Additional Piece:
Title: The Need for Overhauling Banking Regulations: Lessons from Credit Suisse
Introduction:
The recent bailout of Credit Suisse Group AG has sparked a debate about the effectiveness of existing banking regulations in safeguarding systemically important lenders. The Swiss National Bank (SNB) has called for an overhaul of these regulations, highlighting the need for timely intervention and a revised framework for managing “Too-Big-To-Fail” banks. This additional piece will delve deeper into the challenges faced by Credit Suisse, explore the shortcomings of current regulatory frameworks, and discuss potential solutions to prevent future crises.
Challenges Faced by Credit Suisse:
1. Lack of Timely Intervention:
The SNB emphasized the need for a revised “Too-Big-To-Fail” framework that facilitates timely intervention. The experience with Credit Suisse revealed that regulatory parameters can be relatively narrow and can delay corrective action. As a result, the bank’s situation deteriorated before appropriate measures could be taken. This highlights the necessity of having more flexible and proactive regulations that enable swift intervention in times of stress.
2. Uncertainty Surrounding Regulatory Capital:
The SNB raised concerns about the definition of regulatory capital under existing rules, citing tax-deferred assets. Credit Suisse’s balance sheet suffered a CHF2 billion hole due to the impact of tax assets. This incident underscores the need for clarity and consistency in defining regulatory capital to ensure accurate assessments of a bank’s financial health. Improved transparency and comprehensive guidelines are crucial for avoiding such discrepancies in the future.
3. Issues with Additional Tier 1 Bonds:
The SNB deemed that the additional Tier 1 (AT1) bonds issued by Credit Suisse were unfit for their intended purpose. These bonds, which are commonly used for capital-raising, failed to serve their regulatory purpose in improving the bank’s balance sheet. The trigger point linked to principal was an inadequate barometer of the bank’s financial health, rendering the AT1 bonds ineffective in mitigating the crisis. This highlights the importance of aligning regulatory instruments with their intended goals and the need for more accurate metrics for measuring financial stability.
4. Inadequate Regulatory Liquidity Buffers:
The regulatory liquidity buffers, according to the SNB, proved to be insufficient for Credit Suisse to manage its liquidity outflows and higher pre-positioning requirements. This suggests that the current regulatory frameworks do not adequately address liquidity risks faced by systemically important banks. Strengthening liquidity requirements and encouraging banks to maintain higher levels of liquid assets on their balance sheets can enhance resilience and mitigate the impact of liquidity stress.
Proposed Solutions and Way Forward:
1. Revamping the “Too-Big-To-Fail” Framework:
Reforming the existing “Too-Big-To-Fail” framework should be a priority. This would involve introducing more flexible regulatory parameters that enable timely intervention, effective risk management, and efficient resolution strategies. Proactive measures, such as stress testing and scenario analysis, should be incorporated into the framework to identify potential vulnerabilities and systemic risks.
2. Enhancing Transparency and Clarity:
As evidenced by the issues surrounding tax-deferred assets, there is a need for greater transparency and clear definitions of regulatory capital. Standardized guidelines and robust reporting frameworks can ensure consistency across banks, thereby improving comparability and accuracy in assessing their financial health. Regulatory bodies should collaborate to develop comprehensive guidelines that provide a comprehensive accounting of regulatory capital.
3. Strengthening Capital Requirements:
Revisiting capital requirements, especially for systemically important banks, is essential. Banks should be encouraged to maintain higher capital ratios to enhance stability and cushion against potential losses. Stricter regulations can prevent excessive risk-taking and ensure that banks have sufficient buffers to absorb shocks. This would entail periodic reviews of capital adequacy standards and regular stress testing to assess the resilience of banks’ balance sheets.
4. Addressing Liquidity Risks:
Regulatory liquidity buffers need to be reinforced to ensure that banks have sufficient liquid assets to meet their obligations. This requires revisiting liquidity regulations and setting higher minimum levels of assets held on banks’ balance sheets that can be pledged as collateral for emergency liquidity facilities. The use of standardized liquidity metrics, such as the Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR), can help monitor and manage these risks.
