Microprudential supervision

What Is Microprudential Supervision?

Microprudential supervision is a component of financial regulation focused on monitoring and regulating individual financial institutions, such as banks, insurance companies, and investment firms, to ensure their safety and soundness. It falls under the broader category of financial regulation, aiming to prevent the failure of individual entities and protect depositors, policyholders, and investors. The primary objective of microprudential supervision is to ensure that each institution maintains adequate capital requirements, manages its risk management effectively, and possesses sufficient liquidity risk to meet its obligations. By focusing on the resilience of individual firms, microprudential supervision contributes indirectly to overall financial stability, though its direct mandate is typically limited to the entity level.

History and Origin

The origins of microprudential supervision can be traced back to the early days of banking, when governments and central banks began recognizing the need to oversee individual financial institutions to prevent bank runs and ensure the stability of the financial system. Historically, concerns about the soundness of individual banks led to early forms of regulation, such as chartering requirements and rules for note issuance. In the United States, significant efforts to centralize control and regulation of the banking system evolved over time, notably with the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 and the New Deal reforms of the 1930s, which strengthened the regulatory framework in response to financial crises.

A pivotal development in modern microprudential supervision was the establishment of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) in 1974. Formed by the central bank governors of the G10 countries in response to disruptions in international financial markets, the BCBS aimed to improve the quality of banking supervision globally. Its work led to the development of the Basel Accords, a series of international regulatory frameworks that set minimum capital requirements for banks and promoted better risk management practices worldwide. These accords, starting with Basel I in 1988, represent a cornerstone of harmonized microprudential standards, influencing national regulations across numerous jurisdictions¹⁵,¹⁴,¹³.

Key Takeaways

• Individual Focus: Microprudential supervision concentrates on the safety and soundness of individual financial institutions.
• Risk Mitigation: It aims to ensure institutions have robust frameworks for managing various risks, including credit risk, market risk, and operational risk.
• Protection of Stakeholders: A core goal is to protect depositors, policyholders, and investors from the failure of individual firms.
• Regulatory Tools: Key tools include setting minimum capital and liquidity requirements, conducting on-site examinations, and performing stress testing.
• Foundation for Stability: Strong microprudential supervision is considered a prerequisite for a robust and resilient financial system, even if it doesn't directly target systemic risk¹².

Interpreting Microprudential Supervision

Microprudential supervision is applied through a continuous process of oversight, assessment, and enforcement by regulatory authorities. Supervisors interpret an institution's financial health by analyzing various metrics, including its capital adequacy ratio, liquidity coverage ratio, and leverage ratio. They evaluate the effectiveness of the institution's internal controls, governance structures, and risk management systems. The interpretation extends to assessing the quality of assets, the concentration of exposures, and adherence to established regulatory guidelines.

For example, when examining a bank, microprudential supervisors will scrutinize its loan portfolio to assess credit risk, review its trading activities for market risk, and check its operational resilience against potential disruptions. The goal is to identify weaknesses before they pose a significant threat to the institution's solvency or liquidity. This involves both quantitative analysis of financial data and qualitative assessments of management practices and corporate culture. The Federal Reserve, for instance, tailors its supervisory approach based on the size, complexity, and risk profile of the supervised institutions, applying the most rigorous standards to the most systemically important financial institutions¹¹.

Hypothetical Example

Consider "SafeHaven Bank," a mid-sized regional bank. As part of its microprudential supervision, the banking regulator conducts an annual examination.

1. Capital Adequacy Review: The regulator verifies that SafeHaven Bank maintains a Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) capital ratio well above the minimum regulatory requirement. They review the bank's internal capital assessment process and ensure it accounts for potential losses from its loan book and investments.
2. Asset Quality Assessment: Examiners delve into SafeHaven's loan portfolio, scrutinizing a sample of commercial and residential mortgages. They check for appropriate collateral, realistic valuations, and adherence to lending policies. If they find an increasing trend of non-performing loans in a specific sector, they might require SafeHaven to increase its loan loss provisions.
3. Liquidity Risk Management: The regulator assesses SafeHaven's liquidity management framework. This includes examining its liquidity buffers, such as holdings of high-quality liquid assets, and reviewing its contingency funding plan. They might run a short-term liquidity stress test to see how the bank would fare under a sudden withdrawal of deposits.
4. Governance and Controls: Beyond numbers, the supervision extends to SafeHaven's board of directors and senior management. The regulator assesses the effectiveness of the board's oversight, the independence of the audit committee, and the robustness of internal control systems to prevent fraud or operational failures.

Based on this comprehensive assessment, the regulator provides feedback, and if deficiencies are found, SafeHaven Bank is required to implement corrective actions to strengthen its financial position and risk controls.

