Nada Awad Rizkallah (pdf – 1.24 MB) - The Institute of International
Transcription
Nada Awad Rizkallah (pdf – 1.24 MB) - The Institute of International
MENA Chief Risk Officer Forum 2014 Dubai, UAE - May 7-8, 2014 Capital Planning A practical Approach in a Volatile Operating Environment Nada Awad Rizkallah Deputy GM, Chief Risk Officer Group Credit Libanais, Lebanon 1 Table of Contents 1. Overview on Lebanon Banking Sector 2. Main Characteristics of Lebanon Banking Sector 3. Basel III - New Capital Adequacy Requirements 4. Capital Planning - Each Bank should set a Capital target 5. Two Main Objectives - Capital Planning 6. Basel Committee - Sound Capital Planning Process 7. Capital Planning Model - Minimum Requirements (Basel III) 8. Capital Planning Exercise - A Practical Approach 9. Capital Planning Governance 10. Key Challenges to Consider 11. Capital Planning Outcome 12. Based on the Outcome. What should we do? 2 Overview on Lebanon Banking Sector Despite the tough operating environment, Lebanese Banking sector reported healthy growth in 2014: • Total assets reached C/V USD 174 billion at year-end 2013, up by more than 8% compared to levels reported in the previous year; • The sector’s deposit base grew by C/V USD 11 billion in 2013 to reach C/V USD 137 billion, which represents 3 times the country’s GDP; • Private-sector lending grew by 9% during 2013 to reach C/V USD 49 billion; • Regulatory capital of Lebanese Banks reported at C/V USD 14 billion at year-end 2013, remains stable and is broken down as follows which highlights its high quality where its main portion is considered as Core Tier 1 as per Basel III: C/V USD 10 billion in Common Equity Tier 1; C/V USD 3 billion in Additional Tier 1 Capital; and C/V USD 1 billion in Tier 2 Capital. • Lebanese Banks maintained profitability at healthy levels, reaching C/V USD 1.6 billion, ROAA at 1.02% and ROAE: 11.79%. 3 Overview on Lebanon Banking Sector Average Capital Adequacy Ratio (CAR) for the Lebanese Banking sector was reported at 12.2% during the first half of 2013, while Leverage ratio average reported at 7% during the same period. Capital Adequacy Ratio of Alpha Banks* as at December 31, 2012: * Lebanese Banks with Deposits exceeding C/V USD 2 billion 4 Overview on Lebanon Banking Sector Tier 1 Ratio of Alpha Banks as at December 31, 2012: Core Tier 1 Ratio of Alpha Banks as at December 31, 2012: 5 Main Characteristics of Lebanon Banking Sector The third installment of the Basel Accords (After Basel I and Basel II) was developed in response to the deficiencies in financial regulation revealed by the late-2000s financial crisis. Since Basel III is a structured reaction to the crisis, let’s start with contemplating the impact of the crisis and the measures undertaken by the Lebanese Banking Sector, and how this system, to a certain extent, avoided its severe repercussions. 1. Centralized Regulatory Authorities: The Central Bank of Lebanon and the Banking Control Commission (BCC) are the only two independent authorities in Lebanon that work side-by-side and coordinate their action. The Association of Banks in Lebanon (ABL) has the role to effectively promote the interests and public image of the Lebanese Banking sector. 2. Tight and Conservative CB Regulations on Banks: • • • At least 30% of the Banks’ assets should be held in cash; Banks are not allowed to speculate in risky packages of bundled up debts; Weak Banks were forced to merge with bigger ones. 3. No direct exposure to Toxic Assets: • All structured products should be approved by the Central Bank with maximum 5% of equity. 4. Too Big to Fail approach is inexistent: • Banks are equally supervised 6 Main Characteristics of Lebanon Banking Sector 5. Well tested Lebanese Banking System: • Against internal and external wars, political instability and major assassinations. This however induced Banks to follow a conservative approach in their investment strategies 6. No large exposures to Capital Markets: • • • Conditional financing of purchase of securities through margin lending: Against collateral composed solely of the underlying financial instruments; The Loan-to-Value ratio (LVR) (between 50% and 75%); 7. Regulatory (Lending/Investment) Concentration Limits: • • On an individual obligor level; On a country and group of countries level (as per their respective credit ratings). 