In 2017 and 2019, the Basel Committee on Banking Standards (BCBS) published final revisions to the Basel III framework. The committee aimed to reduce variability in the calculation of global banks' risk-weighted assets (RWA) to improve comparability across jurisdictions and reduce the significance of internally generated models. BCBS left the implementation of the finalized Basel III standards to the relevant regulator in each jurisdiction.
On Jan. 31, 2022, in its letter to industry, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) outlined its implementation of the revised standards in Canada; the plan closely followed the reforms outlined by BCBS. OSFI also decided that it would apply Basel III reform in the country sooner than most other major jurisdictions.
Below, we provide key takeaways from OSFI's early implementation of Basel III reforms in Canada, and address potential impact this might have on Canadian banks' capital management strategies.
Frequently Asked Questions
What are the main capital changes related to Basel III reform that have been implemented in Canada?
Introduction of a 72.5% output floor. The output floor is a key change that reflects BCBS' view that RWA comparability needs to be improved among banks globally. The output floor sets a lower limit to regulatory capital requirements, which includes capital requirements calculated by internal models, to 72.5% of the capital requirements as calculated by the Basel III standardized approach. In this way, the floor sets a limit on the use of internal models. OSFI opted to implement the output floor sooner than most regulators globally, but will do so gradually. It set the output floor at 65% in second-quarter 2023, and subsequently increased the floor another 2.5% in first-quarter 2024. OSFI initially expected to increase the floor 2.5% over the next two years, before capping it at 72.5% in 2026, but in July 2024, it opted to delay implementation an additional year. As it currently stands, the next output floor increase will be in fiscal 2026, to 70%, followed by another increase in 2027 to 72.5% (where it will stay thereafter). The reason provided for the delay is to give OSFI time to consider the implementation timeline of Basel III reforms in other jurisdictions.
New rules in the calculation and application of operational risk. OSFI introduced a new standardized approach for operational risk in second-quarter 2023, consisting of two methodologies: the Standardized Approach (SA), which must be used by domestic systemically important banks (D-SIBs) and small and medium-size banks (SMSBs) with adjusted gross income above C$1.5 billion, and the Simplified Standardized Approach (SSA). Of note, advanced models for operational risk are no longer allowed. At a high level, the SA is made up of two components: the business indicator component, which is based off the past three years of income data; and the internal loss multiplier component, which is based off historical losses over the past 10 years. Conversely, under SSA, capital requirements are equal to 15% of three-year average adjusted gross income and, unlike SA, there is no historical loss component. All SMSBs with less than C$1.5 billion in adjusted gross income that are not approved to use SA must use SSA.
Foundation Internal Ratings-Based (F-IRB) approach replaced the Advanced Internal Ratings-Based (A-IRB) approach for certain asset classes. Beginning second-quarter 2023, banks are no longer permitted to use the A-IRB approach for exposures to general corporate entities with total consolidated revenues of more than C$750 million and with exposures to bank assets and other securities firms and financial institutions. Instead, they should use either the standardized approach or the F-IRB approach. When using F-IRB, banks rely on supervisory estimates of loss given default and exposure at default, but still compute the probability of defaults using internal models. Under the standardized approach, banks are permitted to use external credit ratings as a base to the risk-weight calculation, but must additionally perform due diligence, as outlined by OSFI, in order to determine the appropriateness of the rating. The due diligence process can lead to a higher risk-weight, but the risk-weight cannot be lower than what is implied by the external rating.
Elimination of 1.06 IRB scaling factor. This scaling factor was deemed no longer necessary, given the introduction of the output floor. The scaling factor was a 6% add-on to credit risk RWA amounts calculated under the IRB method and has been in place since the implementation of Basel II.
Other changes to the calculation of certain credit risk capital charges. Some of these changes are:
- Lower credit risk capital charges for qualifying revolving retail exposures
- Updated treatment of privately insured mortgages
- Deduction from Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) capital when a reverse mortgage has a loan-to-value (LTV) ratio of 80% or higher. The exposure amount that is above 80% is deducted from CET1 capital
Implementation of a new market risk framework and CVA framework. The implementation of the market risk framework is consistent with BCBS' fundamental review of the trading book (FRTB). The new standards move away from value at risk (VaR), which BCBS deems does not sufficiently capture tail risk, to expected shortfall. The credit valuation adjustment (CVA) framework removes the use of the internally modelled approach.
