2020-05-05
Added · Updated
The document mandates stress testing data for banks as of the end of 2019, requiring them to conduct sensitivity analysis tests for credit, market, and liquidity risks, as well as operational risk and macroeconomic scenario tests. Banks must apply specific shocks, such as a 50% to 150% increase in indirect facilities, a 10% to 25% decrease in the Jordanian Dinar, and a 100 to 200 basis point increase in interest rates, to measure impacts on profitability and regulatory capital adequacy ratios. The tests include specific scenarios for the spread of the Corona Virus (COVID-19), requiring calculations of multi-factor shocks on capital adequacy and profit provisions based on medium and severe intensity assumptions. Banks are required to submit these results to the Central Bank annually, using provided models and macroeconomic data from Appendix 3.
1
Stress Testing Data for Banks as of End of 2019
First: Sensitivity Analysis Tests
A. Credit Risk
These tests aim to measure the impact of the economic cycle on specific factors in the bank, and thus on the potential increase in credit risk in the bank, while preparing the tests such that the impact is calculated on the bank's profitability and on the regulatory capital adequacy ratio as a percentage of Tier 1 capital.
Assumed Increase Percentage:
Excluding facilities obtained directly from the bank.
Assumed Increase Percentage:
Assumed Increase Percentage:
Excluding facilities guaranteed by the Jordanian Government (before them, facilities are classified as credit granted to them).
Assumed Default Factor:
Note: Banks must attach a list of names and values of the six largest granted facilities, excluding facilities guaranteed by the Jordanian Government (before them) used in applying the above tests.
Excluding facilities guaranteed by the Jordanian Government and facilities guaranteed by the Jordanian Oil Refinery Company and electricity companies (before them, facilities are classified as credit granted to them).
Assumed Default Factor:
Note: Banks must attach a list of names and values of the six largest granted facilities, excluding facilities guaranteed by the Jordanian Government, facilities guaranteed by the Jordanian Oil Refinery Company, and facilities guaranteed by electricity companies (before them) used in applying the above tests.
Assumed Decrease Percentage:
B. Market Risk
The primary objective of conducting market risk sensitivity analysis tests is to know the potential changes in market prices and losses on profits and on the regulatory capital adequacy ratio as a percentage of Tier 1 capital.
The bank must conduct the following tests on the bank:
Decrease in the Jordanian Dinar Exchange Rate: Assumed Decrease:
Increase in the Jordanian Dinar Exchange Rate: Assumed Increase:
Changes in interest rates in the market may negatively affect the bank's financial position. In addition to the direct impact on the bank's net interest income (bank revenues), there is a medium to long-term impact on the market value of the bank's assets and liabilities.
Sensitivity tests are applied to instruments related to interest rates, whether classified in the trading portfolio or the banking portfolio, with fixed or variable interest rates. The tests are conducted by analyzing the specific gaps as follows:
Gap Analysis Tests:
These tests aim to determine the bank's position regarding interest rate sensitive assets and liabilities. The tests are conducted as follows:
Assumed Decrease/Increase:
The bank must conduct the following tests:
Assumed Decrease:
C. Liquidity Risk
The liquidity in the bank depends significantly on its ability to meet its obligations. In addition, the bank must conduct cash flow forecasts to determine cash requirements under normal operating conditions. The bank must conduct tests on liquidity, specifically by conducting cash flow tests based on "What if" scenarios under stress conditions:
Withdrawal of a portion of Stable Individual Deposits: Assumed Decrease:
Withdrawal of a portion of Unstable Individual Deposits: Assumed Decrease:
Withdrawal of a portion of Stable Corporate Deposits: Assumed Decrease:
Withdrawal of a portion of Unstable Corporate Deposits: Assumed Decrease:
Withdrawal of a portion of Unused Limits on Facilities for Individuals and Small and Medium Enterprises: Assumed Decrease:
Withdrawal of a portion of Unused Limits on Facilities for Non-Financial Companies: Assumed Decrease:
Withdrawal of a portion of Unused Limits on Facilities for Financial Companies: Assumed Decrease:
Withdrawal of the Largest Deposit: Assumed Decrease:
Note: Banks must attach a list of names and values of the five largest deposits with the bank, along with the results of applying the withdrawal test.
Note: The bank may refer to Basel III standards regarding the use of a specific methodology for determining stable deposits, providing details of the method used by the bank to determine these deposits, with the necessity of providing this to the Central Bank.
D. Operational Risk
The bank must assume three minimum assumptions for operational risk tests to measure their potential impact on the bank's profitability and regulatory capital adequacy ratio as a percentage of Tier 1 capital.
These tests include:
Test regarding the probability of the spread of the Corona Virus (COVID-19): The bank must assess and measure its impact by assuming a work disruption period (shorter than 5 days) or a more severe assumption (longer work disruption period, more than 5 days).
Occurrence of a Cyber Attack on the Bank.
Armed robbery on one of the bank's branches, internal fraud, or fire in the bank's infrastructure.
Change in behavior of correspondent banks, or lawsuits filed against the bank affecting its reputation, such as a penalty imposed by the regulatory authority, or a significant violation of laws by the host or home country, etc.
