Consultation on Basel III: Liquidity Management
- Issued:26 April 2017
Consultation on Basel III: Liquidity Management
Please note that terms in italics are defined in the Glossary of Terms.
The JFSC invites comments on this consultation paper. Responses may be sent directly to David Fisher at the JFSC by 26 July 2017. If you require any assistance, clarification or wish to discuss any aspect of the proposal prior to formulating a response, it is of course appropriate to contact the JFSC.
The JFSC contacts are:
Senior Risk Analyst
Senior Examiner, Banking
Jersey Financial Services JFSC
PO Box 267
14-18 Castle Street
Telephone:+44 (0) 1534 822106
Telephone:+44 (0) 1534 822054
Alternatively, Thomas Cowsill at Jersey Finance is co‑ordinating an Industry response that will incorporate any matters raised by local businesses. Comments should reach Jersey Finance by 26 July 2017.
Responses should be sent to:
Head of Technical
Jersey Finance Limited
4th Floor, Sir Walter Raleigh House
Telephone:+44 (0) 1534 836000
Facsimile:+44 (0) 1534 836001
It is the policy of the JFSC to make the content of all responses available for public inspection (unless specifically requested otherwise by the respondent).
It is the policy of Jersey Finance (unless otherwise requested or agreed) to collate all responses and share them verbatim with the JFSC on an anonymised basis (with reference made only to the type of respondent, e.g. individual, law firm, trust company etc). This collated, anonymised response will, typically, be placed in Jersey Finance’s permanent electronic archive which is currently open to all Jersey Finance members.
All defined terms used in this consultation are indicated by italics and defined in the Glossary of Terms.
Please click here to view the Glossary of Terms.
1.1.1 This paper proposes revised regulatory requirements for liquidity management and reporting in Jersey. It uses as its basis papers issued by the Basel Committee as part of the group of new and revised standards referred to as Basel III. In so doing, it addresses the similar EU proposals incorporated in CRR.
1.1.2 This paper builds upon the earlier Liquidity DP, issued jointly by the Tri-Party Group, feedback received and the joint feedback document issued to industry, which are all available on the JFSC’s website, specifically in the page titled “Basel III: Implementation in Jersey”, at:
1.1.3 This website also contains links to the other documents issued by the JFSC regarding Basel III, including both consultation papers, discussion papers (whether issued solely by the JFSC or jointly with other members of the Tri-Party Group) and feedback papers issued addressing responses from industry.
1.2.1 Sections 4, 5, and 6 establish proposals for the implementation of the liquidity element of Basel III in respect to Jersey Incorporated Banks (herein also designated by the acronym JIB where there are repeated references in a Section), where under international standards the JFSC has primary responsibility for oversight.
1.2.2 Section 5 (on reporting) also addresses changes to the prudential reporting of the liquidity position of Overseas Incorporated Banks (herein also designated by the acronym OIB where there are repeated references in a Section), this being the only section that is directly relevant to OIBs.
1.2.3 The central proposal, set out in Section 4, is for the implementation in Jersey of the LCR component of Basel III as set out in the LCR Standard, with certain amendments being proposed to reflect local banking sector characteristics, including:
220.127.116.11 The fact that all impacted banks (JIBs only) are subsidiaries of large banking groups, whereas the standard was designed for application on a consolidated basis and
18.104.22.168 The importance and differentiated nature of funding derived from a wide variety of fiduciary relationships.
1.2.4 These amendments are limited, reflecting the fact that most of the LCR’s principles are considered to be appropriate for solo application to a subsidiary in Jersey. The only significant divergences are in respect of the treatment of intra-group lending and fiduciary deposits.
1.2.5 The most impactful changes, versus the current liquidity management requirements for JIBs, are:
22.214.171.124 The LCR requires that liquid assets (called HQLA in the LCR) exceed net outflows predicted over a one month period. In comparison, existing rules allow a small mismatch at one month (5%) though one week net predicted outflows must be covered in full;
126.96.36.199 The new rules regarding the recognition of HQLA are more extensive and conservative than the current rules regarding the recognition of marketable assets. In particular, most bank issued debt instruments, such as floating rate notes and certificates of deposit, are ineligible, and as such have only got a value for LCR purposes where payments are contractually due within one month; and
188.8.131.52 The LCR establishes minima for different categories of predicted outflows (as a percentage of outflows falling due on a contractual basis within one month) that vary from 5% for the most sticky retail deposits to 100% for inter-bank deposits. In most cases, these minima would not result in higher outflows being predicted than under current behavioural adjustments agreed with banks. The proposals in respect of fiduciary deposits are a possible exception, where the proposed exceptions to the LCR Standard’s 100% requirement has been modified but the resultant proposal may still impact some JIBs.
1.2.6 Section 5 addresses revisions to reporting requirements. For a JIB, these are more extensive than current requirements, reflecting a desire to more fully understand its liquidity position including, but not limited to, its LCR. In particular, reporting of its NSFR, a longer term standard specified in Basel III, is required in order to provide information on the stability of a JIB’s funding base beyond the narrow timeframe (one month) of the LCR.
1.2.7 More limited reporting requirements are proposed for OIBs, to provide the necessary understanding of the OIB’s liquidity, whilst recognising that the principal responsibility for oversight rests with the OIB’s home regulator.
1.2.8 Section 6 contains proposals for how JIBs should document their internal liquidity assessment processes within their ICAAP documentation. Specific stress testing will be required:
184.108.40.206 In connection with all modifications to predicted flows, an assessment of anticipated stressed behaviour (including an assessment of evidenced historical behaviour; during recent periods and any relevant stress periods); and
220.127.116.11 In connection with HQLA, an assessment of stressed availability (through sale or repo, based on operational use tests).
1.2.9 These proposals form part of the JFSC’s implementation of Basel III. Section 7 provides an outline of local implementation plans, building on the plans provided in the Capital Elements DP, issued in March 2016.
1.2.10 Sections 8 and 9 set out respectively a cost benefit analysis of the proposals and a summary of specific questions raised herein.
1.2.11 Draft proposed prudential reporting guides and revisions to the Banking Codes are set out in Appendices B to I, whilst Appendix J contains draft revisions to the Banking Codes.
1.3.1 The proposals in this consultation paper have the potential to affect all persons that are registered under the Banking Law.
1.3.2 Current and proposed regulation of OIBs does not include prudential requirements in respect of capital; OIBs will not be subject to the new local prudential liquidity regulations but instead only be impacted by limited changes to regulatory reporting set out in Section 5. All other proposed changes impact JIBs only.
