Proposed revisions to the standardised approach (SA) and internal ratings based approach (IRB) to credit risk are expected to narrow the gap between SA and IRB risk weights in the residential mortgage market. This should facilitate competition between firms, supporting the Prudential Regulation Authority’s (PRA’s) secondary objective, and inform the PRA’s thinking in designing a simpler risk-based capital framework for small banks and building societies.
Previous researchfootnote [1] indicates that firms using the SA to credit risk may have a reduced ability to compete compared to firms using the IRB approach, which allows firms to model their risk-weighted assets (RWAs).footnote [2] This is in part because internal modelling can often produce lower RWAs, which reduces the amount of capital required against those assets and therefore could potentially impact lending costs relative to the SA.footnote [3] footnote [4]
This issue was particularly acute in the residential mortgage market, where a large gap between risk weights (RWs) calculated using the SA and the IRB approach was identified, especially for lower loan to value (LTV) mortgages. PRA staff research found this may also incentivise firms using the SA to concentrate in riskier exposures, raising concerns around the safety and soundness of these firms.
New stylised analysis suggests this gap could narrow in the next few years. Charts A and B illustrate current mortgage RWs (Average IRB RWs (2021) and SA RWs (2021)) in the owner-occupier and buy-to-let (BTL) markets, and the potential impact of certain policies. They are based on regulatory data, supervisory intelligence, firms’ disclosures, and staff calculations.
Chart A: Stylised analysis of SA and average IRB risk weights for owner-occupier mortgages, pre and post reforms (a) (b)
Footnotes
- (a) The ‘Average IRB RWs (2021)’ line follows the methodology used to produce the IRB Benchmark in the PRA’s Statement of Policy for setting Pillar 2 capital.
- (b) The IRB RWs represented in the charts are adjusted for expected loss (EL). The final risk weight is calculated as (RWA + 12.5*EL) divided by exposure value at each LTV band.
There are two key drivers of the narrowing gap:
- The PRA’s proposed implementation of the Basel 3.1 standards would introduce a more risk-sensitive SA framework for credit risk. If implemented, for typically smaller firms using the Basel 3.1 SA this will decrease RWs for owner-occupier mortgages with LTV ratios below 80% (SA RWs (2021) versus Basel 3.1 SA RWs (2025) lines, Chart A). This alone narrows the existing gap at the 0%–50% LTV band by almost 45%.
- Changes to IRB modelling of mortgage risk, stemming from hybrid modelling and the IRB roadmap which are primarily aimed at reducing unwarranted variability in RWAs across banks, are likely to somewhat increase average IRB mortgage RWs, all else being equal.footnote [5] These changes include a revised definition of default and ‘hybrid‘ probability of default models. The shaded area shows a stylised landing zone for average IRB RWs, based on currently available estimates of how IRB reforms may affect residential mortgage RWs at different LTV bands and in current economic conditions.
Bringing these together, the gap between SA and average IRB RWs for residential mortgages will narrow. For owner-occupier mortgages with LTV ratios below 50%, it could narrow from around 5.5x to between 2.5x and 1.5x by 2025, depending on firms’ responses to IRB policy changes. A broadly similar pattern would be observed all along the risk spectrum, including in the 70%–90% LTV range where many new mortgages are issued. For BTL mortgages with LTV ratios below 50%, the gap could narrow from approximately 4.5x to between 3x and 2x (Chart B). It is worth noting that for BTL with LTVs greater than 80%, both the current and future (Basel 3.1) SA have lower RWs than the average RW under the IRB.
Chart B: Stylised analysis of SA and average IRB risk weights for buy-to-let mortgages, pre and post reforms
Footnotes
- See footnotes (a) and (b) of Chart A.
This analysis is not a forecast of residential mortgage RWs. There is uncertainty around hybrid IRB RWs as hybrid models still need to be approved and data are limited. Moreover, LTV is not the only driver of credit risk in hybrid IRB models and macroeconomic conditions may affect hybrid IRB RWs.
While uncertain, the analysis does suggest a smaller SA-IRB gap that may facilitate competition to a greater degree in the mortgage market in the future. This will be an important factor for the PRA in designing a simpler prudential regime for small banks and building societies, in line with its secondary objective to facilitate effective competition between firms. As set out in The Strong and Simple Framework: Liquidity and Disclosure Requirements for Simpler-regime Firms consultation paper, ‘The PRA is making the planning assumption that the Basel 3.1 Pillar 1 approach to credit risk would be the starting point for designing the simpler-regime risk-based capital framework. This is because the PRA considers the proposed Basel 3.1 Pillar 1 approach to credit risk to represent an improvement over the current capital rules; they would be more risk sensitive and would facilitate competition without compromising safety and soundness’, as this analysis indicates. The PRA intends in Phase 2 to focus on simplifications to Pillar 2 and buffer requirements for Simpler-regime Firms.
This post was prepared with the help of Marco Schneebalg, James McGoay, Ala Marar and Faith Bannier.
This analysis was presented to the Prudential Regulation Committee in January 2023.
Share your thoughts with us at BankOverground@bankofengland.co.uk
“The Bank of England is the central bank of the United Kingdom and the model on which most modern central banks have been based. Established in 1694 to act as the English Government’s banker, and still one of the bankers for the Government of the United Kingdom, it is the world’s eighth-oldest bank.”
Please visit the firm link to site