US Current Expected Credit Losses (CECL) Industry Benchmark … · GCD IS WORKING WITH ACCENTURE...
Transcript of US Current Expected Credit Losses (CECL) Industry Benchmark … · GCD IS WORKING WITH ACCENTURE...
Global Credit Databy banks for banks
US Current Expected Credit Losses (CECL) Industry Benchmark Study
Study Kick-off
02/07/2019 1Public – CECL Benchmark Study Kick-off
Global Credit Data
Project Team Benchmarking Study
2
Soner Tunay
Head of Quantitative Analytics, Finance & Risk Services at Accenture Consulting
Daniela has 15 years of experience in credit risk management, modelling and reporting. Prior to Global Credit Data, she was heading the financial risk team at Delta Lloyd Bank where she was responsible among others for the Basel III migration plan and the implementation of AIRB-compliant credit risk models. Her profile is rounded by risk positions at RSU Rating Service Unit, PricewaterhouseCoopers and NIBC.
Soner has held executive level positions leading model development and validation functions in various US banks, FBOs and G-SIBs. Soner is regarded an industry thought leader in Risk Rating analytics, CCAR and CECL models. He chairs industry conferences and teaches masterclasses to industry participants on credit risk and integration of modeling with business aspects. Soner received his Ph.D. in Economics from Boston College.
Daniela Thakkar
Methodology & Membership Executive, Global Credit Data
Martin Boer
Director of Regulatory Affairs, Institute of International Finance
Martin advocates and contributes to the IIF work on regulatory consistency, impact assessment, prudential capital and liquidity standards, accounting, insurance regulation and the growing area of non-bank/non-insurance regulatory issues. Martin previously served as the Secretary General of the European Financial Services Round Table. Before that he served in various positions at ING Group, UNDP, The Financial Times and Bloomberg News.
02/07/2019Public – CECL Benchmark Study Kick-off
Global Credit Data
Industry Experts in this webinar
3
Dr. Calcagno is a Managing Director in MUFG Union Bank’s Credit Risk Analytics team with over 10 years of Financial Services experience. Juan is an expert applied econometrician and leads teams responsible for quantitative modeling and innovative ideas underlying macroeconomic forecast and stress testing to address the heightened quantitative and qualitative expectations around CCAR/DFAST/CECL programs. Prior to joining MUFG Union Bank, Juan worked for KPMG and Moody’s Analytics, Economy.com division, on several CCAR/Basel engagements as well as on private ABS/RBMS valuation projects. He holds a PhD from Columbia University.
Stevan is Senior Vice President and head of Quantitative Risk Analytics at Regions Bank, where his current responsibilities focus on quantitative aspects of forecasting and stress testing, risk rating, valuation, economic capital, credit strategy, reserve methodologies and credit portfolio management. Steve has 20 years of industry experience in quantitative modeling and risk management and has prior experience building portfolio management and analytics infrastructure at Merrill Lynch, Bank of Montreal and ABN AMRO. Steve has a Ph.D. in applied physics from Northwestern University, a B.S. in physics from University of Colorado in Boulder, and has held Series 7 and Series 63 certifications.
Juan Calcagno
Managing Director at MUFG Union Bank
Stevan Maglic
Senior Vice President and Head of Quantitative Risk Analytics at Regions Bank
02/07/2019Public – CECL Benchmark Study Kick-off
Global Credit Data
Agenda
4
INTRODUCTION
PRACTIONERS EXPERIENCE
EXPERIENCE FROM SIMILAR STUDIES
US CECL INDUSTRY BENCHMARK STUDY METHODOLOGY
CONTACTS
02/07/2019Public – CECL Benchmark Study Kick-off
Global Credit Data
Background
5
26 Banks Participated in Step 1 – CECL Methodology Survey:
CECL will have the most significant impact on American banking since the Dodd-Frank Act was adopted. Models currently being developed indicate that bank profitability—and bank department profitability—will be affected as institutions charge for credit loss provisions on new loans and credit downgrades on existing loans.
