Set 292017
 

Il  26 Settembre 2017, ore 16.00, si è tenuto il quinto evento del Polimi Fintech Journey

La rivoluzione digitale nel mondo della consulenza finanziaria

Attraverso i link qui sotto riportati potete scaricare le presentazioni dei relatori

  1. Mario Bortoli (Euclidea sim)
    Investimenti e digitale: nuovi modi di investire nell’era FinTech
  2.  Nadia Linciano (Consob)
    La consulenza automatizzata: prospettive di sviluppo e profili diattenzione per la tutela degli investitori retail
  3.  Raffaele Zenti (Adviseonly)
    I roboadvisor sono davvero una novità?
    Discussant:
    Emilio Barucci (Politecnico di Milano)

 

Set 282017
 

La Banca centrale europea ha avviato una consultazione pubblica riguardante due progetti di Linee guida sulle procedure che un soggetto deve seguire per configurarsi come ente creditizio e ottenere l’autorizzazione all’esercizio dell’attività bancaria.

Il primo documento illustra il processo generale e i requisiti per la valutazione delle domande di autorizzazione all’esercizio dell’attività bancaria di enti creditizi in generale. Il secondo documento delinea il processo relativo alla presentazione dell’istanza e i requisiti di autorizzazione valevoli per i soggetti con modelli imprenditoriali fintech interessati a richiedere l’autorizzazione all’esercizio dell’attività bancaria.

Le linee guida sono concepite per rendere più trasparente il processo di autorizzazione e per fornire indicazioni pratiche ai richiedenti, conformandosi al contempo a tutti gli standard prudenziali per il rilascio di nuove autorizzazioni.

La consultazione avrà termine il 2 novembre 2017. I due documenti in consultazione.

Comunicato stampa 
Linee guida per l’autorizzazione all’attività bancaria per gli enti creditizi in generale
Linee guida per l’autorizzazione all’attività bancaria per i soggetti fintech

Set 282017
 

L’EBA ha pubblicato le nuove linee guida in materia di governance interna. Le linee guida mirano ad armonizzare ulteriormente le modalità, i processi e i meccanismi di governance interna delle istituzioni in tutta l’UE, in linea con le nuove esigenze introdotte nella direttiva sui requisiti patrimoniali (CRD IV) e tenendo conto anche del principio di proporzionalità.

Le nuove Linee guida, che aggiornano quelle originariamente pubblicate nel settembre 2011, pongono maggiore enfasi sui doveri e sulle responsabilità dell’organo di gestione nella sua funzione di supervisione nel controllo dei rischi. Inoltre, è stato ulteriormente sviluppato il quadro di riferimento riguardante la condotta aziendale, attribuendo maggiore importanza alla creazione di una cultura del rischio, al codice di condotta e alla gestione dei conflitti d’interesse.

Comunicato stampa
Linee guida EBA su governance interna

Set 282017
 

Il Comitato di Basilea sulla vigilanza bancaria ha pubblicato una nuova serie di FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) in materia di definizione del capitale ai sensi della disciplina di Basilea III. Questi ultimi aggiornamenti intendono promuovere un’implementazione globale e coerente della normativa, fornendo chiarimenti e orientamenti interpretativi sulle norme del adottate dal Comitato.

Aggiornamento FAQ settembre 2017

Set 282017
 

L’Autorità Bancaria Europea ha pubblicato un documento di discussione in materia di trasferimenti significativi di rischo nelle cartolarizzazioni. Il documento si basa sull’attività di monitoraggio delle pratiche di vigilanza avviata dall’Autorità Bancaria nel 2014. L’obiettivo della consultazione è di individuare le modalità attraverso le quali armonizzare ulteriormente la regolamentazione e la supervisione in tale ambito. Le proposte presentate dall’EBA, basate sulla nuova legislazione europea in materia di cartolarizzazione, mirano a rafforzare il quadro normativo e di controllo del trasferimento dei rischi e a migliorare le condizioni di parità tra le istituzioni coinvolte. La consultazione avrà termine il 19 dicembre 2017.

Comunicato stampa
Documento di consultazione

Set 282017
 

La Banca d’Italia ha comunicato la decisione di mantenere il coefficiente di riserva di capitale anticiclica allo zero per cento per il quarto trimestre del 2016.

