The leading knowledge platform for the financial technology industry
The leading knowledge platform for the financial technology industry

A-Team Insight Blogs

The IMF Stress Testing Paper and Tangible Proof

Share article

A lot of rhetoric has been bandied about of late with regards to the paramount importance of data quality to the risk management function. While these discussions are important in raising data quality’s profile and keeping the issue on the agenda, they don’t provide tangible information on the impact that poor data quality actually has on risk modelling, which is where the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) recent research paper comes into play…

Handily entitled “Into the Great Unknown: Stress Testing with Weak Data” (which meant I noticed its potential relevance to the reference data function in the first place), the paper provides examples of how data quality impacts regulatory stress testing, which it describes as the risk tool “du jour” in the post-crisis environment. The paper will, no doubt, serve as yet more ammunition for the regulatory community to use in its overall push to improve the underlying data quality of firms’ regulatory reports.

Although the authors are aiming to highlight the difficulties faced within “lower income” countries, where the data quality issue is deemed to be much more challenging, the findings are equally relevant to all other jurisdictions engaged in stress testing practices. Indeed, data quality is a serious issue that could cause “more harm than good if the flawed findings cause undue consternation or lead to inappropriate decisions and actions” in any case. The use of hypothetical, but numerical and thus tangible, examples of stress tests carried out on the basis of poor quality data highlight this serious potential for error.

The paper demonstrates the impact of having to make assumptions around various macroeconomic variables in the case of such data being unavailable, hence the addition of “ad hoc shocks”. For example, when individual bank data are either not provided or incomplete, “back of the envelope” stress tests are performed on the system as a whole with some form of aggregated data. The findings of such tests should therefore be “interpreted with caution”, note the authors.

“The information derived from shocks to the aggregate system could mask problems among individual banks,” says the paper. “In our example, a shock representing a 400% increase in non-performing loans across the board would result in the system’s capital adequacy ratio declining by 4.7% points to 10.4%.” In this particular example, the impact would be that the overall capital adequacy ratio would be deemed to be 1.6 percentage points below the required minimum of 12%, thus resulting in the system failing the test overall.

The performance of the individual banks could be obscured completely by the use of this aggregate data. In the example, one bank’s capital adequacy ratio declines 9.3%, whereas for another the decline is a more moderate 3.4%. “Thus, focusing on the aggregate outcome alone could obscure the possibility that a particular institution may be very vulnerable with potentially systemic consequences,” note the authors.

The paper goes on to suggest alternative methods to the traditional stress test for regulators to use in the case of being unable to ensure a sufficient level of data quality within financial institutions’ reports. Regardless of these proposals however, the authors do a good job of highlighting the real dangers of forcing regulators to use workarounds due to a lack of data quality. This holds true outside of developing economies and could be used to illustrate the regulatory community’s recent crusade to improve standardisation across the markets.

Moreover, if this logic holds water on an industry-wide basis, it should also prove illustrative of the dangers for an individual firm’s own stress testing practices. Making assumptions on aggregate or inaccurate data could result in fairly serious errors in judgement.

Related content

WEBINAR

Recorded Webinar: Best Practices for Integrated Regulatory Reporting Across Multiple Jurisdictions

The regulatory reporting obligations of financial institutions have mushroomed in scale over the past decade, leaving firms facing a raft of different requirements to provide increasingly granular metrics on their transaction, valuation and collateral data to a number of regulatory authorities. While many of these reports draw from the same core data set, the nuanced differences...

BLOG

SFTR Approvals Could Cast a Spanner in the Works

With the delayed go-live date for the EU’s SFTR regulation less than a month away, the pressure is once again on as firms scramble to get ready for their new regulatory reporting requirements, pushed back from April 2020 due to coronavirus. And while most firms should be well into the testing phase by now, there...

EVENT

RegTech Summit Virtual

Regtech Summit Virtual will explore how business and operating models have adapted post COVID and how RegTech can provide agile and enhanced compliance for managing an evolving risk and compliance landscape. As the dust settles, we will look at the outlook for the global RegTech industry, where Regulators are focusing as they get back to business, and deep dive into global regulatory priorities for the rest of the year and into 2021.

GUIDE

Regulatory Data Handbook 2020/2021 – Eighth Edition

This eighth edition of A-Team Group’s Regulatory Data Handbook is a ‘must-have’ for capital markets participants during this period of unprecedented change. Available free of charge, it profiles every regulation that impacts capital markets data management practices giving you: A detailed overview of each regulation with key dates, data and data management implications, links to...