GCD IS WORKING WITH ACCENTURE AND THE IIF TO HELP U.S. FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS BENCHMARK THEIR CECL MODELS AS THEY ARE DEVELOPED.
STEP 1 was a detailed CECL Methodology survey sponsored by Global Credit Data, the IIF and Accenture. The survey provided comparative information on bank’s planned methodologies for implementation of CECL. The questions focused on credit data and modeling for the C&I CRE and Consumer portfolios.
Any financial services companies who are implementing CECL, including regional banks, community banks, supranational
banks, global banks, insurance companies, specialty financial companies, etc.
What drives the difference in those numbers?
STEP 2 is a benchmarking study, similar to the highly successful benchmarking study conducted for IFRS 9. The CECL study will be launched in Q1/2019.
KEY QUESTIONS ADDRESSEDWHO SHOULD PARTICIPATE?How do your final numbers compare to
your peers?
02/07/2019Public – CECL Benchmark Study Kick-off
Global Credit Data
Practitioners Perspective
6
Juan Calcagno
Managing Director at MUFG Union Bank
Stevan Maglic
Senior Vice President and Head of Quantitative Risk Analytics at Regions Bank
Principles-based Approach Is Not Prescriptive
CECL is vastly different than ACL and IFRS9 with a number of key decisions being left up to practitioner’s perspective
There Is A Need For Industry-Wide Impact Assessment
Overall, there is a lack of Quantitative Impact and benchmark studies in the marketplace
Scope From Practitioners Perspective
A study such as this can inform design decisions and can be a starting point to address issues such as pro-cyclicality and capital impact
02/07/2019Public – CECL Benchmark Study Kick-off
Global Credit Data
Existing Studies
7
GCD’s IFRS 9 Benchmarking Study Study run in 2017 and 2018 on variability of IFRS 9 ECL
estimates between banks
26 banks participated, globally
Main outcome: • Principle-based approach
of IFRS 9 results in a widevariability of theECL provision charge between banks even under a common scenario and a common, hypothetical portfolio
• Reasons: banks use different models, parameters and assumptions
High recognition by Regulators and Accountants
CECL Studies So Far Existing studies so far approached the impact of CECL
from a narrow position; no true benchmarking capability so far
No quantitative impact study yet, but there are few Interesting papers on the impacts of CECL and onprocyclicality
For example, Accenture studyconfirms high CECL reserve sensitivity to key assumptions
Intensive industry discussion currently going onregarding Day1-implemenation
02/07/2019Public – CECL Benchmark Study Kick-off
https://www.globalcreditdata.org/services/ifrs-9-hypothetical-portfolio-study
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3183416
Global Credit Data
Overview Methodology & Approach
8
Hypothetical Portfolio
CECL Parameters
CECL ScenariosCECL Model
Suite of Individual
Bank
Lifetime PD
Lifetime LGD
Lifetime EAD
ECL
Collect, anonymize, and aggregate data
Return anonymized data & benchmarking reports back to banks
Data Analysis
Result Interpretation
Socialize, Fine-tune, and Publish Study Report
PARTICIPATING BANKS PROJECT TEAMINDUSTRY EXPERT GROUP
Designs Template, Scenarios, Approach, FAQ, …
Ensures Template fits to US market and majority of CECL models
Run their individual models based on the hypothetical portfolio, scenarios and parameters provided
Submit result to GCD
Template Results submitted bybanks to GCD
End-to-End project management (from “template” to “data collection” to “report” to “industry advocacy”)
Industry Advocacy
02/07/2019Public – CECL Benchmark Study Kick-off
Global Credit Data
Template: Hypothetical PortfolioThe hypothetical portfolio is composed of a set of loans chosen to provide coverage of various types of asset classes/borrowers, exposures and facilities, fit to the US market.