1.3.3 The proposals may, and are intended to, encourage those directly affected to manage their business to reflect liquidity costs and risks. This could result in the preferential pricing of longer-term funding compared to short-term funding, particularly in the case of deposits, where no adjustment is permitted in the proposed LCR, such as pooled fiduciary deposits.
2.1.1 The JFSC has issued this consultation paper in accordance with Article 8(3) of the Commission Law, as amended, under which the JFSC “may, in connection with the carrying out of its functions - ….consult and seek the advice of such persons or bodies whether inside or outside Jersey as it considers appropriate”.
2.2.1 The JFSC invites comments in writing from interested parties on the proposals included in this consultation paper. Where comments are made by an industry body or association, that body or association should also provide a summary of the type of individuals and/or institutions that it represents.
2.2.2 To assist in analysing responses to the consultation paper, respondents are asked to:
18.104.22.168 Prioritise comments and to indicate their relative importance; and
22.214.171.124 Respond as specifically as possible and, where they refer to costs, to quantify those costs.
2.2.3 An Excel based response form has been published alongside this consultation, available at:
2.2.4 Direct respondents that are registered under the Banking Law are requested to complete that form in Excel and then upload it to the JFSC by using the secure upload site on the JFSC’s website at:
2.2.5 All other respondents are requested to use the response form when responding, either directly or via Jersey Finance. For the avoidance of doubt, all responses received, in whatever fashion, will be considered, with the response form intended only to ease processing by the JFSC.
2.3.1 Feedback will be assessed and it is intended to provide industry with a document that addresses this in due course, outlining any changes to the proposals documented herein. The expectation is that:
126.96.36.199 Work on revisions to prudential reporting systems and the testing thereof will take place in 2017/2018, with all banks affected by implementation towards the end of this period. Updates will be provided on technical matters and revised guidance issued in due course.
2.3.2 The Banking Codes will be revised in 2018 to introduce the new and revised requirements set out in Sections 4 to 6 (see Appendix J for full details) as follows:
188.8.131.52 Section 5 of the Banking Codes will be expanded to include a sub-section on liquidity risk, establishing the requirement to monitor the LCR/LMR daily and include coverage of liquidity risk in the ICAAP;
184.108.40.206 Section 6 of the Banking Codes will be expanded to include notification requirements that would arise if the LCR/LMR dropped below 100%; and
220.127.116.11 The Schedule in the Banking Codes will be amended to reflect the new reporting requirements, as specified in Appendices B to I.
2.3.3 The Pillar 2 Guidance Note will be amended and issued together with the revised Banking Codes to reflect the proposals outlined in Section 6 and any feedback received to this consultation, and provide any additional guidance necessary to aid JIBs in assessing liquidity risk in their ICAAPs.
3.1.1 The JFSC is a statutory body corporate established under the Commission Law. It is responsible for the supervision and development of financial services provided in or from within Jersey.
3.2.1 The Commission Law prescribes that the JFSC shall be responsible for:
18.104.22.168 The supervision and development of financial services provided in or from within Jersey;
22.214.171.124 Providing the States of Jersey, any Minister or any other public body with reports, advice, assistance and information in relation to any matter connected with financial services;
126.96.36.199 Preparing and submitting to the Chief Minister recommendations for the introduction, amendment or replacement of legislation appertaining to financial services, companies and other forms of business structure;
188.8.131.52 Such functions in relation to financial services or such incidental or ancillary matters:
› As are required or authorised by or under any enactment, or
› As the States of Jersey may, by Regulations, transfer and
184.108.40.206 Such other functions as are conferred on the JFSC by any other Law or enactment.
3.3.1 The JFSC’s guiding principles require it to have particular regard to:
220.127.116.11 The reduction of risk to the public of financial loss due to dishonesty, incompetence, malpractice, or the financial unsoundness of persons carrying on the business of financial services in or from within Jersey;
18.104.22.168 The protection and enhancement of the reputation and integrity of Jersey in commercial and financial matters;
22.214.171.124 The best economic interests of Jersey; and
126.96.36.199 The need to counter financial crime in both Jersey and elsewhere.
4.1.1 In June 2006, the Basel Committee issued, in comprehensive form, a framework for regulatory requirements for the capital adequacy of international banks. This document, “International Convergence of Capital Measurement and Capital Standards”, became known as Basel II.
4.1.2 Latterly, the Basel Committee has worked to revise Basel II. This work has resulted in a number of standards being issued that either revise Basel II or establish new international standards regarding the financial strength of international banks. Collectively, this initiative is described by the Basel Committee as Basel III, which encompasses liquidity measures as well as revised capital adequacy rules.
4.1.3 The Tri-Party Group - the JFSC, GFSC and IOMFSC (now part of the IOMFSA) – sought to establish a unified approach, wherever possible, to implementing Basel II during the period 2005 to 2008.
4.1.4 The Tri-Party Group issued the Basel III DP in September 2012 to all banks that are incorporated in the CDs to provide information on Basel III and an indication of initial views, and in order to solicit feedback. This noted that local banks are not necessarily considered to fall under the scope of Basel III, except on consolidation.
4.1.5 However, it was explained that the Tri-Party Group considered that aspects of Basel III may be relevant in the CDs and that a move to a more uniform minimum standard across the CDs is a worthwhile goal in itself, to meet industry’s regular calls for commonality and to limit opportunities for regulatory arbitrage.
4.1.6 Subsequently, the Tri-Party Group issued the Basel III Liquidity DP in July 2015 (and issued the Basel III DP Feedback in February 2016 to address feedback received), building on the Basel III DP. This addressed the new international standards set out in “Basel III: International framework for liquidity risk measurement, standards and monitoring”, issued in December 2010 and subsequently revised further in the LCR Standard and the NSFR standard.
4.1.7 In the Basel III Liquidity DP, the Tri-party Group proposed that a Basel III consistent approach should be implemented for liquidity at local level.
4.1.8 This paper establishes proposals for Jersey Incorporated Banks that are:
188.8.131.52 Based on relevant elements of the LCR and NSFR, as set out in the relevant standards;
184.108.40.206 Appropriate for JIB management of liquidity; and
220.127.116.11 Consistent with the common proposals set out in the Basel III Liquidity DP, save for modifications intended to reflect the Basel III DP Feedback.
4.1.9 To facilitate the introduction of revised prudential reporting requirements, much of the terminology used will be in line with the definitions in the Basel Committee paper “Liquidity coverage ratio disclosure standards”, issued in January 2014 and revised March 2014. This sets out a disclosure framework for internationally active banks regarding the LCR. The framework is a useful starting point and many JIBs will be subject to either it or similar disclosure requirements on a consolidated level.
