Banking in Financial Services UK
- Select a blog category
Some say that technology revolutionized knowledge. Once controlled by a privileged few, knowledge is now becoming available to everybody. What if the same were about to happen with trust?
The EBA published draft Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS) on the assessment and approval of internal models for market risk on 14 December 2015. The new document sets out far more detail on market risk model requirements than is currently contained in the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) or the PRA Rulebook and Supervisory Statements.
Defining vulnerability and ensuring staff understand and apply the definition has long presented a challenge to firms.
One of the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA’s) main observations, in its occasional paper (number eight), was an acknowledgement that vulnerability is difficult to define and that currently firms apply a range of definitions. It concluded that vulnerability itself is a very fluid, changeable state but for some individual consumers it can indeed be a permanent state. Nonetheless, it made clear that the firms need to work around these difficulties as access to services for all consumers is seen as central to core conduct.
We explore some of the challenges a firm may face when implementing a vulnerability definition across an operation.
The Financial Policy Committee (FPC) of the Bank of England has confirmed that it plans to activate the Countercyclical Capital Buffer (CCyB) in the near future, perhaps as early as March 2016. The FPC announced the move in its Financial Stability Report published on 1 December 2015.
It is striking, and perhaps not entirely coincidental, that since the start of November two very senior regulators have each used examples from maritime history in their speeches about the future of bank capital regulation. Neither example is a happy one. Stefan Ingves, Governor of the Swedish Riksbank and Chair of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS), referred to the fate of the Vasa. The Vasa when it was completed in 1628 was the most impressive vessel in the Swedish navy. But it sank on its maiden voyage, a casualty of significant design flaws. Nobuchika Mori, Commissioner of the Japan Financial Services Agency, drew on another tragic tale. The SS Eastland sank on Lake Michigan in 1915, having overloaded itself with life rafts to meet a regulation that had been introduced after the sinking of the Titanic. 841 lives were lost, more than on the Titanic itself.
Global systemically important banks (G-SIBs) will be required to meet a new prudential requirement – Total Loss-Absorbing Capacity (TLAC) – by 2019, in line with a new global standard published by the Financial Stability Board (FSB).
November 4, 2014 marked a turning point in European banking supervision. It was the day the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) took over responsibility for banking supervision in the Eurozone. Compared to many other European endeavours, the SSM was set up quickly; the vision for the Banking Union, of which the SSM is a part, was created only in 2012. During this period a whole new organisation had to be made operational, with supervisory approaches and processes drawn from best practices across Europe, and staffing and governance adapted to the new arrangements. On its first birthday, how is the SSM getting on?
The first year of the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) was a busy one for banks – and for supervisors. There is much still to do, but even as they continue to tackle the near-term challenges, many banks are asking what the SSM will look like in the future, and what the implications will be for their business models, and for the banking industry more broadly.