9
ASSET CLASS / BORROWER TYPE
Residential MortgageHelocAuto
Personal UnsecuredCredit Cards
Large CorporatesMid Market
Business Banking CRE – IP, Construction
OBLIGOR
Credit QualityIndustry
Geography
EXPOSURE
EAD RangeAvg. Usage
O/SLimit
Revolver / TermReference Rate
Maturity
FACILITY
LGD RangeFacility Type
Secured / Unsecured
PERMUTATIONS BY ASSET CLASS / BORROWER TYPE
Residential Mortgage 64Heloc 16Auto 32
Personal Unsecured 18Credit Cards 64
Large Corporates 12Mid Market 12
Business Banking 12CRE – Income Producing, Construction 4
Banks Participating in the Working Group of Hypothetical Portfolio Development
*The study will open for public commentary and feedback regarding the construction of the hypothetical portfolio until February 14th, 2019
ILLUSTRATIVE
02/07/2019Public – CECL Benchmark Study Kick-off
Global Credit Data
Template: Scenarios & ParametersThe industry expert group has also developed CECL scenarios and parameters for banks to test their own models on the hypothetical portfolio.
10
CECL PARAMETERS
Banks are asked to run the CECL models various times with different parameters:
• 4 key parameters are included – Reasonable & Supportable (R&S) Period, Mean Reversion Period, Mean Reversion Method, and Historical Loss Rate* beyond R&S Period
• This results into 5 different runs per scenario
CECL SCENARIOS
This first run of the benchmark study will be based on FRB’s CCAR scenarios published in February 2019 (later iterations might include further scenarios)
• Using CCAR scenarios for this study helps reduce operational burden
• Banks could suggest additional scenarios to be included in the future iterations of the benchmark study
02/07/2019Public – CECL Benchmark Study Kick-off
Global Credit Data
Template: Hypothetical Portfolio – Example (1/2)Example: Residential Mortgages (*)
11
* Preliminary Version: The study will open for public commentary and feedback regarding the construction of the hypothetical portfolio till February 14th, 2019
Hypothetical portfolio
contains 64 different
Residential mortgage
types
02/07/2019Public – CECL Benchmark Study Kick-off
ATTRIBUTES NOTES PERMUTATIONSGeography U.S. 1Property Type Single Family Condo 2Credit Quality Prime (FICO=760) Subprime (FICO=660) FICO at Mortgage Origination 2Mortgage Type 30 Year Fixed 3/1 ARM 2Loan Size Jumbo (>= $427K) Conforming (< $427K) 2Loan Purpose Ow ner Occupied 1Origination LTV 80 1Origination Year February 1, 2019 February 1, 2003 3/1 ARM Originated in 2003 is already resetDelinquency Status Current 30 DPD 60 DPD 2019 Originated Loans are all "Current"Exposure at Origination 1M 250K Determined by Loan SizeInterest Rate 4% 6% Determiend by Credit QualityHistorical Loss Rate 1% 3% Determined by Credit QualityReference Curve 10 Year Treasury For 3/1 ARM OnlyRefinance/Reset Interest Rate 5% For 3/1 ARM OnlyPrepayment Rate Bank ow n model determinesCurrent LTV Bank ow n model determines
TOTAL PERMUTATIONS 64
Banks' inputs / intermediate outputs
LEGENDSMajor Attributes for segmentation
4
Attributes in dependency of other attributes
PORTFOLIO ATTRIBUTES OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE
DETAILS
Global Credit Data
Template: Hypothetical Portfolio – Example (2/2)
1202/07/2019Public – CECL Benchmark Study Kick-off
Obs# Geography Property Credit Mortgage Loan Purpose Origination Origination Delinquency Interest Historical Origination Reset Reference Prepayment CurrentType Quality Type Size LTV Year Status Rate Loss Exposure Rate Curve Rate LTV