8. Regulatory Credit Quality Limits. • Minimum issue/counterparty rating for investment/placements exposures set at BBB. 9. Restricted/Intolerable Investments in the Lebanese Banking Industry: • Banks are prohibited to carry out a short sale on financial instruments exposures. 10. Market Monopoly is not allowed: • Alpha Banks are prohibited from merging, thus no unfair competitive advantage. 11. Totally independent Supervisory Authorities from the Political Ones. 7 Basel III New Capital Adequacy Requirements The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) and its oversight body, the Group of Governors and Heads of Supervision, developed a reform programme to address the lessons of the 2006-2008 crisis. The depth and severity of the crisis were amplified by weaknesses in the Banking sector such as excessive leverage, inadequate and low-quality capital, and insufficient liquidity buffers. The crisis was exacerbated by a procyclical deleveraging process and the interconnectedness of systemically important Banks. In response, the Committee’s new reforms seek to improve the Banking sector’s ability to absorb shocks arising from financial and economic stress, whatever the source, thus reducing the risk of spill over from the financial sector to the real economy. The new global standards to address both firm-specific and broader, systemic risks have been referred to as “Basel III”. 8 Basel III New Capital Adequacy Requirements 1. Basel III Summary of Capital Requirements: 2011 2012 Minimum Total Capital Ratio (Total Capital Base / RWA) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 1-12019 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 0.625% 1.25% 1.875% 2.50% Capital Conservation Buffer Minimum Total Capital Ratio plus Conservation Buffer 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 8.625% 9.25% 9.875% 10.50% 4.50% 5.50% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% Minimum Common Equity Ratio (Common Equity / RWA) 3.50% 4.00% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% Minimum common Equity Ratio plus Conservation Buffer 3.50% 4.00% 4.50% 5.125% 5.75% 6.375% 7.00% Minimum Tier 1 Capital Ratio (Tier 1 Capital / RWA) Leverage Ratio (Tier 1 Capital / Total Assets + off-balance sheet assets) Countercyclical Capital Buffer Supervisory Monitoring Parallel run 1 Jan 2013 - 1 Jan 2017 Disclosure starts 1 Jan 2015 Migration to Pillar 1 0 - 2.5% 9 Basel III New Capital Adequacy Requirements 2. Central Bank of Lebanon Summary of Requirements: Capital Adequacy Ratios Year 2013 Year 2014 Year 2015 10.5% 11.5% 9.5% +2% (CCB) 12% 9.5% +2.5% (CCB) 9.5% 7.5% +2% (CCB) 7% 5% +2% (CCB) 10% 7.5% +2.5% (CCB) 8% 5.5% +2.5% (CCB) Minimum Capital Adequacy Ratio (Total Capital Base / Risk Weighted Assets) Minimum Tier 1 Ratio (Tier 1 Capital / Risk Weighted Assets) Minimum Common Equity Ratio (Common Equity / Total Assets) 8.5% 6% 10 Capital Planning Each Bank should set a capital target All Banks are affected by macroeconomic changes, which cannot be fully prevented only by a sound risk culture and good risk management. The worldwide financial crisis and Middle Eastern uncertainty have dramatically changed how supervisory authorities, rating agencies and investors view Banks’ capitalization, in terms of: a)Increased focus on Core Capital I/O the capital when assessing Banks’ ability to survive; b)Tighter regulations for Subordinated Debt as part of Tier 2 capital, including the creation of any new capital products that facilitate conversions to equity or write-downs, in times of financial stress; c)More dynamic capital adequacy regulations, where various types of capital buffers to be complied with over time are introduced; and d)Increased focus on stress tests of the balance sheet as a tool to assess capital requirements. 