4.1.10 Timescales for implementation are uncertain at this time, principally due to practical constraints regarding the introduction of a new prudential reporting system. However, the JFSC intends to have the new system fully operational and in place by the end of 2018 at the latest. Further transition details are provided in Section 4.9.
4.2.1 This section describes how the LCR Standard requirements will be implemented in Jersey for all JIBs (it is not relevant to OIBs).
4.2.2 The LCR Standard is similar to the liquidity mismatch requirements currently prescribed for JIBs in that:
18.104.22.168 It requires predicted outflows to be met by a mixture of predicted inflows and HQLA; and
22.214.171.124 Predicted flows are based on a mixture of contractual and behaviourally based projections.
4.2.3 The main differences are:
126.96.36.199 The definition of HQLA in the LCR Standard is more conservative and detailed than the definition of marketable assets used currently;
188.8.131.52 the LCR Standard limits the extent to which inflows may offset outflows as it requires that HQLA must equate to at least 25% of adjusted outflows in all cases, whereas the current standard has no limit, permitting inflows to fully offset outflows;
184.108.40.206 Current allowances for depositor behaviour currently vary across banks, based solely on individual submissions, with no minima. In particular, the LCR Standard specifies that for fiduciary deposits 100% of contractually due flows must be covered, whereas currently the mismatch approach permits banks to use assumptions based on their own analysis;
220.127.116.11 a one week metric applies under the current mismatch approach, in addition to a one month metric; and
18.104.22.168 The current mismatch permits a small shortfall (5% of deposits) whereas the LCR Standard requires HQLA to exceed net predicted outflows.
4.2.4 Sub-sections 4.3 to 4.5 describe how the proposals have been amended to reduce the impact of the first three of these items.
4.2.5 Proposals are outlined in detail in Appendices B and C, published as separate documents, which will form the basis for reporting and guidance regarding internal assessment. Sections 5 and 6 respectively provide an overview of these documents.
4.3.1 Fiduciary deposits, for these purposes, include:
22.214.171.124 “Swiss fiduciary deposits”: amalgamated customer deposits placed by banks with other banks;
126.96.36.199 Deposits from trustees on behalf of trusts, whether pooled or not;
188.8.131.52 Deposits placed by investment firms on behalf of one or more clients, within an investment mandate; and
184.108.40.206 Any other deposit that is known to be managed by a financial entity on behalf of a customer.
4.3.2 The LCR Standard requirement for fiduciary deposits to be treated as a 100% contractual outflow in all cases, with no reflection of stickiness except in the case of certain operational deposits, is not considered to be an appropriately balanced approach for all local circumstances.
4.3.3 On 10 October 2014, the EU adopted the EU LCR Delegated Act, which effected EU implementation of the LCR. This provides that a deposit made by a PIC could be treated similarly to a deposit from a non-financial corporate customer and hence attract a 40% outflow rate. A PIC is defined in that Act as:
220.127.116.11 “… an undertaking or a trust whose owner or beneficial owner, respectively, is a natural person or a group of closely related natural persons, which was set up with the sole purpose of managing the wealth of the owners and which does not carry out any other commercial, industrial or professional activity. The purpose of the PIC may include other ancillary activities such as segregating the owners’ assets from corporate assets, facilitating the transmission of assets within a family or preventing a split of the assets after the death of a member of the family, provided these are connected to the main purpose of managing the owners’ wealth”.
4.3.4 It is proposed to provide a similar specific beneficial treatment locally for PIC deposits. This is considered appropriate because:
18.104.22.168 There is evidence locally of stickiness. This might not reflect the experience of overseas supervisors that have seen a greater number of bank failures, which appears to have driven the very conservative approach set out in Basel III;
22.214.171.124 Basel III is designed for implementation by a small number of internationally active institutions, whereas locally it will apply to all JIBs;
126.96.36.199 And Basel III is designed to be applied at the consolidated level, whilst it will apply at the solo level in Jersey.
4.3.5 Specific intentions regarding the beneficial treatment are set out below (and expanded in the “LCR/LMR Guide” (Appendix C):
188.8.131.52 It is proposed that adjustments be permitted for short-term deposits from PICs (using a similar definition for PIC to that in the EU LCR Delegated Act), where (1) the deposit is placed by the PIC itself or (2) it is placed on a designated basis by a fiduciary.
184.108.40.206 Such deposits would be treated as deposits from non-financial corporates, and hence a 40% minimum outflow assumption will apply.
4.3.6 This is not intended to benefit all fiduciary deposits: clear parameters will be established and fiduciary deposits that fall outside of these (such as deposits placed on a pooled basis and deposits from trusts that do not meet the specific definition in Appendix C) would attract the 100% minimum outflow assumption set in the LCR (unless they meet the definition of an operational deposit, see Appendix C).
4.3.7 The impact for fiduciary deposits that do not meet the definition of a PIC deposit (such as deposits placed on a pooled basis and deposits from trusts that do not meet the specific definition in Appendix C) but for which behavioural adjustments are currently applied would be that they now attract a 100% outflow rate, requiring more liquidity to be held where the deposit matures within one month.
4.3.8 It is anticipated that the period before implementation would enable banks to work with fiduciary managers to mitigate any negative consequences as follows:
220.127.116.11 Banks could perhaps better reflect liquidity costs in pricing, in order to provide fiduciary managers with an incentive to place deposits longer term and reduce the net liquidity cost to the bank. Fiduciary managers could then place deposits on a longer term basis to mitigate the consequential impact on the pricing of short-term deposits; and
18.104.22.168 Products such as longer term notice or fixed term deposits could be used to balance the need for access versus liquidity cost. Where banks pursue such approaches, they should comprehensively assess the impact on liquidity.
4.3.9 Question 1: Do you consider that the proposals regarding fiduciary deposits would be likely to give rise to a loss of business or profitability? If so, are there appropriate additional measures that could mitigate the impact of these proposals? If so, please outline them, together with a brief assessment of pros and cons and provide relevant evidence.
4.4.1 The impact arising from the LCR’s limited recognition of inflows stems from its limitation that inflows may only offset 75% of outflows when determining the HQLA requirement.
4.4.2 Most banks in the CDs are part of larger groups that hold HQLA but in many cases these assets are held centrally, with loans from group used to provide liquidity to local banks when needed.
4.4.3 It is therefore proposed to establish, as an option, an alternative standard (the LMR), whereby projected inflows that occur within one week from group banks for which a Concession Limit has been established are permitted to fully offset projected outflows, rather than being subject to the 75% of outflows limitation that would apply for all other classes of inflow.