1 U.S. Single Family Prime (FICO=760) 30 YR Fixed Jumbo (>$427K) Ow ner Occupied 80 February 1, 2019 Current 4 1 1,000,000$ 2 U.S. Condo Prime (FICO=760) 30 YR Fixed Jumbo (>$427K) Ow ner Occupied 80 February 1, 2019 Current 4 1 1,000,000$ 3 U.S. Single Family Subprime (FICO=660) 30 YR Fixed Jumbo (>$427K) Ow ner Occupied 80 February 1, 2019 Current 6 3 1,000,000$ 4 U.S. Condo Subprime (FICO=660) 30 YR Fixed Jumbo (>$427K) Ow ner Occupied 80 February 1, 2019 Current 6 3 1,000,000$ 5 U.S. Single Family Prime (FICO=760) 3/1 ARM Jumbo (>$427K) Ow ner Occupied 80 February 1, 2019 Current 4 1 1,000,000$ 5 10YR_Treasury6 U.S. Condo Prime (FICO=760) 3/1 ARM Jumbo (>$427K) Ow ner Occupied 80 February 1, 2019 Current 4 1 1,000,000$ 5 10YR_Treasury7 U.S. Single Family Subprime (FICO=660) 3/1 ARM Jumbo (>$427K) Ow ner Occupied 80 February 1, 2019 Current 6 3 1,000,000$ 5 10YR_Treasury8 U.S. Condo Subprime (FICO=660) 3/1 ARM Jumbo (>$427K) Ow ner Occupied 80 February 1, 2019 Current 6 3 1,000,000$ 5 10YR_Treasury9 U.S. Single Family Prime (FICO=760) 30 YR Fixed Conforming (<$427K) Ow ner Occupied 80 February 1, 2019 Current 4 1 250,000$ 10 U.S. Condo Prime (FICO=760) 30 YR Fixed Conforming (<$427K) Ow ner Occupied 80 February 1, 2019 Current 4 1 250,000$ 11 U.S. Single Family Subprime (FICO=660) 30 YR Fixed Conforming (<$427K) Ow ner Occupied 80 February 1, 2019 Current 6 3 250,000$ 12 U.S. Condo Subprime (FICO=660) 30 YR Fixed Conforming (<$427K) Ow ner Occupied 80 February 1, 2019 Current 6 3 250,000$ 13 U.S. Single Family Prime (FICO=760) 3/1 ARM Conforming (<$427K) Ow ner Occupied 80 February 1, 2019 Current 4 1 250,000$ 5 10YR_Treasury14 U.S. Condo Prime (FICO=760) 3/1 ARM Conforming (<$427K) Ow ner Occupied 80 February 1, 2019 Current 4 1 250,000$ 5 10YR_Treasury15 U.S. Single Family Subprime (FICO=660) 3/1 ARM Conforming (<$427K) Ow ner Occupied 80 February 1, 2019 Current 6 3 250,000$ 5 10YR_Treasury16 U.S. Condo Subprime (FICO=660) 3/1 ARM Conforming (<$427K) Ow ner Occupied 80 February 1, 2019 Current 6 3 250,000$ 5 10YR_Treasury17 U.S. Single Family Prime (FICO=760) 30 YR Fixed Jumbo (>$427K) Ow ner Occupied 80 February 1, 2003 Current 4 1 1,000,000$ 18 U.S. Condo Prime (FICO=760) 30 YR Fixed Jumbo (>$427K) Ow ner Occupied 80 February 1, 2003 Current 4 1 1,000,000$ 19 U.S. Single Family Subprime (FICO=660) 30 YR Fixed Jumbo (>$427K) Ow ner Occupied 80 February 1, 2003 Current 6 3 1,000,000$ 20 U.S. Condo Subprime (FICO=660) 30 YR Fixed Jumbo (>$427K) Ow ner Occupied 80 February 1, 2003 Current 6 3 1,000,000$ 21 U.S. Single Family Prime (FICO=760) 3/1 ARM Jumbo (>$427K) Ow ner Occupied 80 February 1, 2003 Current 4 1 1,000,000$ 5 10YR_Treasury22 U.S. Condo Prime (FICO=760) 3/1 ARM Jumbo (>$427K) Ow ner Occupied 80 February 1, 2003 Current 4 1 1,000,000$ 5 10YR_Treasury23 U.S. Single Family Subprime (FICO=660) 3/1 ARM Jumbo (>$427K) Ow ner Occupied 80 February 1, 2003 Current 6 3 1,000,000$ 5 10YR_Treasury24 U.S. Condo Subprime (FICO=660) 3/1 ARM Jumbo (>$427K) Ow ner Occupied 80 February 1, 2003 Current 6 3 1,000,000$ 5 10YR_Treasury
S S ( CO ) C f ( $ ) O O C $
Inputs Provided by Industry Working Group Banks' Own Inputs
INPUT FOR BANKS
Example: Residential Mortgages (*)
Global Credit Data
Benchmark Creation (1/2)Each bank will run the hypothetical portfolio with each CECL parameter and scenario setup, then submit intermediate and final outputs to the project team for analysis