Updated treatment of mortgages that do not meet OSFI's expectations in its published B-20 guideline. While they are not specific to Basel III reform, OSFI addressed concerns related to negatively amortizing mortgages under this guideline, and beginning first-quarter 2024, a negative amortization mortgage with an LTV ratio above 65% is not considered to have met OSFI's expectations and higher risk-weights are applied. OSFI's Guideline B-20 outlines underwriting standards of Canadian residential mortgages and is applicable to all federally regulated financial institutions.
When were the new Basel III reform changes implemented?
OSFI decided to implement Basel III in two phases. It implemented the first set of new capital requirements in second-quarter 2023 (beginning Feb. 1, 2023, for banks with a year-end of Oct. 31 and April 1 for banks with a year-end of Dec. 31). The requirements included enhancements to the calculation of credit risk, new standardized rules for operational risk, and the implementation of a 65% Basel III output floor (under prior regulatory requirements, most Canadian D-SIBs were operating with a nonbinding 70% floor).
OSFI introduced the second phase in first-quarter 2024 (beginning Nov. 1, 2023, for banks with a year-end of Oct. 31, and Jan. 1, 2024, for banks with a year-end of Dec. 31); the second phase included the adoption of FRTB and a new CVA framework. In addition, OSFI introduced new capital requirements related to negatively amortizing mortgages in first-quarter 2024, although this was unrelated to Basel III reform.
Which banks are affected by the Basel III capital changes?
All D-SIBs, as identified by OSFI, are affected by Basel III reform. OSFI identifies Bank of Montreal, Bank of Nova Scotia, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, National Bank of Canada, Royal Bank of Canada, and Toronto-Dominion Bank as systemically important.
The reform also applies to SMSBs, as defined by OSFI, but to varying degrees. For example, the new market risk requirements apply only to D-SIBs or internationally active institutions; however, OSFI holds the right to apply the framework on a case-by-case basis to certain SMSBs.
How has Basel III reform affected regulatory RWA and the CET1 ratio as of Q2 2024?
The net impact to the CET1 ratio, after the two phases were applied, was modest. While some D-SIBs saw a net negative impact to CET1, others saw a net positive impact. The overall change was small relative to the size of internally generated capital that the banks produce quarterly.
The first set of Basel III revisions had a modestly positive impact on the D-SIBs' CET1 ratios (table 1). In general, the improvement to credit RWA was driven by the removal of the 6% IRB scalar, while the F-IRB approach for certain asset classes also benefitted certain banks. Most D-SIBs saw a positive benefit from the introduction of new standardized operational risk requirements. Of the D-SIBs, only Bank of Nova Scotia was affected by the 65% output floor in second-quarter 2023.
Table 1
D-SIBs' reported impact from Phase I of regulatory reform | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bank | CET1 impact* | Comments | ||||
Bank of Montreal | +29 bps | +29 bps impact due to Basel III reform | ||||
Bank of Nova Scotia | +56 bps | +56 bps impact due to Basel III reform which includes the negative impact from hitting the output floor | ||||
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce | +4 bps | +4 bps impact due to Basel III reform. Credit risk impact was + 28 bps and operational risk impact was - 24 bps | ||||
National Bank of Canada | +44 bps | +44 bps impact due to Basel III reform | ||||
Royal Bank of Canada | +79 bps | +79 bps impact due to Basel III reform | ||||
Toronto-Dominion Bank | +2 bps | +2 bps impact due to Basel III reform | ||||
*Impact is quarter over quarter. D-SIBs--Domestic systemically important banks. CET1--Common equity Tier 1. |
Generally, the implementation of new market risk and CVA requirements had a negative effect on D-SIBs' CET1 ratios; however, the exact impact ranged depending on the bank (table 2). Disclosures varied and in addition to FRTB/CVA changes, a number of banks also included the impact of negative amortization mortgages, the impact of the output floor, and the adoption of IFRS 17. With the exception of Bank of Nova Scotia, the 67.5% output floor was not binding in first-quarter 2024.
