Basel II Stress Tests - Weaknesses That Led to the Turmoil

According to the Bank of International Settlements,stress testing outcomes nor did they sufficiently take
the financial crisis has highlighted weaknesses inaccount of qualitative expert judgment to develop
stress testing practices employed prior to the startinnovative ad-hoc stress scenarios.
of the turmoil in four broad areas:Therefore, banks generally underestimated the
1. Use of stress testing and integration in riskstrong interlinkages between, for example, the lack
governance;of market liquidity and funding liquidity pressures.
2. MethodologiesThe reliance on historical relationships and ignoring
3. Scenario selection; andreactions within the system implied that firms
4. Testing of specific risks and products.underestimated the interaction between risks and the
1. Use of stress testing and integration in riskfirm-wide impact of severe stress scenarios.
governancePrior to the crisis, most banks did not perform tests
Board and senior management involvement is criticalthat took a comprehensive firmwide perspective
in ensuring the appropriate use of stress testing inacross risks and different books. Even if they did, the
banks' risk governance and capital planning.stress tests were insufficient in identifying and
This includes setting testing objectives, definingaggregating risks. As a result, banks did not have a
scenarios, discussing the results of tests, assessingcomprehensive view across credit, market and
potential actions and decision making.liquidity risks of their various businesses.
At banks that were highly exposed to the financialAn appropriately conducted firm-wide test would
crisis and fared comparatively well, seniorhave beneficially drawn together experts from across
management as a whole took an active interest inthe organisation. For example, the expertise of retail
the development and operation of testing, with thelenders, who in some cases were reducing exposure
results of tests serving as an input into strategicto US subprime mortgages, should have counteracted
decision making which benefited the bank.the overly optimistic outlook of traders in securities
Testing practices at most banks, however, did notbacked by the same subprime loans.
foster internal debate nor challenge prior assumptions3. Scenario selection
such as the cost, risk and speed with which newMost bank stress tests were not designed to
capital could be raised or that positions could becapture the extreme market events that were
hedged or sold.experienced. Most firms discovered that one or
The financial crisis has also revealed weaknesses inseveral aspects of their tests did not even broadly
organisational aspects of stress testing programmes.match actual developments. In particular, scenarios
Prior to the crisis, testing at some banks wastended to reflect mild shocks, assume shorter
performed mainly as an isolated exercise by the riskdurations and underestimate the correlations
function with little interaction with business areas. Thisbetween different positions, risk types and markets
meant that, amongst other things, business areasdue to system-wide interactions and feedback
often believed that the analysis was not credible.effects.
Moreover, at some banks, the testing programmePrior to the crisis, "severe" stress scenarios typically
was a mechanical exercise. While there is room forresulted in estimates of losses that were no more
routinely operated stress tests within athan a quarter's worth of earnings (and typically much
comprehensive stress testing programme (eg forless). History has shown that when stress events
background monitoring), they do not provide aoccur, banks can easily lose more than one quarter
complete picture because mechanical approaches canof earnings.
neither fully take account of changing businessA range of techniques have been used to develop
conditions nor incorporate qualitative judgments fromscenarios. At the most basic level there are
across the different areas of a bank.sensitivity tests, which only shock one single
Furthermore, in many banks, tests were carried outparameter, holding constant all other factors. Given
by separate units focusing on particular business linesthat these scenarios ignore multiple risk factors or
or risk types. This led to organisational barriers whenfeedback effects, their main benefit is that they can
aiming to integrate quantitative and qualitative testingprovide a fast initial assessment of portfolio
results across a bank.sensitivity to a given risk factor and identify certain
Prior to the crisis, many banks did not have anrisk concentrations.
overarching stress testing programme in place butMore sophisticated approaches apply shocks to many
ran separate tests for particular risks or portfoliosparameters simultaneously.
with limited firm-level integration. Risk-specific testingApproaches are typically either historically based or
was usually conducted within business lines.hypothetical.
While stress testing for market and interest rate riskHistorical scenarios were frequently implemented
had been practiced for several years, testing forbased on a significant market event experienced in
credit risk in the banking book has only emergedthe past. Such stress tests were not able to capture
more recently. Other tests are still in their infancy. Asrisks in new products that have been at the centre
a result, there was insufficient ability to identifyof the turmoil.
correlated tail exposures and risk concentrationsFurthermore, the severity levels and duration of
across the bank.stress indicated by previous episodes proved to be
Stress testing frameworks were usually not flexibleinadequate. The length of the stress period was
enough to respond quickly as the crisis evolved (egviewed as unprecedented and so historically based
inability to aggregate exposures quickly, apply newtests underestimated the level of risk and interaction
scenarios or modify models).between risks.