13
INTERMEDIATE STEPS & OUTPUT
Hypothetical Portfolio
CECL Parameters
CECL ScenariosCECL Model
Suite of Individual Bank
Lifetime PD
Lifetime LGD
Lifetime EAD
ECL
Default Rates
Loss Rates
Collateral Values
Exposure Development
Maturity Time
…
FINAL RESULTBANKS’ OWN RUNS
PARTICIPATING BANKS PROJECT TEAMINDUSTRY
EXPERT GROUP
Data submissionby banks
02/07/2019Public – CECL Benchmark Study Kick-off
Global Credit Data
Benchmark Creation (2/2)Banks provide their modeling outcomes for each loan in the template – 2ND Run Example
1402/07/2019Public – CECL Benchmark Study Kick-off
Lifetime Mean Reversion Period R&S Period Period Beyond R&S Cum. PD Cum. PD Cum. PD Cum. PD Cum. PD LGD LGD LGD LGD LGD EAD EAD EAD EAD EAD Expected Life R&S PeriodECL ECL ECL ECL Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 (in Years) (in Quarters)
OUTPUT FROM BANKS
CCAR Base ScenarioCECL PARAMETERS - 2ND RUN
Lifetime Mean Reversion Period R&S Period Period Beyond R&S Cum. PD Cum. PD Cum. PD Cum. PD Cum. PD LGD LGD LGD LGD LGD EAD EAD EAD EAD EAD Expected Life R&S PeriodECL ECL ECL ECL Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 (in Years) (in Quarters)
OUTPUT FROM BANKS
CCAR Severely Adverse ScenarioCECL PARAMETERS - 2ND RUN
ECL outputs are collected by Mean Reversion period, Reasonable and Supportable period, Beyond R&S period, and lifetime. PD, LGD, and EAD are collected for 5 years at year end. Banks’ own CECL parameter are also collected when used. In this 2nd Run example, it’s the R&S Period (last column).
2nd Run – CCAR Base Scenario
2nd Run – CCAR Severely Adverse Scenario
Global Credit Data
Secure Data Submission ProcessGCD has a recognized track record of data pooling while ensuring data quality, security, and confidentiality
15
Cooperation Results will be discussed with banks in detail
based on sound and profound audit and peer comparison reports.
Data Quality GCD performs an independent audit by comparing
data from participating banks to point out likely data collection errors, so that participating banks can fix these quickly.
GCD uses automated validations of the data fields and values in their input portal as well as in-cycle audit where a bank’s data is manually audited before aggregation, looking for biases, bad data, etc.
Data Security Data will be transmitted only by
encrypted and secured protocols and processed by a mature data portal. Our data transmission hosting platform is tailored to the security requirements of our financial services contributors.
Data Confidentiality GCD’s data collections are
based on detailed data pool regulations with strict rules on confidentiality.
GCD is in collaboration with an independent data agent bound to the same strict rules.
PRINCIPLES Banks submit their data to GCD’s
data portal https://www.globalcreditdata.net
Data portal is secured and only accessible by whitelisted IP addresses
Mature data pooling infrastructure operated and hosted by CapGemini
SUBMISSION PROCESS
02/07/2019Public – CECL Benchmark Study Kick-off
Global Credit Data
Analysis & Socialization
16
Each participating bank will receive a benchmarking report comparing the different outcomes between banks. Unique to each report will be an indicator of where that particular bank (orange line in the graph) compares to the other banks for each individual hypothetical borrower.