11 Two Main Objectives a) Capital Optimization in terms of the management of the capital resources, ensuring that they are coherent with shareholders’ requirements; and b) Capital Allocation in terms of the ideal distribution of capital among the Business Lines, type of products, local or foreign expansion plans, etc. 12 Basel Committee Sound Capital Planning Process On January 2014, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision issued a paper entitled “A Sound Capital Planning Process: Fundamental Elements” that presents sound practices to encourage improvement in the capital planning processes of Banks required to implement the Basel III framework. The Basel Committee views capital planning as a needed complement to a strong regulatory framework. Sound capital planning is critical for determining the prudent amount, type and composition of capital that is consistent with a longer-term strategy, in order to reach business objectives, while also resisting to a stressful event. The provision of better capital planning practices furthers the Basel Committee’s objective of consistently implementing the Basel III framework, as a means of maintaining the resilience of the global financial system. New culture to be spread in the organization 13 Basel Committee Sound Capital Planning Process Four fundamental components of a sound capital planning process were elaborated: 1. Principle 1: Internal Control and Governance Describes the importance of a formalized capital planning process administered through an effective governance structure: a) A capital planning process should reflect the input of different experts from across the Bank, from Business, Risk, Finance, Foreign Entities and Treasury Divisions. There should be a strong link between the capital planning, budgeting and strategic planning processes. Expert staff to provide a view of the Bank’s current strategy, the risks associated with that strategy and an assessment of how those risks contribute to capital needs; b) A capital planning process should be subject to regular independent validation; c) Both Senior Management and the Board of Directors should be involved in the capital planning process. Management Committee or ALCO should also evaluate the capital planning; d) The capital planning should be reviewed and approved annually at a minimum by the Risk Committee and the Board of Directors; and e) Capital planning to include actions required by the BOD e.g. confirm or change a common stock dividend or common stock repurchase plan and/or issue regulatory capital instruments. 14 Basel Committee Sound Capital Planning Process 2. Principle 2 : Capital Policy and Risk Capture Discusses the role of a capital policy in defining guidelines that Senior Management will rely upon in making decisions about capital deployment or conservation. a) BOD to appoint and hold a Management Team accountable for demonstrating that adherence to a capital policy will allow the Bank to maintain ready access to funding and meet its obligations to creditors; b) Among the key metrics, the Bank may focus on the Common Equity Tier 1 ratio and on ensuring that enough capital is retained to meet future requirements. Some of the more common return measures to be employed include ROE, RORAC, and RAROC; c) The Economic Capital can be also used also. A Bank using this practice aggregates economic capital needs, adding any risk diversification benefits and capital cushions; d) Capital policies incorporate minimum thresholds monitored by Senior Management; e) Monitoring framework to be in place including clear and transparent formal escalation protocol for situations when a trigger or limit is approached and/or breached; f) An expression of risk tolerance to be included, reviewed, approved by BOD annually; g) Risks for which an explicit regulatory capital treatment is not present should be captured, such as concentrated exposures, reputational risk and strategic risk; and h) To establish clear links between capital and liquidity monitoring. 15 Basel Committee Sound Capital Planning Process 3. Principle 3: Forward-looking View Highlights the benefits of incorporating forward-looking measures about potential capital needs into the Bank’s capital planning process. a) Stress testing or scenario analyses are other key elements that provide a view as to how the Bank’s capitalization could be jeopardized, in case of dramatic Bank-specific or economic change; b) Sound practice is supported by the repeatability of stress testing and the capability of performing specific scenarios outside the normal stress testing procedures; c) The impact of at least a baseline and a downturn scenario that incorporate a