og omkostninger Lukkede fonde Active share and tracking error Forklaring til statistikker Statistikker i Excel
  • Fagområder
    Fagområder
    Analyse Bank Europapolitik
    Investering Kapitalmarked Realkredit
  • Arbejdsgiver
  • Nyheder
  • Høringssvar
  • Presse
  • Udgivelser og pjecer
  • Aktiviteter
  • Om os
  • Extranet
  • Du er her:
  • Forside
  • Nyheder
  • Makroprudentielt værktøj skal anvendes med omtanke og respekt

Makroprudentielt værktøj skal anvendes med omtanke og respekt

Publiceret 06-10-2015
Makroprudentielt værktøj skal anvendes med omtanke og respekt

We welcome the opportunity to comment on the consultation on the draft Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS) regarding the conditions that Competent Authorities have to take into account.

General comments

We support the principle-based approach applied in the draft RTS. We are also encouraged by the prescribed lists of conditions that competent authorities must take into account. In addition, we are pleased to find that the competent authorities explicitly are required to acknowledge already effected risk-mitigating achievements.

While we recognize that overly restrictive conditions for raising risk-weights and/or LGD-values might prove insufficient for dealing with changing economic environments, we are uneasy with the lack of boundaries in the draft RTS. Specifically, indicative limits on the maximum allowed imposed changes to LGD minimum values should be defined as an analogue to the definition of indicative benchmark for the assessment of setting higher risk-weights.     

It's a challenge to apply ad-hoc macro prudential measures in a timely, well-proportioned and properly scoped manner. Combined with the principle-based approach, which we support, the link between historical and forward-looking indicators consequently becomes very vague in the draft RTS. There is a risk that it will lead to decisions based on considerable parts of expert judgement. Such heavy reliance on non-quantifiable input must be reduced. 

Basically, non-quantifiable inputs, such as supervisory judgement, overrides the underlying assumptions of the risk-model - hampering the use of the model as a tool for measuring risk. As a consequence, excessive use of expert/supervisory judgement will reduce the attention given to the predictive capabilities of a quantitative risk-model unreliable.

Therefore, we must stress the vital need for the competent authorities to carefully and respectfully consider the potential effects of raising the risk-weights or minimum LGD-values. In this respect a comprehensive attention to industry comments, conflicting outlooks and different theoretical approaches must be mandatory.

Finally, we welcome the requirements for the competent authorities to publicly describe and justify potential changes in the minimum values of LGD.

Answers to the questions

(also inserted directly in the web-solution)

Question 1: Do you agree with the three main categories of conditions specified for the setting of higher risk weights (paragraph 1) and the setting of higher minimum LGD values (paragraph 2)?

No comments

Question 2: Do you agree with the conditions for specification of the loss experience and the loss expectations? Do you agree with the adjustments allowed to be made to the loss experience on the basis of the forward-looking immovable property market developments?

Question 3: Do you agree with the indicative benchmarks for the assessment of the appropriateness of the risk weights and to guide the setting of higher risk weights across immovable property markets in different member states as specified in Article 4(3) and 4(4)? What levels of these indicative benchmarks would be most appropriate and why?

Question 4: Do you agree with the specification of the term of “financial stability considerations”?

No comments

Question 5: Do you agree with the other conditions for the setting of higher risk weights? (Please provide your feedback related to the indicative benchmarks (in Article 3(3) and 3(4)) in your response to Question 3 above.)

Question 6: Do you agree with the conditions for specification of the exposure weighted average LGD and the LGD expectation? Do you agree with the adjustments allowed to be made to the average exposure weighted LGD on the basis of the forward-looking immovable property market developments? Do you agree that it is not appropriate to set indicative benchmarks for the setting of higher minimum LGD values because of the specificities of national immovable property markets and because of the relationship of the LGD parameter with the other internal model parameters?

We are cautious towards the competent authorities raising minimum LGD values. This is due to the fact, that such an instrument, even if applied with due care, can turn out to have severe and unforeseen consequences to the level playing field of IRB-institutions. As mentioned there should also be an upper limit to the adjustment of the minimum LGD values.

In addition it is imperative, that such instrument will not be used as an alternative to requirements for adjustment to poor performing internal models. For example, would a "muting" of the risk sensitivity of a IRB-model by raising the minimum LGD value be of little use,  with potentially quite severe side effects, to a IRB-model which is performing poorly due to model specific details. 

We also would like to stress that a substantial increase in the amount of data to be provided by the institutions could be a prerequisite to facilitate the detailed analysis required for competent. This result would be conflicting with the EU Commissions' current objective of reducing the burden on the European financial institutions.

Question 7: Do you agree with the other conditions for the setting of higher minimum LGD values?

We welcome the requirements for the competent authorities to publicly describe and justify the expected effects of a potential increase in minimum LGD-values, which eventually should lead to enhanced harmonisation.

 

Følg Finans Danmark

Finans Danmark  Amaliegade 7  1256 København K  Tlf.: 3370 1000  mail@finansdanmark.dk

  • Nyhedsbrevstilmelding
  • Cookiepolitik
  • Disclaimer
  • Privatlivspolitik