In addition, as per GCD’s principles and procedures, banks will receive the full, anonymized data set.
Orange line: your BankBox plots: show other participants estimates per each individual borrower
HYPOTHETICALBORROWER
YOUR BANK’S ECL OTHER BANKS’ ECL
1 5bp 10bp 15bp 45bp …
2 12bp 30bp 14bp … …
…. … … … … …
ILLUSTRATIVE. Results shown from GCD’s IFRS9 peer comparison report
02/07/2019Public – CECL Benchmark Study Kick-off
Global Credit Data
TimelinesThe Project team aims at completing the Industry Benchmark Study by end of July 2019, in order to assist participant banks’ CECL implementation and the first regulatory submission.
17
(Apr 16th – May 30th)
PORTFOLIO, SCENARIO, & PARAMETER DESIGN
• Design hypothetical portfolio across different instruments, risk characteristics, and other major dimensions
• Determine diversification and coverage (number of observations) of each segment
• Define CECL parameters• Integrate FRB 2019 CCAR
scenarios
METHODOLOGY SURVEY STUDY
(Completed)
• Surveyed industry readiness for CECL
• Collected banks’ CECL methodology by products and segments
• Published survey results
RESULTS GENERATION & COLLECTION
(Feb 15th – Apr 15th)
• Each bank applies its own CECL models on the industry hypothetical portfolio
• Test parameters and scenarios developed by industry working group
• Submit testing results
• Anonymize and validate data submission from banks
• Perform data quality check and output validation
• Consolidate submission and share anonymized results and peer benchmarking report with participating banks
The hypothetical portfolio, scenarios, and parameters are open to participating banks for commentary and feedbacks from now to February 14th, 2019.
PEER BENCHMARK
(Awaiting Feedback from Participating Banks)
Participating banks will receive anonymized benchmark data by end of May 2019.
ANALYSIS & SOCIALIZATION
(Jun 1st – Jul 15th)
• Analyze results submitted by banks
• Socialize preliminary analytics results to participant banks
• Deep-dive significant viability in results and conduct root-cause analysis with banks
Study Report will be published in July 2019.
02/07/2019Public – CECL Benchmark Study Kick-off
Global Credit Data
Why Should Your Bank Take Part? The CECL Benchmarking Study is the only one of its kind and provides a unique, and much needed, opportunity
to gain insight in how your expected loss models benchmark with peers - neutral to your bank’s portfolio and macro-economic forecast.
The study allows banks and financial services firms to benchmark their CECL models against peers prior to full implementation.
The IFRS9 study showed large variability in ECL outcomes across banks when using the same portfolio and scenarios. In once instance, for the US and Canadian banks in the study, the largest ECL estimate was 5 times larger than the lowest.
CECL is expected to have a large impact on reserves. ALLL reserves are around 1.5% of total loans for the whole industry*.
GCD has a proven track record conducting similar studies, having conducted an IFRS9 benchmarking study in 2018.
Similarly, this study will also be based on GCD’s highly secured and mature data pooling infrastructure and associated agreements.
18
* Based on 9/30/2018 Call Reports (add loan type) for Wells Fargo, Citibank, Bank of America, and JPMorgan
02/07/2019Public – CECL Benchmark Study Kick-off
Global Credit Data
Further Information For further information, please consult https://www.globalcreditdata.org/services/benchmarking-cecl-models.
The draft data templates are stored on the website for download and feedback (registration required)
Further guidelines (e.g. mapping advice etc.) will be added in the upcoming weeks
A living FAQ section will support the submission process
Or contact ...
19
Soner Tunay
Head of Quantitative Analytics, Finance & Risk Services at Accenture Consulting
Daniela Thakkar
Methodology & Membership Executive, Global Credit Data
Martin Boer
Director of Regulatory Affairs, Institute of International Finance
02/07/2019Public – CECL Benchmark Study Kick-off