Conclusion:
The Credit Suisse crisis has underscored the shortcomings of existing banking regulations and highlighted the need for an overhaul of the regulatory framework. The SNB’s call for revisions in the “Too-Big-To-Fail” framework, enhanced transparency, stronger capital requirements, and improved liquidity regulations are crucial steps towards preventing future crises. Addressing these challenges will help ensure the stability and resilience of the banking sector, protecting both the financial system and the broader economy.
Summary:
In its first public reflections since the Credit Suisse bailout, the Swiss National Bank (SNB) called for an overhaul of banking regulations, highlighting their ineffectiveness in safeguarding systemically important lenders. The SNB identified several challenges faced by Credit Suisse, including a lack of timely intervention, uncertainty surrounding regulatory capital, issues with additional Tier 1 bonds, and inadequate regulatory liquidity buffers. To address these challenges, the SNB proposed solutions such as revamping the “Too-Big-To-Fail” framework, enhancing transparency and clarity, strengthening capital requirements, and addressing liquidity risks. These measures are essential for ensuring the stability and resilience of the banking sector and preventing future crises.
—————————————————-
| Article | Link |
|---|---|
| UK Artful Impressions | Premiere Etsy Store |
| Sponsored Content | View |
| 90’s Rock Band Review | View |
| Ted Lasso’s MacBook Guide | View |
| Nature’s Secret to More Energy | View |
| Ancient Recipe for Weight Loss | View |
| MacBook Air i3 vs i5 | View |
| You Need a VPN in 2023 – Liberty Shield | View |
Receive free updates from Credit Suisse Group AG
We will send you a myFT Daily Digest email rounding last Credit Suisse Group AG news every morning.
The Swiss National Bank has called for an overhaul of banking regulations as it warned that existing global capital and liquidity rules do not safeguard systemically important lenders from collapse, in its first public reflections since the Credit Suisse bailout.
“Experience with Credit Suisse shows the need for a revision of the Too-Big-To-Fail framework in order to facilitate timely intervention,” the SNB said in its annual report financial stability reportreleased on Thursday.
The report contains a number of damning preliminary observations from the emergency bailout of Switzerland’s second largest bank, when it was taken over by its rival UBS in March in a government-engineered deal, anointed with a 260 billion francs ($291 billion) liquidity support package.
THE SNB warns in the report that reliance on existing regulatory capital and liquidity rules may have even contributed to the bank’s woes.
“The experience with Credit Suisse demonstrated that in a time of stress, regulatory parameters are relatively narrow and can delay corrective action,” the SNB said,
The SNB, which is responsible for overseeing financial stability in Switzerland alongside market regulator Finma, said it had identified three main concerns.
First, he said Credit Suisse’s higher-than-required capital ratios provided little reassurance. He also said he has doubts about what exactly qualifies as regulatory capital under existing rules, citing tax-deferred assets. As the bank’s situation deteriorated, existing accounting rules for such tax assets created a CHF2 billion hole in the bank’s balance sheet, the SNB said.
Second, the SNB argued that additional Tier 1 bonds issued by Credit Suisse, a debt instrument that has been one of the most popular capital-raising tools in the banking world in the post-2008 regulatory environment, were not fit for purpose.
The bank should have been able to write off the value of the AT1 bonds much sooner to improve its balance sheet, the SNB said, which should have been the regulatory purpose of the instruments, but it couldn’t because the trigger point which was linked to principal the reports were an inadequate barometer of the bank’s financial health.
When the bonds were wiped out, in a controversial decision that launched a fierce legal battle in Switzerland – it was too late, said the SNB.
Thirdly, the SNB claimed that the regulatory liquidity buffers were nowhere near adequate for Credit Suisse to deal with its situation.
“The bank’s liquidity buffers and collateral prepared for central bank facilities were not sufficient to cover the massive liquidity outflows and higher pre-positioning requirements,” the report said.
The report proposes that Swiss banks should in future be required to set a much higher minimum level of assets held on the balance sheet at any given time that can be pledged to the SNB as collateral for emergency liquidity facilities.
The central bank is conducting a more in-depth investigation into the Credit Suisse crisis which will be handed over to Swiss lawmakers next year.
https://www.ft.com/content/6f960ca3-0e73-4447-8bb9-96897a84d082
—————————————————-