Further investments in IT infrastructure may beBanks also implemented hypothetical stress tests,
necessary to enhance the availability and granularityaiming to capture events that had not yet been
of risk information that will enable timely analysis andexperienced. Prior to the crisis, however, banks
assessment of the impact of new stress scenariosgenerally applied only moderate scenarios, either in
designed to address a rapidly changing environment.terms of severity or the degree of interaction across
For example, investing in liquidity risk managementportfolios or risk types.
information systems that would enhance the abilityAt many banks, it was difficult for risk managers to
of a bank to automate end-of-day information,obtain senior management buy-in for more severe
obtain more granularity as to unencumbered assets,scenarios. Scenarios that were considered extreme
and forecast balance sheet needs of business units.or innovative were often regarded as implausible by
2. Methodologiesthe board and senior management.
Tests cover a range of methodologies. Complexity4. Specific risks
can vary, ranging from simple sensitivity tests toParticular risks that were not covered in sufficient
complex tests, which aim to assess the impact of adetail in most stress tests include:
severe macroeconomic stress event on measures1. The behaviour of complex structured products
like earnings and economic capital.under stressed liquidity conditions;
Tests may be performed at varying degrees of2. Basis risk in relation to hedging strategies;
aggregation, from the level of an individual instrument3. Pipeline or securitisation risk;
up to the institutional level. These tests are4. Contingent risks; and
performed for different risk types including market,5. Funding liquidity risk
credit, operational and liquidity risk.Scenarios were not sufficiently severe when stress
Notwithstanding this wide range of methodologies,testing structured products and leveraged lending
the turmoil has highlighted several methodologicalprior to the crisis. This may, to some degree, be
weaknesses.attributed to reliance on historical data. In general,
At the most fundamental level, weaknesses instress tests of structured products suffered from
infrastructure limited the ability of banks to identifythe same problems as other risk management
and aggregate exposures across the bank. Thismodels in this area in that they failed to recognise
weakness limits the effectiveness of riskthat risk dynamics for structured instruments are
management tools - including stress testing.different from those of similarly-rated cash
Most risk management models, including tests, useinstruments such as bonds.
historical statistical relationships to assess risk. TheyThese differences were particularly pronounced
assume that risk is driven by a known and constantduring the crisis, further degrading the performance
statistical process, ie they assume that historicalof the stress tests. Furthermore, stress tests also
relationships constitute a good basis for forecastingassumed that markets in structured products would
the development of future risks.remain liquid or, if market liquidity would be impaired,
The turmoil has revealed serious flaws with relyingthat this would not be the case for a prolonged
solely on such an approach.period.
First, given a long period of stability, backward-lookingThis also meant that banks underestimated the
historical information indicated benign conditions sopipeline risk related to issuing new structured
that these models did not pick up the possibility ofproducts.
severe shocks nor the build up of vulnerabilities withinIn many cases tests dealt only with directional risk
the system. Historical statistical relationships, such asand did not capture basis risk, thereby reducing the
correlations, proved to be unreliable once actualeffectiveness of hedges.
events started to unfold.Another feature of the crisis was wrong-way risk,
Second, the financial crisis has again shown that,for example related to the credit protection
especially in stressed conditions, risk characteristicspurchased from monoline insurers.
can change rapidly as reactions by marketAnother weakness of the models was that they did
participants within the system can induce feedbacknot adequately capture contingent risks that arose
effects and lead to system-wide interactions. Theseeither from legally binding credit and liquidity lines or
effects can dramatically amplify initial shocks asfrom reputational concerns related, for example, to
recent events have illustrated.off-balance sheet vehicles.
Extreme reactions (by definition) occur rarely andHad tests adequately captured in such exposures
may carry little weight in models that rely on historicalmay have been avoided.
data. It also means that they are hard to modelWith regard to funding liquidity, tests did not capture
quantitatively. The management of most banks didthe systemic nature of the crisis or the magnitude
not sufficiently question these limitations of moreand duration of the disruption to interbank markets.
traditional risk management models used to derive