4.4.4 It is anticipated that JIBs utilising such an approach would have no requirement for HQLA and hence the LMR is formulated as the ratio of [HQLA plus projected inflows] to projected outflows to avoid this causing calculation issues (see Section 5 and Appendix C for full details).
4.4.5 JIBs would be required to use the LCR (default) or seek approval to use the LMR. Permission would depend on an assessment of specific circumstances, including the extent to which the JIB’s internal management of liquidity, as set out in its LMP, relied on projected inflows as opposed to HQLA (any substantial reliance would be inconsistent with LMR use) and confirmation that the group was subject to LCR based liquidity requirements on a consolidated basis.
4.4.6 Question 2: Do you consider that there are appropriate additional measures to those outlined in Section 4.4 that could mitigate the impact of these proposals? If so, please outline them, together with a brief assessment of pros and cons.
4.5.1 These proposals use the LCR standard’s definition of HQLAs, which is tighter than the current definition of marketable assets. The impact will vary, depending on the assets banks currently use and the extent to which they were already planning to only use HQLA.
4.5.2 Few JIBs hold any marketable assets for liquidity management purposes that do not meet the HQLA criteria (outside of JIBs that are currently solely reliant on intragroup flows) and hence the expected impact on industry of the changed definition is expected to be relatively small.
4.5.3 However, JIBs will need to ensure that all relevant criteria are met (as set out in Appendix B) and some might see higher net liquidity costs, if higher yielding marketable assets are found to be ineligible and hence need to be replaced with lower-yielding eligible HQLA.
4.5.4 These are a mixture of general and operational requirements. The general requirements relate to the asset itself, whilst the operational requirements relate to the ability of the JIB to realise the asset.
4.5.5 In particular, it is proposed that where a JIB wishes to classify an asset as HQLA, it should be able to show that it can either repo the asset or sell the asset without any undue barriers applying. The potential impact on capital of a sale could be such a barrier, hence it is proposed to require that if designation relies on the ability to sell an asset then it must be held at fair-value, in order to minimise the risk of loss on sale. This does not mean that such assets must be held in a Trading Book but it is anticipated that JIBs will give due consideration to such designation when considering how to manage the risk relating to the revaluation of HQLA.
4.5.6 The HQLA criteria are particularly onerous for jurisdictions where the available securities do not meet the eligibility criteria. This is not considered to be the case for any JIB nor is this considered to be an issue for any jurisdiction in which a JIB currently has a branch. However, relevant provisions from the LCR Standard will be implemented to enable adjustments to be made in the case that a branch operated in a jurisdiction where the local supervisor determined that such circumstances applied (see Appendix B).
4.5.7 The CRR definitions are generally less tight and include covered bonds in Tier 1, low rated government securities and a wider range of asset backed securities. No JIB currently relies on such assets to provide liquidity locally. (The EU’s implementation appears in a number of aspects to go against the official advice provided publically by the EBA).
4.5.8 It is concluded that there is no necessity or clear basis for such a divergence locally and JIBs should therefore be aware that the local implementation is more conservative than that required by the CRR.
4.5.9 Nevertheless, the use of the international standard definition of HQLA should aid group reporting for all JIB banks as assets should be eligible HQLA at group level, and hence useful in meeting consolidated liquidity in all cases.
4.5.10 Question 3: Do you consider that there are appropriate additional measures to those outlined in Section 4.5 that could mitigate the impact of the proposals for HQLA? If so, please outline them, together with a brief assessment of pros and cons.
4.6.1 The Basel Committee emphasised that it is intended that HQLA held would be available for use in a crisis. The wording in the LCR Standard is:
22.214.171.124 “The Committee also reaffirms its view that, during periods of stress, it would be entirely appropriate for banks to use their stock of HQLA, thereby falling below the minimum. Supervisors will subsequently assess this situation and will give guidance on usability according to circumstances.”
4.6.2 It is proposed to adopt a similar position locally. Hence, the LCR (or LMR) will be established as a notification requirement in the Banking Codes, rather than an absolute minimum. JIBs would be required to calculate the ratio daily using approaches consistent with the prudential reporting guidance provided in the HQLA and LCR/LMR Guides (Appendices B and C) and immediately inform the JFSC of any actual or imminent breach of the 100% minimum, and would be expected to put forward plans to remedy it. The supervisory response would depend on the specific circumstances, and the nature and scale of the breach.
4.6.3 It is accepted that extraordinary circumstances may lead to breaches even outside times of widespread stress but a pattern of repeated breaches should be avoided.
4.7.1 For all JIBs currently registered, it is considered that the solo position (i.e. the liquidity position of the company on a standalone basis) is the most important at times of stress.
4.7.2 However, it may be considered necessary, on a case-by-case basis, to also consider the consolidated position (i.e. the liquidity position of the company and its sub-group of subsidiaries, measured on a consolidated basis, discounting flows within this sub-group) but only where the JIB itself has significant deposit-taking subsidiaries.
4.7.3 In these cases, it is proposed to require that the consolidated position of the JIB sub-group be subject to the same rules and reporting requirements as for the solo position. It is envisaged that this would be established as a condition of registration.
4.8.1 It is proposed to require that self-assessment of liquidity be undertaken by JIBs. As part of this, JIBs will be required, via the Banking Codes, to consider the appropriateness of the minimum standards established in the LCR/LMR and document this within their ICAAPs. This would be subject to JFSC review as part of its review of the ICAAP – mirroring the Pillar 2 processes applicable currently for capital adequacy.
4.8.2 Where the percentages in the LCR/LMR are found to be insufficiently conservative, JIBs will be required to determine and use more conservative numbers (that lead to increased HQLA requirements). The LCR Standard will serve as a minimum and hence no adjustments will be permitted if a JIB considers a percentage to be inappropriate where this would lead to HQLA requirements being reduced.
4.8.3 The JIB should also consider if 100% is the most appropriate minimum ratio; it is possible that, following the review, a notification ratio could be set that is higher than 100%.
4.8.4 It is envisaged that any:
126.96.36.199 JIB specific outflow/inflow rates (above/below those set out in the LCR Standard);
188.8.131.52 JIB specific notification ratio; and
184.108.40.206 Other changes required as a result of the JFSC’sreview of a JIB’sICAAP
Would be established as a Condition of Registration.
4.8.5 The revised requirements would apply for internal monitoring and prudential reporting purposes, in place of those in the relevant Guides.