Practical Applications

Microprudential supervision is fundamentally applied in the day-to-day oversight of financial institutions across various sectors:

• Banking Sector: Regulatory bodies conduct regular examinations of commercial banks, bank holding companies, and credit unions to assess their capital adequacy, asset quality, management, earnings, and liquidity (CAMEL ratings). This ensures that individual banks are solvent and can withstand economic shocks.
• Insurance Industry: Supervisors monitor insurance companies to ensure they hold sufficient reserves to pay out claims, manage their investment portfolios prudently, and have sound underwriting practices. This protects policyholders.
• Securities Firms: Regulators oversee broker-dealers and investment advisors to ensure compliance with rules designed to protect investors, maintain orderly markets, and prevent fraud. This includes monitoring capital requirements and operational resilience.
• Resolution Planning: Regulators require large, complex financial institutions to develop "living wills" or resolution planning documents, detailing how they could be wound down in an orderly fashion without causing wider financial instability. This is a microprudential measure to minimize the impact of an individual firm's failure.
• Basel Framework Implementation: National authorities implement the international standards set by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, such as Basel III, which dictates minimum capital and liquidity requirements for banks globally. This framework provides a standardized approach to microprudential oversight for internationally active banks¹⁰.

Limitations and Criticisms

While essential for the safety of individual financial entities, microprudential supervision has certain limitations and has faced criticisms, particularly in the context of major financial crises. Its primary drawback is its focus on individual firm health, which may not adequately address system-wide risks. The "fallacy of composition" is a key criticism: what is prudent for an individual institution may not be for the system as a whole. For instance, if all banks simultaneously de-lever or tighten lending in a downturn, even if individually rational, it can exacerbate a recession and create systemic issues⁹,⁸.

Another limitation is that microprudential policy instruments, such as risk-based capital adequacy requirements, can sometimes be procyclical, meaning they might amplify economic cycles. During an economic boom, when risks appear low, these requirements might allow institutions to expand credit rapidly, contributing to asset bubbles. Conversely, during a downturn, they might force institutions to contract lending, hindering recovery, even if those actions are prudent for the individual firm⁷.

The global financial crisis of 2007–2009 highlighted that even well-supervised individual institutions could collectively contribute to systemic instability. This realization underscored the need for a complementary approach, leading to the increased emphasis on macroprudential policy. Despite its effectiveness in safeguarding individual firms, microprudential supervision alone cannot fully guard against the accumulation of risks across interconnected financial markets or common exposures that affect many firms simultaneously, leading to negative externalities for the broader economy.
⁶

Microprudential Supervision vs. Macroprudential Supervision

Microprudential supervision and macroprudential supervision are distinct yet complementary approaches to financial regulation, each with a different primary objective.

While microprudential supervision ensures that each "tree" (individual institution) is healthy, macroprudential supervision assesses the health of the entire "forest" (financial system), including how the trees interact and influence each other. ⁵For example, a microprudential supervisor might focus on a bank's capital to absorb its individual loan losses, whereas a macroprudential authority might impose a countercyclical capital buffer across the entire banking sector to lean against excessive credit growth in the economy,.^{4 3}Confusion can arise because both types of supervision use similar instruments (like capital or liquidity buffers) but apply them with different objectives and scope. ²The Federal Reserve, like many other central bank authorities, explicitly states that it tailors its regulation and supervision by taking into account both microprudential and macroprudential risks.
¹

FAQs

What is the main difference between microprudential and macroprudential supervision?

The main difference lies in their focus: microprudential supervision focuses on the safety and soundness of individual financial institutions, while macroprudential supervision aims to ensure the stability of the entire financial system.

Who conducts microprudential supervision?

Microprudential supervision is typically conducted by national regulatory authorities, such as central banks (like the Federal Reserve), banking supervisory agencies, or specialized financial regulators. In some countries, multiple agencies may share this responsibility.

Why is microprudential supervision important?

Microprudential supervision is crucial because it protects consumers (depositors, policyholders, investors) from the failure of individual financial institutions. By ensuring that each institution is well-capitalized and manages its risks effectively, it builds confidence in the financial system and serves as a foundational layer for broader financial stability.

How does microprudential supervision relate to financial crises?

While robust microprudential supervision can prevent individual institutional failures, financial crises often reveal its limitations. Historically, crises have shown that even sound individual institutions can be vulnerable to system-wide issues or monetary policy shifts, leading to calls for more comprehensive regulatory frameworks that include macroprudential tools.

Does deposit insurance negate the need for microprudential supervision?

No, deposit insurance does not negate the need for microprudential supervision. While deposit insurance protects depositors up to a certain limit, supervision aims to prevent bank failures in the first place, thus reducing the likelihood of deposit insurance payouts and maintaining the overall health and public trust in the financial system.