Table 2
D-SIBs' reported impact from Phase II of regulatory reform | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bank | CET1 impact* | Comments | ||||
Bank of Montreal | N.A. | Not explicitly disclosed | ||||
Bank of Nova Scotia | -70 bps | -70 bps impact due to FRTB/CVA and the impact from the output floor | ||||
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce | +28 bps | +28 bps impact includes adoption of A-IRB method for most of the U.S. portfolio, FRTB/CVA impact, and negative amortization mortgage changes | ||||
National Bank of Canada | -38 bps | -38 bps impact due to FRTB/CVA. This does not include other methodology refinements of +15 bps | ||||
Royal Bank of Canada | -2 bps | -2 bps impact from regulatory changes, which include the impact from IFRS 17 | ||||
Toronto-Dominion Bank | -17 bps | -17 bps impact from FRTB/CVA and negative amortization mortgage changes | ||||
*Impact is quarter over quarter. D-SIBs--Domestic systemically important banks. N.A.--Not available. A-IRB--Advanced Internal Ratings-Based. FRTB--Fundamental review of the trading book. CVA--Credit valuation adjustment. IFRS--International Financial Reporting Standard. |
As of second-quarter 2024, the average CET1 ratio for the largest six banks was 13.1%, well above the regulatory minimum. The bank that is closest to its regulatory minimum is Royal Bank of Canada, and still it is 120 bps above its minimum ratio. We expect CET1 ratios will remain stable for the remainder of 2024 as pressure on operating performance continues, offset by low RWA growth that is consistent with low loan growth. Furthermore, we do not anticipate significant changes to bank capital levels as a direct result of further Basel III implementation.
What impact will Basel III reform have on bank strategy?
We do not expect a material impact on bank strategies. However, in light of more costly capital charges, Canadian banks have had to review overall business mix, mostly at the margins, to determine where they can employ capital most efficiently. Capital charges on corporate and commercial loan exposures have been particularly affected by the reform, and we expect the D-SIBs will be more thoughtful in their respective commercial and corporate businesses in terms of loan extension. Maintaining client relationships remains an important consideration, and so, Canadian banks will need to weigh the benefit of the relationship against added capital costs. We expect that banks could focus more on fee-related business with a client in addition to the lending relationship.
Large Canadian banks with U.S. business will also have to consider how Basel III capital rules are implemented in the U.S. (see "How The U.S. Proposes To Implement Basel III Capital Rules And The Impact On U.S. Bank Capital Ratios," published Jan. 11, 2024). This could change the competitive landscape and alter Canadian banks' ability to compete, especially if U.S. regulators pull back on some proposed measures. U.S. banks rallied against the Basel III endgame implementations proposed by U.S. prudential regulators, arguing that the measures are too punitive and will lead to less lending within the banking system. This has yet to play out, and although OSFI did delay the implementation of the output floor an additional year, it's still unclear if it will implement further changes.
Are there ways banks can mitigate the capital impact of Basel III on their RWA?
The use of credit risk transfer (also known as synthetic or significant risk transfer [SRT]) as a tool to optimize capital has picked up globally (see "Banks Ramp Up Credit Risk Transfers To Optimize Regulatory Capital," Feb. 22, 2024). Most D-SIBs have increased the use of SRTs, primarily targeting corporate and commercial loan exposures, and we expect they will continue to use it under the new regulations. SRTs allow banks to offload credit risk in reference loan portfolios to third-party investors while attaining capital relief. SRTs can also help banks rebalance any single-name or sector concentrations in their loan portfolio. As the output floor increases through fiscal years 2026 and 2027, these tools may become more relevant. Although banks increased wholesale synthetic securitizations in the banking book early during the Basel III phase-in, this has slowed in recent quarters (see chart). With the exception of Bank of Montreal, usage of SRT remains relatively low, while National Bank of Canada has not engaged in any SRT activity.
What impact will Basel III reform have on S&P Global Ratings risk-adjusted capital calculation?