4.9.1 Before 2019, the LCR Standard allows banks to hold only a proportion of the HQLA required by the calculation.
4.9.2 There does not appear to be sufficient benefit locally from such a phased approach.
4.9.3 Instead, the proposal is to introduce the new approach for the quarter period ending December 2018 (at 100%). It is envisaged that parallel reporting will be enabled for the period ending September 2018.
4.9.4 The exact timing of this switch may be affected by practicalities such as the development of revised reporting systems but will not be made mandatory for any earlier date than December 2018 (earlier parallel testing may occur on a voluntary basis, to the extent practical).
4.9.5 JIBs will be required to fully assess the appropriateness of all the parameters used for the purpose of calculating their LCR in their 2019 ICAAPs.
4.9.6 Prior to the assessment of these ICAAPs, and subject to prior agreement from the JFSC, it is proposed to allow JIBs to use existing LBAs (those relating to 1 month outflows) as a basis for deriving percentage outflows for the LCR in 2018 and throughout 2019 provided that:
220.127.116.11 They can provide a mapping of LBAs to the LCR categories; and
18.104.22.168 They apply the relevant minima.
4.9.7 For example, if a JIB had an LBA for all deposits that was demonstrated to be equivalent to a 30% outflow rate under the LCR, it could use this rate for retail deposits, (sticky and non-sticky) as lower rates are permitted in the LCR but would use the LCR minimum of 100% for deposits from banks, this being the minimum permitted.
4.9.8 Where no such mapping is agreed, JIBs will be required to either:
22.214.171.124 Provide full coverage in their 2018 ICAAP; or
126.96.36.199 Use the most conservative rates applicable in all cases (100% outflow rates for all deposits maturing within one month).
4.9.9 In respect of HQLA, it is proposed to permit JIBs to recognise marketable assets as HQLA until the end of 2019, provided that they meet established group criteria for the recognition as HQLA for group LCR reporting purposes, without needing to demonstrate that all the JFSC’s requirements are met.
4.9.10 For the JIB’s 2019 ICAAP, the JIB’s assessment, and the JFSC’s review and resultant feedback provided to the JIB, will be based solely on the requirements set out in the HQLA Guide (Appendix B).
4.9.11 The intended result will therefore be that, by the end of 2019, an ICAAP will have been provided that includes a full assessment of all aspects of liquidity, so that in 2020 and later years all aspects have been fully assessed by the JIB and reviewed by the JFSC.
4.9.12 Section 6 provides further details on what should be assessed and how this will be implemented through changes to the Banking Codes and the Pillar 2 Guidance Note.
4.10.1 In accordance with the preceding parts of Section 4, it is intended to amend the Banking Codes, which will involve changes to Sections 5 and 6 of the Banking Codes, where the existing requirements concerning the Risk Asset Ratio will be expanded to also address the LCR.
4.10.2 Appendix J contains proposed relevant sections of the Banking Codes, which would replace those so numbered in the current Banking Codes. Where necessary, titles of sections are amended also, which is reflected in the text provided.
4.10.3 Question 5: Do you consider the approach to implementation, including the proposed Banking Codes and Guides set out in the Appendices, is appropriate? Are there any specific changes that would ease implementation?
5.1.1 The revised reporting requirements are intended to enable Jersey Incorporated Banks to report a comprehensive view of liquidity, including on:
188.8.131.52 The JIB’s compliance with the LCR;
184.108.40.206 The level of its NSFR; and
220.127.116.11 Other data on the JIB’s liquidity position.
5.1.2 For Overseas Incorporated Banks, the reporting requirements are less, being intended to provide an understanding of the OIB’s liquidity and an understanding of the cashflows emanating from its Jersey branch.
5.2.1 It is envisaged that JIB prudential reporting will in total comprise seven sets of data, as set out below.
5.2.2 For Appendices B and C, respectively the ‘HQLA Guide’ and the ‘LCR/LMR Guide’, the relevant appendix takes the form of a draft prudential reporting guide. These would be issued in due course as part of the implementation process, with the only likely amendments being to formatting or to reflect technical or administrative requirements regarding the submission process. The final guides will be issued at least three months prior to the commencement of parallel running (anticipated to be for the period ending September 2018) and may be revised before being issued in final form at least three months prior to becoming requirements (anticipated to be for the period ending December 2018).
5.2.3 Appendix B, describes the full reporting requirements relating to each component of HQLA and the calculation of total HQLA held, after all required adjustments. The guidance closely follows the international standard. This includes the establishment of provisions that could be used if insufficient liquid assets existed in a jurisdiction in which a JIB operated. It is not considered that these should be adopted, based on existing operations, and hence implementation of that aspect is only intended to ensure flexibility in case of changes.
5.2.4 Appendix C, describes the full reporting requirements relating to each component flow and the calculation of total net-flows and the resultant LCR or LMR ratio, after all required adjustments. The guidance is intended to follow the LCR Standard save for those aspects noted in Section 4.
5.2.5 Appendices D to F provide an outline of likely prudential guides for three areas that would support the consideration of short-term liquidity. The final guides will be issued as drafts at least three months prior to the commencement of parallel running and may be revised before being issued in final form at least three months prior to becoming requirements.
5.2.6 Appendix D, the ‘Funding Concentrations Guide’, addresses the reporting of funding concentrations, replacing the current reporting regarding large deposits from individuals and banks.
5.2.7 Appendix E, ‘HQLA Concentration and Encumbrance Guide’, addresses the reporting of concentrations regarding HQLA and the extent to which any assets reported as HQLA are encumbered.
5.2.8 Appendix F, ‘LCR/LMR Performance Guide’, addresses the reporting of the JIB’s LCR/LMR, as per internal monitoring performed daily by the JIB, for the period between the last prudential return reporting date and the current prudential return reporting date.
5.2.9 Appendices G and H provide an outline of likely prudential guides for two areas that would support the consideration of long-term liquidity (to be issued in accordance with the process outlined at 5.2.5).
5.2.10 Appendix G, ‘NSFR Guide’, addresses the reporting of the JIB’s NSFR as at the prudential return reporting date, based on the NSFR Standard.
5.2.11 Appendix H, ‘Cashflow Reporting Guide’, addresses the reporting of the JIB’s cashflows, using the current prudential report as a basis, with little change to the periods specified for which inflows and outflows are required to be reported but with a degree of alignment with the categories used in the LCR/LMR.
5.3.1 As noted in the introduction, it is not intended to require OIBs to comply with local prudential regulations regarding liquidity. Notwithstanding this, it is anticipated that most such banks will become subject to LCR-like requirements in their home jurisdiction, or are already subject to such requirements, owing to home country adoption of the LCR Standard.
