The introduction of IFRS 9 from 1 January 2018 will have a significant effect on regulatory capital across the banking industry, with four-fifths of EU banks expecting their stock of impairments to rise under the new rules according to a Deloitte survey. The European Banking Authority’s (EBA) estimates for the increase of impairment stock (provisions), compared to the current levels under IAS 39, is 18% on average and up to 30% for some firms. This led to an estimated decrease in Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) and total capital ratios by an average of 59 bps and 45 bps, respectively. As a result, finding a mechanism to smooth any unwanted impacts following the IFRS 9 adoption, by avoiding a capital cliff-effect on day one, has rapidly become a priority for prudential regulators.  

In October 2016, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) published a consultative document discussing the impact that the introduction of IFRS 9’s Expected Credit Losses (ECL) approach could have on the capital adequacy of banks, suggesting that prudential regulators may consider using transitional measures to smooth the adoption of the new rules. Just over a month later, the European Commission, recognising the same concern, included a transitional phase-in arrangement for IFRS 9 in its proposal to review the EU Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR2).

The Commission proposed to allow banks to temporarily include a reducing proportion of ECL provisions for performing loans in their CET1 capital requirements over a five year period after CRR2’s entry into force (starting at a 100% allowance and decreasing by 20% per year). With IFRS 9 coming into force at the end of 2017, however, there is a growing view among industry practitioners and policymakers that a quicker solution is needed.

The EU legislative process is complex and often slow moving, with CRR2 (a broad and controversial package of prudential rules for banks) expected to take at least two years of negotiations before a final law can enter into force. This would see its IFRS 9 phase-in allowances being applied in Q1 2019 at the earliest, already more than a year after banks will have to start applying the new ECL accounting standard.

Getting there in time

The Commission has acknowledged that its IFRS 9 phase-in proposal is a “candidate for fast-tracking” but has not yet committed to any next steps. But what does “fast-tracking” EU legislation mean? The CRR2 package cannot itself be fast-tracked in its entirety. It is simply too far-reaching and complex. To be accelerated, the IFRS 9 proposal would have to be split out of CRR2 and would likely then be re-proposed by the Commission as a standalone law. 

The new standalone IFRS 9 proposal would then have to go through the same EU legislative process as any other proposal. The speed of an agreement would entirely depend on the willingness of EU Member States and the European Parliament to see the IFRS 9 phase-in proposal as non-controversial and wave it through the process. There is precedent for such an approach: it was done for the recent delays of the EU’s MiFID II and PRIIPs rules, but the legal and legislative procedures involved mean that this could still take several months at best. What’s more, legislators may seek improvements to the Commission’s proposal, including those set out in the opinion issued by the EBA last week, calling for a simpler one-off transitional allowance to be calculated (without the 100% allowance in year one) instead of the Commission’s five-year dynamic approach. 

One important question is how soon a transitional phase-in for IFRS 9 needs to be ready to be of meaningful assistance to banks. Having transitional rules ready before the end of the year is a start. In practice though, banks and their supervisors arguably need more time to prepare for IFRS 9 implementation from a capital management and prudential point of view, in order to better understand and anticipate its effect on different kinds of asset classes, exposures and business models.

In order to maximise the usefulness of a phase-in period, these rules would ideally be in place before supervisors make their bank-by-bank Pillar 2 capital adequacy decisions as part of the Supervisory Review and Evaluation Process (for the ECB, this is usually finalised in September). This would allow supervisors to understand the amount of additional capital banks will be required to hold from 1 January 2018, and to make Pillar 2 capital requirement decisions that ensure regulatory capital adequately reflects the risks prudential regulators have identified in each bank.

That does not leave much time for a standalone phase-in arrangement to be negotiated and finalised, if a new proposal even ends up being made.

What if a phase-in arrangement isn’t ready in time?

Broad support for a transitional phase-in of IFRS 9 appears to exist among supervisors, national governments, the Commission and the European Parliament. However, the challenges around rushing through a fast-track proposal at the EU level or the expected slow pace of CRR2 negotiations leave the very real possibility of a phase-in arrangement not being ready in time. 

If so, supervisors may be able to use the discretion they have in setting Pillar 2 capital requirements to smooth the impact of IFRS 9 adoption. The UK Prudential Regulation Authority’s (PRA) consultation on its Pillar 2A framework last month raised the impact of IFRS 9 on capital adequacy. This signalled that the PRA will seek to even out the disproportionately large impact that ECL provisions are expected to have on banks using standardised approaches for risk measurement relative to those using internal ratings-based (IRB) models.

This could address some concerns around IFRS 9 adoption, although without a clear EU-wide phase-in arrangement, ad hoc supervisory approaches could be inconsistent with each other (e.g. between the UK and Eurozone) and not the comprehensive solution many banks and prudential regulators would like to see. For example, supervisory approaches similar to that being outlined by the PRA, may not offer relief to banks using IRB models, even though IFRS 9’s effect on them is less clear-cut.

In the face of this uncertainty between now and the end of the year, banks should engage closely with their supervisors to understand their expectations of them and the approach they will likely take either with our without an EU-level phase-in arrangement on the books.

To learn more about the impact of IFRS 9 on banking sector regulatory capital, please see the report (A drain on resources?) published by Deloitte last year.


Thomas Clifford

Thomas Clifford - Director, Risk Modelling and Methodology

Tom is a Director in the Financial Analytics team within Deloitte’s Risk Advisory Group.  He specialises in credit risk modelling across the banking sector, having implemented, reviewed and applied credit risk models across the full spectrum of Retail, Commercial, Corporate and Wholesale lending operations. Tom leads IFRS 9 analytics and delivery, helping our clients assess and understand the potential impact of implementing the expected credit loss impairment model proposed, both in the Medium Term and within a stressed environment.

Email | LinkedIn

Rod Hardcastle blog

Rod Hardcastle - Director, EMEA Centre for Regulatory Strategy

Rod is a Director in Deloitte’s EMEA Centre for Regulatory Strategy, working in the banking sector. The ECRS brings together regulatory specialists from Deloitte firms across the region in order to help our clients understand and assess the impact of significant regulatory changes. Rod has over 25 years banking and advisory experience, having worked in credit risk and strategy roles in banks in Europe, the UK, Canada, the US and New Zealand. He has spent the last 12 years in a range of senior prudential regulatory roles in large and mid-sized UK banks.

Email | LinkedIn

Scott Martin

Scott Martin - Manager, Centre for Regulatory Strategy

Scott is a Manager in the EMEA Centre for Regulatory Strategy advising on UK and EU banking regulation, with a particular focus on prudential rules and structural reform. Before joining Deloitte in 2015, he spent four years as an EU financial regulation consultant in Brussels after graduating from the London School of Economics. He previously spent a number of years working as a political advisor to Canada’s Minister of Finance and Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Email | LinkedIn


Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.