When is a Supervisory Recognized External Rating Worthwhile for a Medium-Sized Enterprise and its Bank? – An Empirical Analysis Against the Background of Basel III

Stefan Stein, D. Kaltofen
{"title":"When is a Supervisory Recognized External Rating Worthwhile for a Medium-Sized Enterprise and its Bank? – An Empirical Analysis Against the Background of Basel III","authors":"Stefan Stein, D. Kaltofen","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2047649","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Germany, more than 95% of the credit institutions report their regulatory capital requirements for counterparty risk by means of the credit risk standardized approach (CRSA) instead of the more sophisticated internal rating based approach (IRBA). Though the CRSA allows a partially risk sensitive calculation of the banks’ regulatory capital German CRSA-banks cannot benefit from this provision as only around 100 non-financial companies have the required published agency rating on hand. We examine, whether the upcoming re-regulation of the banking business Basel III is a driver for both CRSA-banks and their preponderantly medium-sized corporate borrowers to push the use of external corporate ratings. Evaluating a unique sample of 26,025 data sets of German medium-sized companies, we find that under the provisions of Basel III CRSA-banks may experience only minor savings of about 0.5 billion euros in their regulatory capital if their corporate customers had a supervisory recognized rating available. Projected to the total population of German corporates, the exposures of around 9,000 of them potentially qualify for lower risk weights within the CRSA, while estimated 200 are eligible for financial benefits that match or even overcompensate the incurred costs of an external rating. Respectively, for the majority of German companies the benefits of such ratings rather reflect improvements in strategic management issues than lower financing costs.","PeriodicalId":420844,"journal":{"name":"INTL: Economic & Financial Issues (Topic)","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"INTL: Economic & Financial Issues (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2047649","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In Germany, more than 95% of the credit institutions report their regulatory capital requirements for counterparty risk by means of the credit risk standardized approach (CRSA) instead of the more sophisticated internal rating based approach (IRBA). Though the CRSA allows a partially risk sensitive calculation of the banks’ regulatory capital German CRSA-banks cannot benefit from this provision as only around 100 non-financial companies have the required published agency rating on hand. We examine, whether the upcoming re-regulation of the banking business Basel III is a driver for both CRSA-banks and their preponderantly medium-sized corporate borrowers to push the use of external corporate ratings. Evaluating a unique sample of 26,025 data sets of German medium-sized companies, we find that under the provisions of Basel III CRSA-banks may experience only minor savings of about 0.5 billion euros in their regulatory capital if their corporate customers had a supervisory recognized rating available. Projected to the total population of German corporates, the exposures of around 9,000 of them potentially qualify for lower risk weights within the CRSA, while estimated 200 are eligible for financial benefits that match or even overcompensate the incurred costs of an external rating. Respectively, for the majority of German companies the benefits of such ratings rather reflect improvements in strategic management issues than lower financing costs.
监管认可的外部评级何时对中型企业及其银行有价值?——巴塞尔协议III背景下的实证分析
在德国,超过95%的信贷机构通过信用风险标准化方法(CRSA)而不是更复杂的基于内部评级的方法(IRBA)来报告其对交易对手风险的监管资本要求。尽管CRSA允许对银行的监管资本进行部分风险敏感的计算,但德国的CRSA银行不能从这一条款中受益,因为只有大约100家非金融公司拥有所需的公布机构评级。我们研究了即将到来的银行业务重新监管巴塞尔协议III是否是crsa银行及其主要中型企业借款人推动使用外部公司评级的驱动因素。通过对德国中型企业26,025个数据集的独特样本进行评估,我们发现,在巴塞尔协议III crsa的规定下,如果企业客户拥有监管认可的评级,银行可能只会节省约5亿欧元的监管资本。根据德国企业的总体情况,约有9000家企业的风险敞口可能符合CRSA内较低的风险权重,而估计有200家企业有资格获得与外部评级相匹配甚至过高补偿所产生成本的财务利益。分别而言,对大多数德国企业而言,这类评级的好处更多地反映了战略管理问题的改善,而非融资成本的降低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信