5.3.2 It is not intended to implement this change until December 2018, with a parallel run intended for September 2018. This would provide OIBs with an opportunity to test their reporting systems and for the JFSC to identify any systems issues ahead of the live date.
5.3.3 The requirements are intended to insure that the JFSC:
18.104.22.168 Is aware of the liquidity of the OIB (as a whole); and
22.214.171.124 Understands the branch’s cashflows and the extent to which any HQLA is held locally.
5.3.4 Appendix I provides an outline of a likely prudential guide addressing both aspects, with the requirements consisting of:
126.96.36.199 For OIBs’ subject to an LCR-like requirement in the home jurisdiction: the level of HQLA, net predicted outflows, the resultant LCR and the pass rate set by the supervisor;
188.8.131.52 For OIBs’ subject to an NSFR-like requirement in the home jurisdiction: the level of ASF, RSF, the resultant NSFR and the pass rate set by the supervisor;
184.108.40.206 For OIBs’ subject to other liquidity requirements in the home jurisdiction: relevant local metrics will be required to be reported. For each, the name of the metric, the measurement and up to three supporting pieces of data, will be required to be reported. In the period prior to implementation, agreement will be sought on an individual basis regarding which metrics to report, which it is intended to specify as a condition of registration; and
220.127.116.11 A cashflow report on the OIB’s Jersey branch only. This is intended to provide an understanding of flows through the branch and in particular of the possible extent of demands that might arise. (The limitations are recognised: this is not intended to provide a picture of the extent to which the OIB is positioned to meet such demands or the likely extent of similar demands across the OIB that might occur in a stressed period). This is based on the similar existing prudential report on cashflows.
6.1.1 This section is only relevant to JIBs.
6.1.2 The proposed new process is intended to replace the current liquidity behavioural adjustment processes.
6.1.3 It is proposed to integrate internal assessment and supervisory review within the existing Pillar 2 processes. Hence, each JIB’s assessment will be subject to at least an annual review.
6.1.4 The goal of the assessment will be to determine if adjustments in the LCR are appropriate to the JIB or, conversely, more conservatism is warranted.
6.1.5 Documentation will be required in ICAAPs and the Pillar 2 Guidance Note will be revised to reflect this content.
6.1.6 Question 7: Do the proposals outlined in Section 6 provide sufficient clarity on expectations regarding internal liquidity assessment? Conversely, which aspects would it be useful to expand upon in the envisaged Pillar 2 Guidance Note?
6.2.1 Historical data should be collected to assist:
18.104.22.168 In determining how to classify assets for HQLA purposes (prices and depth of market data);
22.214.171.124 In determining whether LCR adjustments regarding flow assumptions are prudent (outflows and inflows, including in relation to commitments); and
126.96.36.199 Carrying out general stress testing of liquidity.
6.2.2 JIBs should seek to obtain data relating to (1) a stressed period and (2) the past five years.
6.2.3 Where data is obtained via group or third parties (as is envisaged would apply in the case of data on HQLA), the JIB should assess the reliability of the source used.
6.2.4 Where data is limited, this should be taken into account when developing stress tests, warranting additional conservatism.
6.2.5 Specific relevant considerations are provided in Sections 6.4 and 6.5.
6.2.6 For individual classes of deposits, the methodology used by the bank for computing outflows over a 30 day period should be consistent with the following approach:
188.8.131.52 Establish on day one a set of deposits that fall within the definition for the class and determine the initial balance for each;
184.108.40.206 For that set of deposits, determine the final balances as at day 30;
220.127.116.11 Quantify the outflow for each deposit in the set by subtracting the final balance from the initial balance, with a zero outflow resulting where, for any deposit in the set, the final balance exceeds the initial balance. Sum these to give the total outflows for the set; and hence
18.104.22.168 The historical outflow percentage for that period would then be the total of all outflows divided by the total of all initial balances.
6.2.7 Where the class includes multiple deposits from individual customers, these calculations may be applied on an aggregated basis for each customer, rather than account level (hence eliminating any impact of transfers between the customer’s accounts).
6.2.8 JIBs may use other approaches, but:
22.214.171.124 If less conservative approaches or incomplete historical datasets (for example, ones that do not include a relevant period of stress or methods that in effect allow inflows to be recognised) are used, the JIB must consider the impact when developing stressed assumptions (see below); and
126.96.36.199 If more conservative and/or more complex approaches are used, the JIB should also compute results consistent with the above in order to assist the JFSC in comparing results across industry.
6.3.1 The LCR Standard explains that the LCR is intended to be a stressed assessment of a bank’s ability to meet outflows out of a combination of HQLA held and offsetting inflows over a 30 day horizon if the following occurred at the same time:
188.8.131.52 “The run-off of a proportion of retail deposits;
184.108.40.206 A partial loss of unsecured wholesale funding capacity;
220.127.116.11 A partial loss of secured, short-term financing with certain collateral and counterparties;
18.104.22.168 Additional contractual outflows that would arise from a downgrade in the bank’s public credit rating by up to and including three notches, including collateral posting requirements;
22.214.171.124 Increases in market volatilities that impact the quality of collateral or potential future exposure of derivative positions and thus require larger collateral haircuts or additional collateral, or lead to other liquidity needs;
126.96.36.199 Unscheduled draws on committed but unused credit and liquidity facilities that the bank has provided to its clients; and
188.8.131.52 The potential need for the bank to buy back debt or honour non-contractual obligations in the interest of mitigating reputational risk.”
6.3.2 JIBs will need to be familiar with the Sound Principles and consider stress testing in this light.
6.3.3 The LCR is a minimum standard. JIBs will be required to determine if the minima set out in the LCR are appropriate to it through stress testing, and include documentation in the ICAAP. This will include assessment based on historical data as a baseline upon which assessment of potential impacts of one or more stressed scenarios should be performed, including scenarios where the JIB itself and/or its parent are downgraded by 3 notches during a financial crisis.
6.3.4 These stress scenarios should take into account the extent to which the historical data is relevant to a stressed period. In most cases, it is anticipated that stressed assumptions would significantly exceed any historical movements seen in the last five years, as many financial crises impacts pre-date this. Also, in many cases, data available to JIBs on periods where there was a financial crisis of the nature envisaged does not reflect a scenario where the JIB or its group was subject to a three notch downgrade.
6.3.5 JIBs will be required to document all stress testing performed to support liquidity management (not only that conducted to validate the LCR/LMR). Each stress scenario should assess whether the current level of liquidity is adequate and be used as part of the processes used to determine the appropriate framework of controls.
