Banking has a unique role in the well-being of an economy. This role makes banks one of the most heavily regulated and supervised industries. In order to strengthen the soundness and stability of banking systems, regulators require banks to hold adequate capital. While credit risk was the only risk that was covered by the original Basle Accord, with the 1996 amendment, banks have also been required to assign capital for their market risk starting from 1998. In this research, the impact of the market risk capital regulations on bank capital levels and derivative activities is investigated. In addition, this study also evaluates the impact of using different approaches that are allowed to be used while calculating the required market risk capital, as well as the accuracy of VaR models. The implementation of the market risk capital regulations can influence banks either by increasing their capital or by decreasing their trading activities and in particular trading derivative activities. The literature review concerning capital regulations illustrates that in particular the impact of these regulations on bank capital levels and derivative activities is an issue that has not yet been explored. In order to fill this gap, the changes in capital and derivatives usage ratios are modelled by using a partial adjustment framework. The main results of this analysis suggest that the implementation of the market risk capital regulations has a significant and positive impact on the risk-based capital ratios of BHCs. However, the results do not indicate any impact of these regulations on derivative activities. The empirical findings also demonstrate that there is no significant relationship between capital and derivatives. The market risk capital regulations allow the use of either a standardised approach or the VaR methodologies to determine the required capital amounts to cover market risk. In order to evaluate these approaches, firstly differences on bank VaR practices are investigated by employing a documentary analysis. The documentary analysis is conducted to demonstrate the differences in bank VaR practices by comparing the VaR models of 25 international banks. The survey results demonstrate that there, is no industry consensus on the methodology for calculating VaR. This analysis also indicates that the assumptions in estimating VaR models vary considerably among financial institutions. Therefore, it is very difficult for financial market participants to make comparisons across institutions by considering single VaR values. Secondly, the required capital amounts are calculated for two hypothetical foreign exchange portfolios by using both the standardised and three different VaR methodologies, and then these capital amounts are compared. These simulations are conducted to understand to what extent the market risk capital regulations approaches produce different outcomes on the capital levels. The results indicate that the VaR estimates are dependent upon the VaR methodology. Thirdly, three backtesting methodologies are applied to the VaR models. The results indicate that a VaR model that provides accurate estimates for a specific portfolio could fail when the portfolio composition changes. The results of the simulations indicate that the market risk capital regulations do not provide a `level playing field' for banks that are subject to these regulations. In addition, giving an option to banks to determine the VaR methodology could create a moral hazard problem as banks may choose an inaccurate model that provides less required capital amounts.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:bl.uk/oai:ethos.bl.uk:432207 |
| Date | January 2006 |
| Creators | Eksi, Emrah |
| Publisher | Loughborough University |
| Source Sets | Ethos UK |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Electronic Thesis or Dissertation |
| Source | https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/7837 |
Page generated in 0.0019 seconds