Engaging in unsafe or unsound banking practices, or violating regulations or instructions.
E. Additional Stress Tests
In addition to the specified tests above, the bank must conduct additional tests, not less than one additional test for each type of risk faced, commensurate with the nature and volume of the risks referred to above.
Second: Scenario Tests
The macro scenarios are designed to assess the banks' ability to withstand shocks, assuming a worsening of regional conditions surrounding the Kingdom, a significant impact on the financial conditions of Gulf Arab countries, and a significant impact on Jordan due to a noticeable decline in the volume of remittances from Jordanians in these countries, in addition to a decline in oil prices. This may lead to a noticeable slowdown in growth rates, a decline in tourism income and direct investment, and an increase in unemployment levels. Also, assuming an increase in interest rates faster than expected, and the US Dollar appreciating significantly, which may negatively affect the attractiveness of the Dinar as a currency, thereby negatively affecting economic growth in the Kingdom.
The impact of these assumptions on banks is usually measured using the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth rate as one of the main economic variables affecting non-performing loans. This impact is measured on the regulatory capital adequacy ratio as a percentage of Tier 1 capital, where the bank has non-performing loans. Economic research indicates that a decrease in the economic growth rate leads to an increase in non-performing loans, and consequently a decline in customers' ability to repay their debts due to a decline in economic activity. Other variables such as the non-performing loans ratio, inflation rate, unemployment rate, and interest rates can also be used to predict the non-performing loans ratio for the coming year.
A Multiple Regression Analysis methodology is used to predict the non-performing loans ratio for the coming year according to the following model:
NPL = ß0 + ß1NPL(-1) + ß2X1 + ß3X2 + … + ßn+1Xn + e
Where:
The Central Bank will conduct the following scenarios, and banks must provide the Central Bank with the required scenarios annually, which may differ from bank to bank.
A. Current Situation Scenario (Baseline Scenario): The macroeconomic variables were based on the International Monetary Fund's forecasts, as shown in Appendix (3).
B. Medium Macro Stress Scenario:
C. Severe Macro Stress Scenario:
The following methodology was used to reach the above ratios:
Medium Macro Scenario: The expected economic growth rate for 2020 is subtracted by one standard deviation of the economic growth rate data during the period (1994-2019), and one standard deviation of the unemployment rate data during the period (1994-2019) is added to the 2019 unemployment rate.
Severe Macro Scenario: The expected economic growth rate for 2020 is subtracted by two standard deviations of the economic growth rate data during the period (1994-2019), and two standard deviations of the unemployment rate data during the period (1994-2019) are added to the 2019 unemployment rate.
Regarding the assumptions used, the interest rate gradients were prepared in accordance with the guidelines in the "Stress Testing Data for Banks in Jordan" dated 1/1/2016, regarding the standard shock for interest rate risk, and Basel Committee guidelines dated 6/12/2016.
Tests related to the impact of the spread of the Corona Virus were added to some scenarios, considering the concerns about the medium to long-term effects of the spread of the Corona Virus inside or outside the Kingdom. Banks must calculate the impact of the following scenarios on their capital adequacy ratios and profit provisions (Multi Factor shock):
Medium Intensity Scenario:
Severe Intensity Scenario:
Appendix (1): Sensitivity Analysis Models
Credit Risk
| Shock Intensity | Before Shock | After Shock |
|---|---|---|
| Regulatory Capital Adequacy Ratio | Tier 1 Capital Adequacy Ratio | Risk-Weighted Assets |
| Before Shock | After Shock | Before Shock |
| Increase in Non-Performing Loans (%) | ||
| Moderate (50) | ||
| Medium (100) | ||
| Severe (150) | ||
| Increase in Non-Performing Loans for the Five Largest Economic Sectors Obtained from the Bank (%) | ||
| Moderate (10) | ||
| Medium (25) | ||
| Severe (50) | ||
| Increase in Non-Performing Loans Granted to the Real Estate Sector (%) | ||