La decisione è stata presa alla luce delle seguenti dinamiche macroeconomiche:

  • nel secondo trimestre del 2017 lo scostamento del rapporto tra credito bancario e PIL dal suo trend di medio-lungo periodo, calcolato sulla base della metodologia standard del Comitato di Basilea, era negativo per circa undici punti percentuali, in calo rispetto al trimestre precedente. Secondo la metodologia sviluppata dalla Banca d’Italia, che tiene conto delle caratteristiche specifiche del ciclo creditizio nel nostro paese, il divario sarebbe negativo per circa sette punti percentuali. Indicazioni analoghe provengono dall’analisi del rapporto tra credito totale e PIL, riferito al primo trimestre del 2017;
  • La condizione macrofinanziaria dell’economia italiana è ancora complessivamente debole. Il tasso di disoccupazione è su livelli storicamente elevati. La dinamica del credito bancario al settore privato è leggermente positiva, ma il tasso di crescita del credito alle imprese continua a essere prossimo allo zero. La quota di prestiti deteriorati (al lordo delle rettifiche di valore) sul totale dei prestiti rimane su valori elevati. I prezzi degli immobili in termini reali si sono stabilizzati, ma rimangono ben inferiori al loro livello di lungo periodo.

Comunicato stampa

Set 282017
 

The new European legislation requires the ESAs (European Supervisor Authorities, among which EIOPA), the ESRB (European Systematic Risk Board) and the ECB (European Central Bank) to develop a common set of qualitative and quantitative indicators (i.e. a Risk DashBoard – RDB) to identify and measure systematic risk. To accomplish this task, the institutions have determined a set of general rules for the RDB. They must be:

  • built on the same list of risk categories, to which each institution can add further ones, specific of the sector (e.g. underwriting risk for the insurances)
  • constructed on a flexible basis
  • consistent in the underlying information when the same indicator is used.

EIOPA RDB is published on a quarterly basis and it is based on public market data and Solvency II data (Quarterly and Annual Financial Stability Reporting for Groups and Solo Prudential Reporting for Solo). It considers 57 indicators to each of which a score ranging from 1 (low risk) to 10 (high risk) is assigned. When assigning a score to each indicator, different sizes of the entities are considered through the use of weighting parameters that can vary (e.g. premiums, technical provisions, assets, SCR) according to the indicator under examination.

These 57 indicators are aggregated into 8 (=7+1) risk categories characterized by a colour code to represent the final level of the risk; its changes over time are represented by arrows. The indicators are in principle equally weighted, however it may be that some weights are increased / decreased when the indictor is particularly important / high correlated with others.

EIOPA published its RDB updated to the first-quarter 2017 data last 31 July 2017. The data cover a sample of 93 insurance groups and 3,076 solo insurance undertakings.

Some comments on the results split by risk category

1. Macro risks [high, stable]

This is an overarching category affecting the whole economy, which considers economic growth, monetary policies, consumer price indices and fiscal balances.

The data show an economic environment that remains fragile because of the enduring low-yields. The GDP forecast stays around 2% expected real growth; the policy rates of the Central Banks increase following the monetary policy changes in the US and the Central Banks balance sheets expand, reflecting the stepping up of liquidity provision and an increased intermediation role. The inflation rates move within the target range, the fiscal deficit is similar to the previous quarter and the unemployment rate decrease.

2. Credit risks [medium, stable]

This category measures the vulnerability to the credit risk by looking at the relevant credit asset classes exposures combined with the associated metrics (e.g. government securities and credit spread on sovereigns). The credit risk seems not to be properly reflected in the market prices, where the observed spreads keep on decreasing and are close to their historical minimum. The credit quality of the investments has slightly improved (average rating between A and A+); loans and mortgages counts for a small portion of the total assets; household indebtedness is elevated

3. Market risks [medium, stable]

This vulnerability of the insurance sector to adverse developments is evaluated based on the investment exposures, while the current level of riskiness is evaluated based on the volatility of the yields together with the difference between the investment returns and the guaranteed interest rates. The exposures to bonds, equity and property remain stable, while their volatilities decrease.

4. Liquidity and funding risk [medium, decreasing]

The vulnerability to liquidity shocked is monitored measuring the lapse rate, the holding in cash and the issuance of catastrophe bonds (low volumes or high spreads correspond to a reduction in the demand which could forma a risk). The share of cash holding and the average coupon divided by the maturity  decrease slightly, while the proportion of more liquid assets in the portfolio remains stable; the announced volume of CAT bonds increase.

5. Profitability and solvency [medium, increasing]

The solvency level is measured via SCR and quality of OF, while the profitability via return on investments / combined ratio for the life / non-life sectors. The SCR ratio is stable at group level (198%), while it decreases in both life (160%, -5%) and non-life (220%, -9%) Solo. The net combined ratio has slightly deteriorated, while the profitability shows positive signs in the life business. The quality of OF is still high.