combination of economic, market and bank-specific indicators should be assessed. Impact through expected changes to the Bank’s revenue, loss, balance sheet, exposure measures and RWAs; d) By not incorporating diversification effects into a stress testing, the Bank is presuming that the impact of a scenario is additive and it would negatively affect all aspects of the Bank’s business. This conservative assumption leads to greater prudence in capital decisions; and e) Banks reflect in their estimates actions that the Management Team could accept in order to mitigate the impact of an economic downturn, such as potential changes in business strategy, such as growth limits; reductions in staff and other operating expenses; or 16 capital actions, such as reductions in dividends or issuance of capital instruments. Basel Committee Sound Capital Planning Process 4. Principle 4: Management Framework for Preserving Capital Summarizes the need for a formal management process to consider and prioritize a range of actions to be taken in order to preserve capital: a)Sound practice entails Senior Management and the BOD to ensure that the capital policy and associated monitoring and escalation protocols remain relevant through the risk reporting and stress testing framework; b)They are responsible for prioritizing and quantifying the capital actions available to them, to cushion against unexpected events. c)Those actions include reductions in or cessation of common stock dividends, equity raises and/or balance sheet reductions, disposition of capital markets inventory, monetizing business units or reducing credit origination. ( eg. Divesting, disposal of FA, Preferred shares issue, Profit re-capitalization, etc..) d)Actions to maintain capital must be clearly defined in advance and management process should allow for plans to be updated swiftly, to ensure better decisionmaking in changing circumstances. 17 Capital Planning Model Minimum Requirements (Basel III) a) Value Creation: Translates the final objectives of value creation for the stakeholders and is used in support of operational and strategic decisions; b) Healthy Mechanism: Provides a fair ground for competition among Departments and Divisions and stimulates, at the same time, the collaboration among them; c) Transparency: Model assumptions, design, and structure are readily apparent to Senior Management and the Board of Directors; d) Client Specific: Aligns with the specific requirements of the Bank and evolves seamlessly as the Bank modifies requirements due to internal or/and regulatory changes; e) Compliance: Becomes Integral part of the decision making process; and f) Risk and Finance Integration: Supports both risk and accounting operations and calculations, integrates risk and finance information and is able to provide risk-adjusted performance measures. 18 Capital Planning Exercise A Practical Approach Overview: a) Capital planning is crucial for the survival of Banks and leads Management to strategic decisions; b) The financial markets crisis emphasized the importance of effective capital planning; c) A Bank’s capital planning process needs to incorporate rigorous, forward-looking stress testing to indicate how much capital might be needed to absorb losses if large shocks occur; d) Effective capital planning process requires a Bank to assess both the risks to which it is exposed and the Risk Management processes in place, evaluate its capital adequacy, and consider the potential impact on earnings and capital from economic downturns. 19 Capital Planning Exercise A Practical Approach Structure: • Covers 3-5 years • Capital resources and Capital resource requirements projected forward • Covers organic Balance Sheet growth, expansion plans and severe recession • Assesses the impact on Capital resource requirements and the change in capital resources • Management actions could reduce capital requirements or increase capital • If Bank resorts to BOD or shareholders’ , are they willing to take those actions Can the Bank continue to meet its regulatory requirements based on its Business Plan and Budget for the next 3-5 Years Can the Bank continue to meet its regulatory requirements throughout a severe recession? If the Bank resorts to BOD or shareholders’ actions, has it considered