| Moderate (10) | ||
| Medium (25) | ||
| Severe (50) | ||
| Default of the Largest Borrower from the Bank (Number of Borrowers) * | ||
| Moderate (1) | ||
| Medium (3) | ||
| Severe (6) | ||
| Default of the Largest Borrower from the Bank (Number of Borrowers) ** | ||
| Moderate (1) | ||
| Medium (3) | ||
| Severe (6) | ||
| Decrease in the Value of Collateral Placed Against Non-Performing Loans (%) | ||
| Moderate (10) | ||
| Medium (20) | ||
| Severe (30) |
Market Risk
| Shock Intensity | Before Shock | After Shock |
|---|---|---|
| Regulatory Capital Adequacy Ratio | Tier 1 Capital Adequacy Ratio | Risk-Weighted Assets |
| Before Shock | After Shock | Before Shock |
| Exchange Rate Risk - Decrease in Dinar Exchange Rate (%) | ||
| Moderate (15) | ||
| Medium (20) | ||
| Severe (25) | ||
| Exchange Rate Risk - Increase in Dinar Exchange Rate (%) | ||
| Moderate (15) | ||
| Medium (20) | ||
| Severe (25) | ||
| Interest Rate Risk - Gap Analysis Test: Decrease/Increase in Interest Rate (Basis Points) | ||
| Moderate (100) | ||
| Medium (150) | ||
| Severe (200) | ||
| Share Price Risk - Decrease in Share Prices (%) | ||
| Moderate (10) | ||
| Medium (20) | ||
| Severe (30) |
Liquidity Risk
| Shock Intensity | Legal Liquidity Ratio Before Shock | Legal Liquidity Ratio After Shock |
|---|---|---|
| Withdrawal of a portion of Stable Individual Deposits | ||
| Withdrawal of a portion of Stable Corporate Deposits | ||
| Withdrawal of a portion of Unused Limits on Facilities for Financial Companies | ||
| Moderate | 5 | 5 |
| Medium | 10 | 10 |
| Severe | 20 | 20 |
| Withdrawal of a portion of Unstable Individual Deposits | ||
| Withdrawal of a portion of Unstable Corporate Deposits | ||
| Withdrawal of a portion of Unused Limits on Facilities for Non-Financial Companies | ||
| Moderate | 10 | |
| Medium | 20 | |
| Severe | 30 | 30 |
| Withdrawal of a portion of Unused Limits on Facilities for Individuals and Small and Medium Enterprises | ||
| Decrease in Liquid Assets | ||
| Withdrawal of the Largest Deposit * | ||
| Moderate | 5 | 1 |
| Medium | 10 | 3 |
| Severe | 20 | 5 |
Appendix (2): Scenario Tests Model
| Shock Intensity | Before Shock | After Shock |
|---|---|---|
| Additional Provisions Resulting from Applying the Shock | Impact on Profits/Losses | Regulatory Capital Adequacy Ratio |
| Before Shock | After Shock | Before Shock |
| Current Situation Scenario | ||
| Economic Growth Rate | 2.4% | |
| Unemployment Rate | 19.1% | |
| Interest Rates | 8.2% | |
| Medium Macro Stress Scenario | ||
| Economic Growth Rate | 0.16% | |
| Unemployment Rate | 21.0% | |
| Interest Rates Increase | 100 Basis Points | |
| Severe Macro Stress Scenario | ||
| Economic Growth Rate | -2.1% | |
| Unemployment Rate | 23.0% | |
| Interest Rates Increase | 200 Basis Points |
Corona Virus Spread Impact Test
| Shock Intensity | Before Shock | After Shock |
|---|---|---|
| Additional Provisions Resulting from Applying the Shock | Impact on Profits/Losses | Regulatory Capital Adequacy Ratio |
| Before Shock | After Shock | Before Shock |
| Medium Intensity Scenario |
Appendix (3): Macroeconomic Variables
| Year | Real Economic Growth Rate | Unemployment Rate | Weighted Average Interest Rates on Credit Facilities (Loans) | Inflation Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1994 | 3.60 | 10.4 | 15.80 | 4.98 |
| 1995 | 2.20 | 10.7 | 15.40 | 6.19 |
| 1996 | 6.60 | 11.6 | 13.10 | 2.08 |
| 1997 | 3.00 | 12.6 | 14.40 | 3.32 |
| 1998 | 3.10 | 12.9 | 13.50 | 3.01 |
| 1999 | 0.60 | 12.7 | 14.38 | 3.38 |
| 2000 | 0.70 | 11.4 | 13.71 | 4.25 |
| 2001 | 1.70 | 10.5 | 14.69 | 5.27 |
| 2002 | 1.90 | 9.9 | 15.33 | 5.79 |
| 2003 | 2.40 | 8.9 | 14.44 | 4.18 |
| 2004 | 2.60 | 7.6 | 14.70 | 8.56 |
| 2005 | 3.50 | 8.1 | 14.80 | 8.14 |
| 2006 | 6.30 | 8.6 | 14.00 | 8.09 |
| 2007 | 4.70 | 8.9 | 13.10 | 8.18 |
| 2008 | 13.90 | 9.5 | 12.70 | 7.23 |
| 2009 | -0.70 | 9.1 | 12.90 | 5.48 |
| 2010 | 5.10 | 9.0 | 12.50 | 2.31 |
| 2011 | 4.40 | 8.7 | 12.90 | 2.59 |
| 2012 | 4.60 | 9.0 | 12.20 | 2.65 |
| 2013 | 5.60 | 9.0 | 12.60 | 2.80 |
| 2014 | 2.90 | 8.8 | 11.90 | 3.10 |
| 2015 | -0.90 | 8.2 | 13.00 | 2.50 |
| 2016 | -0.80 | 7.8 | 15.30 | 2.00 |
| 2017 | 3.30 | 8.6 | 18.3 | 2.00 |
| 2018 | 4.50 | 8.7 | 18.6 | 2.00 |
| 2019 | 0.30 | 8.2* | 19.1* | 1.90 |
| 2020 | 2.50** | 2.4** |
More like this from CBJ
CBJ published 1 document in the last 30 days. We email you each new one the day it's published.