6. Interlinkages and imbalances [medium, stable]

Interlinkages are assessed between primary insurers and reinsurers, insurance and banking sector and among the derivative holdings. The exposure towards domestic sovereign debt is considered as well. Data show stable investment exposures to the different financial services and slight increase in the exposure towards reinsurers.

7. Insurance (underwriting) risk [low, stable]

Indicators for insurance risks are gross written premia, claims and losses due to natural catastrophes. Written premia show a 5% increase in both life and non-life sectors, cat losses are stable, while the loss ratio has increased for small undertakings.

8. Market perception [medium, stable]

The quantities assessed are relative stock market performances (insurance stock keeps on performing worse than the Stoxx 600), price to earnings ratio (slight improved), CDS spreads and external rating outlooks (unchanged).

Set 152017
 

Abstract

We propose a market-based, early warning measure of credit risk able to enhance the observed CDS spreads with a risk premium that derives from contagion by means of a correlation network model. We then combine the proposed measure with balance-sheet information and liabilities composition, in order to investigate the systemic contagion that arises from the resolution of a failing financial institution within the context of the European single resolution framework. To this aim we consider three alternative scenarios: liquidation, private recapitalisation or a bail-in resolution action. The application of our methodology reveals that, from the system’s viewpoint, a private intervention and a bail-in resolution minimise losses with respect to the liquidation alternative. In addition, the bail-in resolution slightly reduces contagion effects with respect to a private intervention. Our empirical findings show that the proposed measure is quite effective to help the decision making process, from both an individual bank’s perspective and an overall regulatory viewpoint.

The systemic effect of banks resolution

Financial institutions are among the most relevant contributors to systemic risk. For this reason, after the recent financial crisis, policies aimed at monitoring and supervising systemic risk have been developed in several countries, within newly established macro-prudential frameworks. The introduction of new regulatory frameworks in the light of a coordination between micro- and macro-prudential tools is the result of one of the main lessons learnt from the great recession: it is now clear, in fact, that micro-prudential supervision alone, with its predominant focus on individual banks, can not easily detect incipient systemic risks, because they derive from interconnections with other banks and with the economy. In addition, while the goals of macro- and micro-prudential policy are clearly distinct, their instruments tend to coincide, in the sense that instruments commonly regarded as macro-prudential can, in principle, be used also by the micro-prudential supervisor as part of its supervisory evaluation and intervention process. Consistently with this framework, the Euro area has introduced the SSM as a single independent supervisor, distinct but closely connected to the European Central Bank, having all the supervisory instruments. A different body, the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB), provides macro-prudential policy analyses and recommendations.

The specific focus on the Euro area is particularly interesting also because essential policy developments have been recently introduced: in particular, the 2014/59/EU directive, known as the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD), and the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM), which has become fully operational, for all the 19 Euro area countries, on 1 January 2016. In particular, while the BRRD determines the rules for how EU banks in a crisis situation are restructured and how losses and costs are allocated among banks’ shareholders and creditors, the SRM is directly responsible for the resolution of all banks in Member States participating in the banking union.

Before the BRRD and the SRM, when a bank was deemed failing or likely to fail, supervisory authorities could essentially choose between liquidation, with high costs for all involved stakeholders (shareholders, bondholders, depositors, borrowers) and a public bail-out, with high costs for taxpayers and further negative macroeconomic consequences (see e.g. Halaj et al., 2016) that include moral hazard problems for too-big-to-fail financial institutions, and a vicious loop between bank risk and sovereign risk.

Among its objectives, the BRRD also proposes an alternative solution for covering losses that, while avoiding the use of public funds, imposes on private creditors an ordered reconstruction of the bank, avoiding the extreme consequences that would occur in case of liquidation. In this sense, the BRRD contains a bail-in tool that enables the resolution authority to satisfy claims according to a waterfall hierarchy in the liabilities, in which junior liabilities are bailed-in first, followed by the more senior ones.

The bail-in tool can be used within the resolution mechanism of a bank. However, according to the Article 32 of the BRRD, a resolution action can be taken only if some preliminary conditions are met: a) the bank has been assessed as failing or likely to fail; b) no alternative private interventions, nor supervisory interventions, would prevent such failure; c) a resolution action is necessary in the public interest. In other words, in the Euro area a bail-in could be pursued when a bank is assessed as failing or likely to fail, a resolution action is necessary in the public interest (the bank cannot be liquidated) and no other alternatives can be successfully implemented (such as private intervention and public bail-out). Thus, to proceed with a bail-in, a supervisory authority should compare its consequences with other possible interventions, such as liquidation, private intervention and public bail-out.