the difficulties associated with said actions in a stressed environment? (eg. Injection of common equity, capitalisation of Retained Earnings, ROE, etc. 20 Capital Planning Exercise A Practical Approach Capital Planning Governance Capital management is an integral process, impacting a number of organizational functions a) BOD to decide the volume and types of risk that the Bank intends to take; b) BOD to raise adequate and experienced resources to plan it; c) BOD to agree with shareholders on a minimum target of return on capital consistent with the risk borne by the Bank; d) BOD to allocate the capital including any newly raised capital, to the Business Units; e) Risk appetite to be set by the BOD and cascaded through the Bank by limits’ allocation; f) Risk measurement to be undertaken by Risk Management and reported to decision makers; g) Finance Division to produce planning and budgeting figures, which have to be supplemented with the relevant risk estimates; h) Stress tests applied to forecasts are a joint endeavor of Business Lines, Risk Management and Finance Divisions; i) ALCO decides on actions to be taken as a result of forecasts; and j) Execution of capital management actions should be regularly reported by Senior 22 Management to ALCO, Risk Committee and BOD Key Challenges to Consider a) Robustness of underlying budgeting/planning process. Consider the strategy approved by the BOD; b) Appropriate time horizon (3-5 years); c) Projecting the Entire Balance Sheet (Applying financial accounting principals); d) Aggregation across the Business (Consolidate from Bank entity to Bank holding company); e) Pillar 1 reg. capital + ICAAP + Basel III Buffers + Internal Buffers , if any; f) Consistent with past Balance Sheet and RWA experience (historical outcome of Solvency exercises. Eg.since 2007 in Lebanon). BUT should avoid mirroring historical extraordinary items in the future e.g. 2008 financial crisis and the drastic decrease in Lebanese Banks interbank placements, redirected to the Lebanese Sovereign; g) Growth projections for existing entities (based on Balance Sheet/Income Statement Growth and RWA experience); h) Growth projections for potential subsidiaries and branches (eg. based on related Market studies and Research and the Bank’s strategy); i) Arithmetic accuracy; j) Proper challenge, review and sign-off; 23 Key Challenges to Consider i) Sufficient granularity of details, such as: • Components of available capital; • Endowment capital to be set aside for future foreign branches and subsidiaries; • Legal reserve requirements under each jurisdiction in which the Bank operates; • Proper treatment of dividends (distributed, partially retained, fully retained); • Different asset classes according to Basel II and BDL Basic Circular no. 115; • Different RWA classes and applicable Risk Weights; • Standard Credit Conversion Factors (CCFs) for OBS exposures; • NPL future provisioning policy which impacts Past Due Loans Capital requirements; • Segregation between the banking book (FVOCI, AC) and trading book (FVTPL); • Evolution of Gross Income which is key to computing future OR Capital requirements; • Preferential Treatment by the Supervisory authorities in which the Bank operates; • Any foreseen future extraordinary balance sheet items; • Potential risk of currency devaluation in countries where the Bank is or will be present. 24 Capital Planning Outcome Asset Composition (in C/V millions of USD) Forecasting - Year 2014 CAPITAL PLANNING Forecasting - Year 2015 Forecasting - Year 2016 Risk Weight Group Level Subsidiary 1 Subsidiary 2 Group Level Subsidiary 1 Subsidiary 2 Group Level Subsidiary 1 Subsidiary 2 Other Assets OBS NPLs Lending Portfolio Liquid Assets Assets RWA Assets RWA Assets RWA Assets RWA Assets RWA Assets RWA Assets RWA Assets RWA Assets RWA 2,838 - 2,820 18 - 100 100 49 - - 173 173 53 143 350 205 802 160 772 100 100 338 65 49 556 417 486 446 335 0 0 481 361 284 660 231 150 53 873 25 38 21 32 4 6 50% 300 150 300 150 - 11. Guarantees 50% 125 63 125 63 12. LCs 20% 52 10 52 10 13. Other Assets (Purchased Cheques, Cash etc.) 100% 631 631 522 522 75 1. LBP Lebanese Sovereign Exp. 0% 2. FCY Lebanese Sovereign Exp. 100% 3. Other Sovereign Exposure 100% 160 160 49 4. Claims on Banks and FIs 20% 744 149 