best practices for liquidity risk management
TRANSCRIPT
Best Practices for Liquidity Risk Management
May 2012Created by Product Management Group
Robert J. Wyle, CFASenior Director, ALM
2
Outline
1. Introduction
2. Lessons Learned
3. Liquidity Risk Management Best Practices
4. Liquidity Transfer Pricing
INTRODUCTIONA Definition for Liquidity Risk
3
4
What Is Liquidity Risk?
» Liquidity is the ability to fund increases in assets and meet obligations when they come due.
» Liquidity risk is the risk to a bank’s earnings and capital arising from its inability to timely meet obligations when they come due.
» Liquidity Risk Management involves the processes, controls, and infrastructures established to mitigate unacceptable exposure to liquidity risk.
5
What is Liquidity Risk?
In general, there are three central topics that must be effectively managed in order to effectively address firm wide exposure to liquidity risk:
» Market Liquidity Risk is oriented around price changes and P&L impacts
» Funding Liquidity Risk addresses cash flow estimation (assets as well as liabilities)
» Contingency Planning (including stress testing) considers how, in the absence of market or funding liquidity, a bank can continue to meet obligations, particularly during periods of stress.
Changed Economic EnvironmentChanged Economic Environment
6
.Systemic Liquidity Mismatches Compounded and Magnified the Consequences of Excess Leverage
– Rapid growth in new funding vehicles– Rapid growth in new on-balance sheet products – Incentives not aligned with risk
• Grow earnings to remain competitive (e.g., “volume” for volume’s sake)
• Over reliance on rating agencies– Increase in system leverage not transparent
• For example, “shadow” system– Liquidity Risk Management did not foresee the extreme systemic
crises– Liquidity Risk was not embedded into business planning and
management
• These challenges force banks to think about the business model implications moving forward
• How should financial institutions address liquidity risk in the future?
Conclusion
7
“Measuring and managing bank liquidity risk is as important as capital/solvency risk management, but in the years running up to the crisis did not receive adequate attention, either in the UK or internationally, where debates about bank regulation were dominated by the design of the Basel II capital adequacy standard. It is essential now to restore liquidity regulation and supervision to a position of central importance.”
The Turner Review: A regulatory response to the global banking crisis; March 2009
8
LESSONS LEARNED
Lessons Learned by Institutions
» More central coordination and management of business line funding and liquidity risk profiles
» Better integration of liquidity management and liquidity risk management into overall enterprise-wide risk management process
» Robust internal pricing of funding and liquidity risks, including the assignment of liquidity risk premiums in product pricing and business line P&L attribution
» Enhanced internal MIS
» Enhanced contingency funding plans
» More robust liquidity risk stress testing
9
Lessons Learned by Supervisors
» Clear articulation of supervisory expectations on liquidity risk management
» Enhanced oversight and enforcement ensuring that supervisory expectations are met
» Strengthening the consistency and robustness of liquidity risk supervision globally through:– Use of consistent supervisory metrics and benchmarks for monitoring the liquidity risk profiles of
institutions
– Enhanced communication mechanisms among home and host supervisors on the liquidity risk profiles of cross-border institutions
– “Global framework for promoting stronger liquidity buffers at financial institutions” G-20, April 2009
10
Actions Taken by Supervisors
» Clear articulation of supervisory expectations on liquidity risk management– BCBS -“Principles on Sound Liquidity Risk Management and Supervision”
– CEBS - 30 Recommendations on Liquidity Risk Management
» Enhanced oversight and enforcement that supervisory expectations are met– Heightened efforts by supervisors globally –US, UK, EU supervisors
» Strengthening the consistency and robustness of liquidity risk supervision globally– Enhanced coordination -SSG, CEBS, supervisory colleges ..etc.