Liquidation, Bail-in or private intervention

The aim of the paper by Giudici and Parisi (2017) is to understand the systemic implications of the bail-in tool, comparing them with two other possible alternatives, namely liquidation and private intervention.

More precisely, the paper starts examining the joint evolution of the Corporate Default Swap (CDS) spreads of a set of financial institutions. The use of CDS spread data allows the development of a partial correlation network model that can explicitly measure the propagation of the default probabilities of banks within the financial system. The measure can thus be employed, within the context of the Single Resolution framework, to evaluate the potential losses of banks in case of a distress event under the three possible actions (liquidation, private intervention, bail-in) mentioned above. In the methodological setting, the choice of one action with respect to the others is driven by the minimisation of the potential losses for each single bank (that can thus independently decide whether to participate to a private intervention or not), and for the entire banking system as well.

More in detail, the proposed methodology can be employed in a distress scenario, meaning a banking system where one ore more financial institutions are failing or likely to fail. In this context, the authors compare three different possible actions: a) the “troubled” institution has not enough regulatory capital and bail-inable liabilities to absorb losses and/or to meet regulatory requirements (Pillar 1, Pillar 2, leverage ratio and regulatory buffers). In addition, it is not deemed systemic, and is thus put into liquidation; b) the “troubled” institution is helped by a private intervention, that is exemplified by means of a capital injection deriving from the other banks in the system; c) the “troubled” institution has not enough regulatory capital in order to absorb losses still meeting regulatory requirements (i.e. Additional Tier 1 and Tier 2 conversion is not sufficient), but it has enough bail-inable liabilities and is considered as systemically important, so it undergoes a bail-in resolution process.

Under scenario (a) the troubled bank defaults and affects its neighbours through a shock in their expected losses, as a consequence of contagion effects. However, after a while, the bank system will reach a new equilibrium, without the defaulted bank and, thus, affected by less contagion risk. Under scenario (b) the troubled bank does not default and, consequently, does not affect the others through an immediate shock in their default probabilities. However, it continues being part of the banking system, so that all the other banks in the network will still be affected by the contagion risk coming from the persistence of a highly risky bank. In addition, all the banks that decide to participate to the private intervention become exposed to such bank, thus increasing their potential losses. Finally, under scenario (c) the troubled bank keeps being part of the system and continues to affect the others as under scenario (b); in addition, burden sharing losses are imposed to banks as creditors of the troubled bank.

The design of these three scenarios allows the identification of the “best” action in terms of a losses minimisation problem, by considering the banks’ and the system’s perspective. In the former situation, each bank is allowed to derive its own losses distribution under the three alternatives and, consequently, can decide whether to take part to the private intervention or not. In the latter case, the resolution authority is allowed to derive the potential losses for the entire banking system under the three alternatives and, consequently, can decide whether the resolution tool has to be preferred in terms of losses minimisation, or whether it should be considered as the last option.

The system’s perspective introduced in this study is also crucial for another important policy implication: the measurement tool, in fact, could be employed to evaluate whether a failing bank, for which no private intervention is possible, is systemically relevant and, therefore, maintained in the system conditional on a bail-in resolution or, instead, deemed as not relevant and, therefore, liquidated.

Application – the Italian banking system

The Italian banking system is an interesting case study, as in early 2016 Italian banks have organised the support of an equity fund, called Atlante, which has, among its main aims, the recapitalisation of “troubled” financial institutions. Each bank has decided, on a voluntary basis, whether to allocate capital in the Atlante fund: as a result, a medium size lender, Banca Popolare di Vicenza, that had been found strongly undercapitalised by the European Central Bank, has been recapitalised with the help of most of the banks in the system, thus avoiding bail-in. Another distressed bank, Veneto Banca, has followed the same path.[1]

The application has been focused on the seven banks for which CDS data are available and reliable (source: Markit): Banca Popolare di Milano (BPM),  Banco Popolare (BAPO), Intesa San Paolo (ISP), Mediobanca (MB), Monte dei Paschi di Siena (MPS), Unicredit (UCG), Unione Banche Italiane (UBI). MPS has been considered as the “target” bank of the analysis, and it is considered in a failure or likely to fail situation. This assumption, moreover, corresponds to reality as talks have been recently underwent between the European Central Bank, the European Commission, the Bank of Italy and the Italian Government, in order to possibly trigger a precautionary recapitalisation.

The computation of partial correlation networks relies on the time series of the expected losses for each bank, and they are reported in Figure 1.

Figure 2 shows a comparison between the aggregated (over time) expected losses produced by the three alternative scenarios on the entire banking system.