716 5. Exposure to Corporate clients 100% 6. Exposure to SMEs 75% 516 387 451 7. Retail Exposures 75% 446 335 8. Exposure in Residential Mortgage Loans 35% 810 9. Past due loans 150% 10. Unutilized Exposures 14. Operational Risk 15. Market Risk 16. Total Risk Weighted Assets (Credit, Market and Operational RWAs) 17. Total Balance Sheet (including OBS) Trend Indicator 1: Avg. RWA % avg. total assets 18. Total Deposits Trend Indicator 2: Avg. net loans % avg. deposits - 1,605 1,605 1,505 1,505 1,100 1,100 1,000 1,000 3,060 - 3,041 - 20 - 111 111 53 - - 186 186 57 154 388 78 865 173 832 111 111 365 72 54 600 450 524 481 361 0 0 518 389 306 712 249 166 58 942 27 40 23 34 4 7 - 323 162 323 162 - - - 135 67 135 67 0 0 56 11 56 11 75 660 660 543 543 83 1,731 1,731 1,623 1,623 1,186 1,186 1,078 1,078 3,299 - 3,278 - 22 - 123 123 57 - - 166 430 86 123 123 393 80 60 518 389 0 0 330 767 269 184 65 29 44 24 37 5 7 - 349 174 349 174 - - - - 145 73 145 73 - - 0 0 60 12 60 12 0 0 83 712 712 585 585 92 92 1,866 1,866 1,750 1,750 1,279 1,279 1,163 1,163 - 25 30 20 25 5 5 27 33 22 27 6 6 30 36 24 30 7 7 - 4,965 4,368 598 5,334 4,749 514 5,753 5,121 570 - 9,352 8,667 862 10,124 9,374 968 10,917 10,108 1,074 - 53.09% 50.39% 69.28% 52.69% 50.66% 53.06% 52.70% 50.67% 53.06% - 7,465 6,502 638 8,206 7,147 707 9,020 7,856 785 - 38.47% 39.33% 49.43% 37.74% 38.58% 49.43% 37.02% 37.84% 49.43% Figures are illustrative and do not reflect any actual position 25 Capital Planning Outcome Minimum Regulatory Ratios Minimum Regulatory Ratios + ICAAP + Cap. Conservation Buffer CAR 10.50% Tier 1 Ratio Solvency Ratios Common Equity Ratio CL (Stand-Alone) CLIB (Stand-Alone) 13.75% 14.36% 13.62% 16.60% - 0.62 8.50% 11.75% 13.16% 12.25% 16.60% - - 6% 10.25% 11.14% 9.96% 16.60% - - 6.34% 5.56% 11.50% - - 3% Minimum Regulatory Ratios Minimum Regulatory Ratios + ICAAP + Cap. Conservation Buffer CAR 11.50% Tier 1 Ratio Common Equity Ratio Deficiency below Deficiency below regulatory requirements + regulatory requirements ICAAP + Cap. (In millions of USD) Conservation Buffer (In millions of USD) CL (Stand-Alone) CLIB (Stand-Alone) 14.25% 13.98% 13.03% 20.99% - 52.21 9.50% 12.25% 13.14% 12.09% 20.99% - 1.77 7% 10.75% 11.27% 9.99% 20.99% - 30.53 6.29% 5.52% 11.13% - - 3% Minimum Regulatory Ratios Minimum Regulatory Ratios + ICAAP + Cap. Conservation Buffer CAR 12% Tier 1 Ratio Common Equity Ratio Leverage Ratio Forecasting - Year 2015 CL Cons. Leverage Ratio Solvency Ratios Deficiency below regulatory requirements + Deficiency below ICAAP + Cap. regulatory requirements (In millions of USD) Conservation Buffer (In millions of USD) CL Cons. Leverage Ratio Solvency Ratios Forecasting - Year 2014 Forecasting - Year 2016 Deficiency below Deficiency below regulatory requirements + ICAAP + Cap. regulatory requirements (In millions of USD) Conservation Buffer (In millions of USD) CL Cons. CL (Stand-Alone) CLIB (Stand-Alone) 14.25% 13.59% 12.61% 20.50% - 77.88 10% 12.25% 13.08% 12.03% 20.50% - 4.99 8% 10.75% 11.34% 10.08% 20.50% - 28.17 6.26% 5.49% 10.88% - - 3% Figures are illustrative and do not reflect any actual position 26 Based on the Outcome. What should we do? a) Maintain a balance between the Solvency Ratios and the Return on Equity (ROE); b) In cases where capital ratios fall below regulatory and acceptable levels… REACT: Suspend potential future expansion, mainly where regulatory capital needed is relatively high; • Downsize a high risk portfolio; • Allocate capital more effectively by focusing on higher risk-based returns using RAROC; • Increase returns by decreasing past due loans; • Increase operational effectiveness. • Support Core Tier 1, by issuing common stock; • Support Core Tier 1, by retaining profits, imposing restrictions on dividends, shares buy-back; • Support Tier 1, by issuing non-cumulative perpetual preferred shares; • Support Tier 2, by issuing cumulative preferred shares; and • Support Tier 2, by issuing medium to long term subordinated debt. Plan B Plan A • c) In cases where capital ratios show a surplus… REACT: • Evaluate new initiatives/programs/investment opportunities to allocate excess of capital (Interbank, Corporate, Consumer) and improve your ROE by optimizing utilization of capital. 27 Thank you narizkallah@cl.com.lb Also available on 28