On April 30, 2024, S&P Global Ratings published its updated risk-adjusted capital framework (RACF) methodology criteria. The changes target a limited aspect of our RACF criteria, specifically addressing revised calculations for market risk on the trading book and CVA risk. At this time, the updated criteria apply only to banks using revised Basel III reporting (see "Additional Details On The Update To Our Risk-Adjusted Capital Framework Methodology," April 30, 2024). Our revised criteria translated into higher trading and CVA risk charges on average for Canadian banks (although some banks saw a reduction). Nevertheless, trading risk for Canadian banks makes up a relatively small portion of total RWAs, and thus, the impact to our RAC ratios was limited (table 3). Canadian D-SIBs operate on average with an RAC ratio at the high end of our adequate range.
Table 3
D-SIBs' S&P Global Ratings RAC ratios and trading risk RWA | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S&P Global Ratings RAC (%) | ||||||||||||
Q2 2024 | Q4 2023 | S&P Global Ratings trading risk RWA, Q2 2024 (mil. C$) | S&P Global Ratings total RWA, Q2 2024 (mil. C$) | S&P Global Ratings trading risk (as percentage of total) | ||||||||
BMO | 8.1 | 7.7 | 23,027 | 754,020 | 3.1 | |||||||
BNS | 8.7 | 8.3 | 22,025 | 807,751 | 2.7 | |||||||
RBC | 10.3 | 11.2 | 52,786 | 903,775 | 5.8 | |||||||
TD | 9.5 | 10.1 | 34,890 | 891,344 | 3.9 | |||||||
NBC | 11.4 | 11.2 | 14,293 | 193,750 | 7.4 | |||||||
CIBC | 9.9 | 10.0 | 19,189 | 501,221 | 3.8 | |||||||
Average | 9.6 | 9.8 | 27,702 | 675,310 | 4.1 | |||||||
D-SIB--Domestic systemically important banks. RAC--Risk-adjusted capital. RWA--Risk-weighted assets. |
What impact will Basel III reform have on Canadian bank ratings?
We expect the rollout to be neutral for Canadian bank ratings. In the past few years, Canadian banks, and in particular the D-SIBs, have increased capital levels in anticipation of new Basel III capital requirements and in-line with OSFI's domestic stability buffer requirement. The D-SIBs continue to hold a buffer above these requirements, and we do not anticipate significant capital level changes will result from the adoption of Basel III reform.
Related Research
- Additional Details On The Update To Our Risk-Adjusted Capital Framework Methodology, April 30, 2024
- Your Three Minutes In Banking: BCBS Calls Time On G-SIB Window Dressing, March 13, 2024
- Banks Ramp Up Credit Risk Transfers To Optimize Regulatory Capital, Feb. 22, 2024
- How The U.S. Proposes To Implement Basel III Capital Rules And The Impact On U.S. Bank Capital Ratios, Jan. 11, 2024
- EU Banking Package: Inconsistencies Temper Framework Improvements, Jan. 9, 2024
This report does not constitute a rating action.
Primary Credit Analyst: | Daniel Da Silva, Toronto +1 6474803517; daniel.da.silva@spglobal.com |
Secondary Contacts: | Devi Aurora, New York + 1 (212) 438 3055; devi.aurora@spglobal.com |
Lidia Parfeniuk, Toronto + 1 (416) 507 2517; lidia.parfeniuk@spglobal.com | |
Stuart Plesser, New York + 1 (212) 438 6870; stuart.plesser@spglobal.com | |
Rian M Pressman, CFA, New York + 1 (212) 438 2574; rian.pressman@spglobal.com | |
Thierry Grunspan, Columbia + 1 (212) 438 1441; thierry.grunspan@spglobal.com |
No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, model, software, or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced, or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S&P). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P and any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees, or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an “as is” basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT’S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages.
Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact. S&P’s opinions, analyses, and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S&P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment, and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors, and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives. Rating-related publications may be published for a variety of reasons that are not necessarily dependent on action by rating committees, including, but not limited to, the publication of a periodic update on a credit rating and related analyses.
To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S&P reserves the right to assign, withdraw, or suspend such acknowledgement at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal, or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered on account thereof.
S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P may have information that is not available to other S&P business units. S&P has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain nonpublic information received in connection with each analytical process.
S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, www.spglobal.com/ratings (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.com (subscription), and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at www.spglobal.com/usratingsfees.