Figure 2 shows that the expected losses at the system level are minimised under the hypothesis of a private intervention or a bail-in resolution: the liquidation scenario, in fact, appears to produce much higher and worse consequences in terms of financial stability. As previously underlined, this result also depends on the large size of MPS, which makes the shock produced in case of liquidation strongly negative in terms of propagation of expected losses.[2] On the other hand, and also confirming expectations, the bail-in resolution slightly reduces contagion effects with respect to a private intervention.

Finally, in order to understand how the increase in expected losses under the hypothesis of private intervention or bail-in depends on the level of risk of each bank, the authors have computed the first order differences between the two, by using different level of CDS spreads for MPS.

The results presented in Figure 3 underline that the reduction in expected losses under the bail-in scenario increases as the troubled bank in the system increases its level of risk: this means that the bail-in scenario minimises losses, and this effect is even stronger when the financial institution identified as failing or likely to fail does not recover after the resolution decision.

Conclusion

The application of the methodology presented in Giudici and Parisi (2017) to the Italian banking system reveals that, from the system’s viewpoint, a private intervention and a bail-in resolution minimise losses with respect to the liquidation alternative. In addition, the bail-in resolution slightly reduces contagion effects with respect to a private intervention. We have then performed robustness checks, thus revealing that an increase in the default probability of the distressed bank after the bail-in or private intervention increases the expected losses of the entire system: such increase is even stronger for the private intervention scenario.

Essential References

[1] Giudici, P. & Parisi, L. (2017). Correlation networks to measure the systemic implications of banks resolution. Available at SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3018034

[2] Beck, T., Da-Rocha-Lopes, S., & Silva, A. 2017. Sharing the pain? Credit supply and real

effects of bank bail-ins. Technical report N. 12058. CEPR.

[3] Halaj, G., Huser, A.C., Kok, C., Perales, C., & Van der Kraaij, A. (2016). The systemic

implications of bail-in: A multi-layered network approach. Technical Report. ECB.

[4] BBRD (May 2014). Establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms. Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council.


[1] The on-going supervisory discussion, however, is not limited to Italian Banks. The Spanish Banco Popular was declared as failing, and the private intervention from Banco Santander has beenrecently approved by the supervisory authority. And just before the SRM came into force, the Portuguese Banco de Espirito Santo was split into two bridge banks with the help of a private intervention from other banks in the system.

[2] This study, however, focuses only on the direct consequences on the balance-sheet of the other banks, while it does not assess the impact of distress events in terms of macroeconomic factors or indirect effects on tax payers.

Set 152017
 

L’ESMA ha pubblicato il documento “Trends, Risks and Vulnerabilities Report No. 2 2017” che individua le dinamiche principali e i fattori di rischio dei mercati finanziari europei per la prima metà del 2017 e fornisce una proiezione per il semestre successivo.

 I principali fattori di rischio riguardano le incertezze circa gli sviluppi geopolitici, la resilienza della crescita economica e la sostenibilità del debito. Come conseguenza, l’ESMA ha mantenuto gli indicatori di rischio di mercato e di credito a livello very high (il più alto possibile) e l’indicatore dei rischi di liquidità e contagio a livello high. Il rischio operativo rimane elevato, con outlook negativo a causa di aggravate preoccupazioni in materia di sicurezza informatica.
Nel complesso, la valutazione dei rischi dell’ESMA per la seconda metà del 2017 rimane invariata rispetto ai primi sei mesi dell’anno.

L’analisi è completata dalla pubblicazione del report trimestrale “Risk Dashboard No. 3 2017” contenente i dati relativi al secondo trimestre 2017.

Comunicato stampa
Trends, Risks and Vulnerabilities Report No. 2 2017
Risk Dashboard No. 3 2017

Set 152017
 

Il Comitato di Basilea sulla Vigilanza Bancaria ha pubblicato un documento consultivo sulle implicazioni del fintech per il settore finanziario. Il documento, in particolare, analizza l’impatto delle innovazioni tecnologiche sull’industria bancaria e sulle attività delle autorità di vigilanza nel medio e lungo termine.

Sono presi in considerazione diversi potenziali scenari futuri, con rischi e opportunità specifiche.  Oltre agli scenari del settore bancario, tre casi di studio si focalizzano sull’evoluzione tecnologica (big data, tecnologia delle librerie distribuite e cloud computing) e tre sui modelli di business fintech (servizi di pagamento innovativi, piattaforme di credito e  “neo-banche”).

In questo contesto, il Comitato ha individuato 10 osservazioni chiave e formulato le relative raccomandazioni in materia di vigilanza.

La consultazione avrà termine il 31 ottobre 2017.

Comunicato stampa
Documento di consultazione