– BCBS Working Group on Liquidity
– CEBS efforts
– Basel III Liquidity Requirements
11
Common Elements of BCBS “Principles” & CEBS “Recommendations”
» Established risk tolerances
» Adequate “cushions” or “buffers” of unencumbered liquid assets
» Incorporation of liquidity costs in product pricing, performance measurement, and new product approvals
» Robust assessment of contingent liquidity risks –enhanced stress testing of market scenarios and OBS exposures
» More robust liquidity contingency planning
» Management of intra-day liquidity risks
» Active liquidity risk management both within and across legal entities, business lines and currencies
» More robust public disclosure for promoting market discipline
» Enhanced supervisory efforts surrounding liquidity risk management
12
13
LIQUIDITY RISK BEST PRACTICES
Financial
Credit
Reputational
Ope
ratio
nal
Business-as-Usual Environment
Firm
-Specific S
cenarios
Stress-Test Environment
Liq
uid
ity
Ris
k G
ove
rnan
ce In
fras
tru
ctu
re
Market Liquidity Risk
Funding Liquidity Risk
Contingent Liquidity Risk
Source: Office of the Comptroller of Currency
Effective liquidity risk management begins with the establishment of a thorough and strong internal governance process for identifying, measuring and controlling liquidity risk exposure. The LRM infrastructure naturally considers business-as-usual, firm-specific scenarios and stress-test environments. The LRM process considers not only market and funding risks, but how risks are interconnected and can “compound” in ways that create elevated levels of risk and potential exposure. Measures of liquidity risk must be based on both structural condition and prospective (i.e., forward-looking) cash-flow measures.
Effective Liquidity Risk Management Requires a Holistic Perspective
An Integrated Balance Sheet Management Approach
Source: Office of Thrift Supervision
Basel III major implementation challenges» Don’t underestimate the challenge of building a Basel III data warehouse
– Basel III liquidity data requirements span multiple functional and organizational silos
» Treasury» Risk management» Finance
Relevant data is buried in multiple systems and units
Base III framework hinges on integrated asset, capital, and funding management - ERM Framework
» Internal organization challenges (risk versus finance)
» Stress testing and forecasting practices are evolving– Internal and regulatory pressure, forward looking (including market and business forecast assumptions)
– Holistic approach between credit and liquidity risk scenarios(e.g. how could a given counterparty downgrade impact my capital and liquidity ratios?)
» Regulatory reporting burden– While liquidity is a global issue, host regulators have different requirements
– Therefore, institutions need to be aware of the cost to implement a system that will satisfy multiple regulatory regimes
» Timing and Market Signaling– Market pressure to comply with new ratios before dead line
16
Basel III data gap analysis
Additional data sourcing required to meet Basel III new Liquidity Risk requirements
From an ALM project From a Basel II project
Market Data OK To be sourced
AssetsOK
Add characteristics forCash flow generation
(or import CFs)
Liabilities OK To be sourced
Off balance Facilities/Counterparties OK
Credit Enhancement To be sourced OK
Counterparties Entity types, country OK
Securities Issuers, repo security legs OK
Ratings To be sourced OK
18
Liquidity Risk Management Best Practices
» The institution utilizes a proprietary or vendor liquidity simulation model that evaluates cash flows across time buckets for both assets and liabilities at a detailed level.
» Cash flow modeling considers both contractual instrument features and optional behaviors.
» Credit dominates liquidity concerns. Place reasonable prices on products within HFI banking book, not just HFU and trading positions.
» The institution models daily and weekly time buckets in the near term, monthly buckets in the moderate term and more coarse time buckets in the long run
» The institution uses a framework which consists of early warning indicators, ratio analysis, a liquidity maturity ladder, liquidity gap analysis, and stress testing to quantify liquidity risk exposure.
» Stress testing should include both idiosyncratic and systemic scenarios.
» The liquidity policy, liquidity contingency plan, and funding should be consistent with liquidity stress test scenarios.
» The assumptions for liquidity stress scenarios, funds transfer pricing assumptions, NII simulation, and market value of portfolio equity calculations are consistent.
19
Liquidity Risk Stress Testing Best Practices
» Different types of stress testing and scenario analysis are performed on a weekly and monthly basis. Assumptions are in real time.
» Stress testing should include both idiosyncratic and systemic scenanrios.