6.3.6 Such stress testing should include stresses that cover longer and shorter periods than specified in the LCR, for each currency in which they operate, and for each jurisdiction in which they have a branch. This will require the construction of a range of scenarios that are relevant to their specific business activities. The JFSC will not be prescriptive regarding the scope but will provide guidance on expectations and will review the scope when reviewing each ICAAP.
6.3.7 JIBs should document all stress testing in their ICAAPs and will be required to determine the appropriateness of minima for outflows in the LCR. Where a minimum is found to be insufficiently conservative, a prudent level should be determined, consistent with stress test results.
6.3.8 They will also be required to document the measures that they consider to be necessary to address other liquidity risks identified, including the use of other ratios (such as the NSFR or similar ratios) and appropriate minima for these.
6.4.1 JIBs will be required to document:
184.108.40.206 The JIB’s processes for ensuring that all HQLA is compliant with the general and operational requirements set out in Appendix B;
220.127.116.11 Where testing of historical data is required, the activity undertaken and the results; and
18.104.22.168 Evidence relating to testing of the operational processes (sale and repo) relied upon for the realisation of HQLA.
6.4.2 The JIB should document its policy on diversification. This should include the establishment of limits for holdings, taking into account both the dangers of over-reliance on single names but also the depth of markets for types of holdings and industrial and geographical concentrations.
6.4.3 In particular, a zero limit should apply where the JIB has not considered that such assets are to form part of its HQLA and hence has not specifically assessed whether all the requirements are met. This might apply where assets are purchased for investment purposes that would otherwise be eligible for inclusion, including all assets that the JIB intends to hold to maturity.
6.5.1 In two areas, JIBs will be permitted to use the LCR adjustments unless available historical data or other evidence available clearly evidences the need for a more conservative approach. These are:
22.214.171.124 Stable retail deposits and
126.96.36.199 Outflows connected with committed facilities.
6.5.2 For all other areas, JIBs should determine the likely behaviour in a stressed scenario of the nature described in the LCR Standard (as outlined in Section 6.3), taking into account historical data and all relevant information on likely behaviour in a stressed period, including any relevant information from group or third party sources.
6.5.3 For these categories, the LCR percentages serve as a maximum/minimum only, as applicable, and should not be relied upon to form the basis of a conclusion. Where no conclusion is reached, the most conservative outcome (100% outflow/0% inflow) should be used.
6.5.4 When considering liabilities that are fixed term, liabilities with short terms (one month or less) and longer term liabilities with break clauses can be grouped together with on-demand liabilities when analysing historical data.
6.5.5 For longer term liabilities other than liabilities with break clauses, the assessment of historical data should seek to compare the contractual amount due with the actual outflow. This is necessary as only outflows that are contractually due within one month will be included in the LCR.
6.5.6 As an example of this, if data on one year term accounts showed a maximum outflow rate of 10% in any one month period then this needs to be compared to the amount contractually due for the relevant period in order to determine if an adjustment is warranted.
6.5.7 In the absence of relevant data, term deposits should either:
188.8.131.52 Be given a 100% outflow rate, with the predicted amount being determined as the amount contractually due; or
184.108.40.206 Treated in line with other shorter term deposits, in which case all such deposits must be included in the LCR outflows, irrespective of the maturity date.
6.5.8 All relevant related considerations should be documented in the JIB’s ICAAP.
6.5.9 The JIB should document its policy on addressing funding concentrations. This should include the establishment of limits for individual and connected parties, as well as other forms of concentration, such as reliance on particular sectors.
6.5.10 In all cases, no adjustment should be applied (hence 100% of the contractually due amount should be covered) where the outflow in respect of one customer or connected customers (when aggregated) exceeds £20 million.
7.1.1 The Capital Elements DP outlined the scope of Basel III, setting out the large number of new and revised standards and other documents issued by the Basel Committee at that time and expected to be issued on certain subjects in future years.
7.1.2 At that time, the most locally impactful changes (concerning credit risk and operational risk) had not been finalised, nor had potentially impactful changes regarding capital floors.
7.1.3 Since then, the anticipated deadline for concluding work on these changes has passed, with the Basel Committee stating in its press release on 3 January 2017:
220.127.116.11 “The Group of Central Bank Governors and Heads of Supervision (GHOS), the oversight body of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, welcomes the progress made towards completing the Basel Committee's post-crisis regulatory reforms.
18.104.22.168 However, more time is needed to finalise some work, including ensuring the framework's final calibration, before the GHOS can review the package of proposals. A meeting of the GHOS, originally planned for early January, has therefore been postponed. The Committee is expected to complete this work in the near future.”
7.1.4 Thus uncertainty remains and, as such, it is not possible to outline in detail all the JFSC’s plans regarding implementation. The below sets out the next steps and an outline of plans for implementation of other areas, building on the approach outlined in the Capital Elements DP.
7.2.1 For prudential reporting as at end of December 2018, and for internal capital adequacy and liquidity management and reporting purposes from 31 December 2018, it is intended to have implemented the changes set out in this paper and those set out in CP No. 8 2015 “Basel III: Capital Adequacy and Leverage”, issued July 2015, regarding:
22.214.171.124 Revised capital quality requirements and the division of capital into three tiers, each with its own minimum ratio;
126.96.36.199 Implementation of changes to liquidity management and reporting requirements relating to the establishment of a new minimum LCR;
188.8.131.52 Associated changes to prudential reporting in relation to both of the above;
184.108.40.206 The use of Tier 1 capital for Large Exposures purposes, in place of total capital; and
220.127.116.11 A requirement to report a leverage ratio and the NSFR on a quarterly basis, as part of prudential reporting.
7.2.2 These will be achieved through amendments to the Banking Codes together with the issuance of revised prudential reporting guidance and revisions to the Pillar 2 Guidance Note.
7.3.1 It is intended to consult on the implementation of other new and revised Basel standards in 2017, building on the plans for 2017 set out in the Capital Elements DP.
7.3.2 This will focus on securitisations and funds (Section 3 in the Capital Elements DP) and provide a further update on other matters. Any changes will not be implemented before the proposals outlined in this paper and the consultation will seek feedback on the question of whether to implement the changes together or in stages.
7.3.3 It will also provide an opportunity to communicate initial thoughts on how to address other areas, such as any new Basel Committee standards on credit and operational risk, ahead of full consultation in 2018 and beyond (see below).