» The liquidity policy, liquidity contingency plan, and funding should be consistent with liquidity stress test scenarios.
» Liquidity scenario assumptions are reviewed and approved by senior management and the Board on a regular basis.
» Liquidity stress scenarios aid in defining relevant risk metrics and their corresponding limits.
» There is a connection between liquidity stress scenarios, funds transfer pricing assumptions, NII simulation, and market value of portfolio equity calculations.
20
Liquidity Transfer Pricing Best Practices
» All assets and liabilities must be transfer priced including the investment. Reporting units cannot simply transfer price net positions.
» In order to avoid the build up of long term illiquid trading assets and short-term volatile funding, consider the application of higher funding charges to trading positions that are more likely to become “stale”.
» Better LTP practices require that banks define an LTP policy which set forth principles or rules to ensure LTP ensures its intended purposes.
» Banks should charge TP rates based on their marginal cost of funds (“arm’s length cash market rates”). In addition, the FTP system should take into account the unique characteristic of the funds. Strip-funding involves funding each cash flow.
» Term liquidity should be applied to floating rate instruments. Many institutions inappropriately assign short term cost of funds to floating rate products.
» A consistent approach should be applied to interest rate risk measurement (both income and market value), risk adjusted performance measurement, and customer product pricing
» Business activities creating the need for additional liquidity should be charged based on their expected usage of contingent liquidity.
21
LIQUIDITY TRANSFER PRICING
22
Regulatory Emphasis on Contingent Liquidity
Basel: “… the maintenance of a sufficient cushion of high quality liquid assets to meet contingent liquidity needs…”
FSA: “A Contingency Funding Plan should set out a firm’s strategy for addressing liquidity shortfalls in stressed conditions…”
Fed: “… a cushion of liquid assets, and a formal well-developed contingency funding plan (CFP) as primary tools for measuring and managing liquidity risk…”
Moody’s Analytics Enterprise Risk Management Solutions
23
D. FTP Decomposition
• Funds transfer pricing (FTP) is an increasingly central component of asset-liability management, as it facilitates risk transfer, profitability measurement, capital allocation, and business unit incentive alignment
• The components include a credit spread, which compensates the financial institution for bearing credit risk associated with the exposure, as well as an option spread, which is a premium that compensates the bank for any embedded options in the contract (e.g. prepayment option)
• The funding liquidity spread, which is the expected cost of funds required to support the exposure to its remaining life, and the contingent liquidity spread, which relates to the cost of maintaining a sufficient cushion of high quality liquid assets to meet sudden or unexpected obligation
Funds
Transf
er
Pri
ce
Commercial Margin
Credit Spread
Option Spread
Funding Liquidity Spread
Contingent Liquidity Spread
Reference Rate
*The chart represents an schematic illustration of the components of an FTP
24
A bank invests in a variety of assets
Extends backup lines of credit to a pool of borrowers: the future credit quality of them
is uncertain
Fully-funded instruments with
varying degrees of liquidity: the future
liquidity is uncertain
The bank funds the balance sheet using a combination of long-term funds (a liquidity
buffer), short-term collateralized debt, and
possibly asset sales
The degree to which assets can be
collateralized is uncertain
The market price of the assets is uncertain
The bank’s funding costs, due in part to the value of the collateral, and the borrowers’
line usage are correlated
The future correlation behavior is uncertain
Borrowers’ future demand for liquidity (line utilization) is
uncertain
Availability of short-term funds is limited in severe
market conditions
The duration of adverse funding conditions are
uncertain
The future funding needs are uncertain
Basel 3 Contingent Liquidity Risk: Motivation
• What amount of liquid assets should your bank hold in order to absorb potential losses due to adverse funding conditions?
Question
Moody’s Analytics Enterprise Risk Management Solutions
20% 40% 60% 80%0%
4%
8%
12%
20% 40% 60% 80%0%
4%
8%
12%
20% 40% 60% 80%0%
4%
8%
12%
1bps 10bps 100bps 1000bps
25
BorrowerUsage
-12% -8% -4% 0% 4% 8%
Bank Gains/Losses
Borrower Credit Migration
Collateral Asset Credit Migration
Market Risk Premium
Haircut/Asset Sale
Ba
nk
Line of credit
borrower
Ba
nk
Market Risk Premium
Ba
nk
Collateralizable Asset BorrowerBank
borrowingcost
Bank Funding Decision: Borrow or
Sell
Contingent Liquidity: Joint Dynamics
Moody’s Analytics Enterprise Risk Management Solutions
26
Incorporating Contingent Liquidity Costs in Funds Transfer Pricing for ALM System Calibration
26
Commercial Margin
Credit Spread201bps
Funding Liquidity Spread32bps
Contingent Liquidity Spread20bps
Reference Rate
Base Case: λ = 0.5, Corr(Bank,Borrower) = 16.5%
Stressed Scenario: λ = 0.9, Corr(Bank,Borrower) = 33%
FTP =
25
3bps
FTP =
32
6bps
Credit Spread261bps
Funding Liquidity Spread32bps
Contingent Liquidity Spread33bpsC
ontr
act
ual Fe
e =
30
0bps
Reference Rate
Contr
act
ual Fe
e =
30
0bps
*Results based on Moody’s Analytics Liquidity Cost Model for a line of credit (bank PD 20bps/annual, borrower PD 1.2%/annual, LGD 50%)
27
27
A Practical Approach for FTP and Spread Decomposition
Fun
ds
Tran
sfer
Pri
ce
Commercial Margin
Credit Spread
Option Spread
Funding Liquidity Spread
Contingent Liquidity Spread
Reference Rate
135 bps
23 bps
78 bps
64 bps
BIBLIOGRAPHY
29
Bibliography» Results of the Comprehensive Quantitative Impact Study; Bank for International
Settlements; December 2010
» Developments in Bank Supervision – a Canadian Perspective, Remarks by Ted Price, Assistant Superintendant, Office of the Superintendant of Financial Institutions Canada; May 2010
» Basel III: International framework for liquidity risk measurement, standards and monitoring; Bank for International Settlements; December 2010
» Adoption of Bank Standards on Liquidity Risk Management; September 1, 2009; Financial Services Commission
» Basel III Quantitative Impact Study and its Implications; December 17, 2010; Financial Services Commission
» The Basel III Liquidity Framework: Impacts and Recommendations; The Clearing House; November 2, 2011
» The Impact of Sovereign credit risk on bank funding conditions; BIS; July 2011
» Basel III: Long term impact on economic performance and fluctuations; February 2011; Bank for International Settlements
30
Bibliography
» Basel III and European Banking: Its impact, how banks might respond, and the challenges of implementation; McKinsey and Company; November 2010
» Senior Supervisors Group; Observations on Risk Management Practices during the Recent Market Turbulence; March 2008
» Assessing the macroeconomic impact of the transition to stronger capital and liquidity requirements; Bank For International Settlements; December 2010
» Base III Implementation – Capital Adequacy and Liquidity Requirements; Office of the Superintendant of Financial Institutions Canada; February 2011
» Quantifying the Effects on Lending of Increased Capital Requirements; The Brookings Institute; September 2009
» Remarks by Superintendant Julie Dickson, Office of the Superintendant of Financial Institutions Canada; December 2010
» Basel III: balancing Risk and Regulation, Remarks by Mark White, Assistant Superintendant, Office of the Superintendant of Financial Institutions Canada; December 2010
» Mapping capital and liquidity requirements to bank lending spreads; Bank for International Settlements; November 2010
31
Bibliography
» Adoption of Bank Standards on Liquidity Risk Management; Financial Supervisory Service; September 2009
» Basel III Quantitative Impact Study and Its Implications; Financial Supervisory Service; December 2010
» The Impact of Sovereign Credit Risk on Bank Funding Conditions; Bank For International Settlements; July 2011
» Basel III Liquidity Framework: Impacts and Recommendations; The Clearing House; November 2011
» Basel III and Its Consequences: Confronting a New Regulatory Environment; Accenture; 2011
32