7.4.1 In the most impactful areas (credit and operational risk), there is considerable uncertainty regarding the development of international standards at this time and also over the likely timescales for adoption in key jurisdictions (broadly, home jurisdictions and competitor jurisdictions).
7.4.2 Although it is considered likely that more new standards will be published in 2017, it is intended to delay consideration of these at least until 2018 to enable information on Basel Committee specified adoption timescales to become known and for banking groups to develop views on implementation.
7.4.3 As part of the work on credit risk, it will also be necessary to consider anew the permission for use of advanced modelling approaches and the expected limitations arising out of standards being developed by the Basel Committee on capital floors (for more details, see the December 2014 Basel Committee consultation paper on this).
7.4.4 In that respect, it is anticipated that the core of the existing approach will be unaltered:
18.104.22.168 Continued reliance on home supervisor approval of models, given the lack of local capacity;
22.214.171.124 A requirement that the entity’s ICAAP fully addressing the risk, including any relevant stress testing; and
126.96.36.199 A requirement that outputs be adequate for the Commission’s assessment purposes.
7.4.5 Consideration will be given to two issues that arise because local application will be to a subsidiary rather than on a consolidated basis (the intended scope for the Basel Committee standards). These are:
188.8.131.52 Permission for use of models for only a part of the asset book; and
184.108.40.206 Application of capital floors (whether under new or existing Basel Committee requirements for a floor to be established at 80% of the Basel I capital requirement) both in general and for cases where only a partial use permission is requested, with one option being to apply the capital floor to the relevant exposures covered by the partial use permission.
7.4.6 The Trading Book/market risk/counterparty credit risk proposals have been issued in final form by the Basel Committee and, partially at least, implemented in most home jurisdictions. Locally, the current level of relevant exposures are minimal and the proposals are complex and, for these reasons, consideration will be deferred to 2018 or beyond.
7.4.7 This will enable dialogue with firms on an individual basis to seek an understanding of likely plans that might lead to increased market/Trading Book exposures, including any linked to the management of HQLA.
7.4.8 One option likely to be considered would be to enable banks to use the existing rules for market risk if they have no Trading Book and provided market risk is minimal.
7.4.9 For JIB’s that become exposed to more material Trading Book or market risk, one option would be to enable home country rules to be used provided that three criteria (similar to those applying to use of advanced approaches) were met:
220.127.116.11 The home country would need to have been subject to a peer review that found it to be compliant regarding market risk;
18.104.22.168 The JIB’s implementation would need to include full consideration of all risks, which would be required to be documented in its ICAAP, including assessment and management of model risk; and
22.214.171.124 The JIB would need to be able to provide appropriate reporting, including summary information on the various components, which would be by way of a JFSC-specified template, and breakdown information, which it is anticipated would be by way of a JIB-specified template.
7.4.10 In each case or in combination, consultation papers will be issued (not before 2018) with the aim of providing at least one year’s notice of any proposed changes.
7.5.1 Prudential reporting will be amended to facilitate the submission of Basel III data but certain revisions may also be necessary to improve the functioning of related systems or to enable the Basel III data to be combined with existing Basel II related data items – an example being the need to combine existing Basel II measures of risk weighted assets with Basel III measures of capital in order to determine trends in risk asset ratios.
7.5.2 As part of this process, existing prudential reporting requirements will be either continued or, in the short term, replaced on a like-for-like basis (in data terms) with a system that combines existing (Basel II) and new (Basel III) elements, at least until such time as all the relevant Basel III components are implemented in Jersey.
7.5.3 It is intended that in, all cases, copies of revised guidance will be provided in draft form at least six months prior to the date of first use, and published in final form at least three months prior to use.
7.5.4 Here “use” refers to submissions for the purpose of meeting Banking Codes requirements; it is anticipated that, in many cases, parallel running or other testing would take place on a voluntary basis before final versions are issued in order to allow issues to be addressed.
8.1.1 The direct liquidity related costs of the introduction of the LCR are expected to be limited because:
126.96.36.199 the expected impact on liquidity requirements is small or, in the case of HQLA, can be alleviated by replacing affected instruments or, in the case of fiduciary deposits, can be minimised through management action (as suggested herein); and
188.8.131.52 The overwhelming majority of JIBs and OIBs are part of groups that are, or will be, subject to similar liquidity standards.
8.1.2 The internal liquidity assessment proposals build on and replace existing guidance with respect to liquidity or the Pillar 2 process. Whilst changes are required, it is considered that sufficient time has been provided in order to adequately manage the operational impact of these changes.
8.1.3 Revised prudential reporting, set out in Section 5, and in respect of liquidity is expected to impact mainly on JIBs, with the impact on OIBs being minimal. Delaying implementation to 2018 is intended to ease this process and enable costs to be contained.
8.2.1 The JFSC will need to substantially revise its prudential reporting system and the processes and systems used to analyse the data submitted, as well as train the relevant staff. Delaying implementation to 2018 will ease this process and enable costs to be contained and delivery to take place as a piece of a wider project looking at data delivery, with the aim of minimising the costs of the complete package of work intended.
8.3.1 Industry benefits indirectly from demonstrable compliance with international standards, reinforcing Jersey’s reputation, and that of its banking industry, as a safe, well-regulated home for deposits. Specifically, compliance should assist in securing a positive outcome from any relevant future international assessment of Jersey.
8.3.2 Enhancing liquidity standards reduces the likelihood of bank failures. This benefits banks, through guarding against the consequences of a failure.
8.4.1 The JFSC does not consider liquidity to currently be a significant issue in respect of any JIB or OIB. However, introducing these proposals guards against the risk that liquidity deteriorates over time, for example through over-reliance on marketable assets.
8.4.2 Completing the work as part of the larger change project is intended to minimise costs, particularly surrounding maintenance, and ensure that sufficient flexibility is delivered to enable future changes to be delivered.
› Jersey Bankers’ Association
› Jersey Finance Limited
Drafts of proposed new and varied requirements
› Please click here to view Appendix B: HQLA Guide
› Please click here to view Appendix C: LCR/LMR Guide
› Please click here to view Appendix D: Funding Concentration Guide
› Please click here to view Appendix E: HQLA Concentration and Encumbrance Guide
› Please click here to view Appendix F: LCR Performance Guide
› Please click here to view Appendix G: NSFR Guide
› Please click here to view Appendix H: Cashflow Reporting Guide
› Please click here to view Appendix I: Overseas Incorporated Bank Reporting Guide
› Please click here to view Appendix J: Changes to the Banking Code
 A break clause that is subject to the JIB’s discretion should be disregarded, as should a break clause where the client would suffer a penalty significantly greater than loss of interest.