Understanding Tier 1 Capital, common equeity tier 1 Capital, and risk weighted asset through asking the right question

Posted by: admin 11 months, 2 weeks ago

(Comments)

The way to know about things by asking the right questions in known as Socrates thing, here is my knowledge about tier 1 capital, common equity tier 1 capital, and risk weighted asset

W

What does it mean Tier 1 capital should be more liquid, and the amount should be at least 6% of risk-weighted bank assets, where the capital to risk-weighted assets ratio should not be less than 8%”

The statement you provided refers to regulatory requirements for banks and their capital adequacy, often associated with Basel III, a set of international banking regulations. Let's break down the components:

1. **Tier 1 Capital:** Tier 1 capital is a bank's core capital and includes common equity Tier 1 (CET1) capital and additional Tier 1 capital. CET1 capital is the most reliable form of capital because it consists mainly of common shares and retained earnings.

2. **Liquidity of Tier 1 Capital:** The requirement that Tier 1 capital should be more liquid means that a portion of the bank's capital should be easily convertible to cash or used to meet short-term obligations. This liquidity ensures that a bank can withstand financial stress or sudden withdrawal demands.

3. **6% of Risk-Weighted Assets:** This indicates that the Tier 1 capital must be at least 6% of the bank's risk-weighted assets. Risk-weighted assets are a way of accounting for the different levels of risk associated with different types of assets. For example, loans to governments might have lower risk weights than loans to individuals or businesses.

4. **Capital-to-Risk-Weighted Assets Ratio:** The capital-to-risk-weighted assets ratio is a key measure of a bank's financial strength. It's calculated by dividing a bank's capital by its risk-weighted assets. The statement specifies that this ratio should not be less than 8%. This means that the bank should have a minimum of 8% capital to cover the risks associated with its assets.

In summary, these requirements are designed to ensure that banks maintain sufficient capital to absorb losses, maintain stability during economic downturns, and protect depositors and other stakeholders. The emphasis on liquidity and the specified ratios aim to ensure that the capital is adequate and readily available in times of need.

C

Can you write more precisely the formula of capital to risk weighted asset ratio?

Certainly! The Capital to Risk-Weighted Assets Ratio (CRAR), also known as the Capital Adequacy Ratio (CAR), is calculated using the following formula:

\[ CRAR = \left( \frac{{Tier 1 Capital + Tier 2 Capital}}{{Risk-Weighted Assets}} \right) \times 100\% \]

Here:
- \( Tier 1 Capital \) includes Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) capital.
- \( Tier 2 Capital \) consists of additional forms of capital that may include subordinated debt, hybrid instruments, and other instruments that provide additional loss-absorbing capacity.
- \( Risk-Weighted Assets \) are the total assets of a bank adjusted for risk. Different categories of assets are assigned different risk weights based on their perceived riskiness.

The ratio is expressed as a percentage, and regulatory bodies often set minimum acceptable levels to ensure banks have an adequate buffer to absorb losses. The Basel III framework, for instance, requires a minimum Total Capital Ratio (combining Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital) of 8% of risk-weighted assets.

H

How to formula of risk weighted ratio?

The Risk-Weighted Assets (RWA) portion of the Capital to Risk-Weighted Assets Ratio (CRAR) is calculated by assigning different risk weights to various categories of assets. The formula for calculating Risk-Weighted Assets is as follows:

\[ RWA = \sum_{i=1}^{n} (Risk\ Weight_i \times Amount\ of\ Exposure_i) \]

Here:
- \( n \) is the number of different categories of assets.
- \( Risk\ Weight_i \) is the risk weight assigned to the \( i^{th} \) category of assets.
- \( Amount\ of\ Exposure_i \) is the total exposure amount in the \( i^{th} \) category.

For example, if a bank has exposures in categories such as government bonds, residential mortgages, and corporate loans, each of these categories would have a specific risk weight assigned to it. The risk weights are determined by regulatory authorities based on the perceived riskiness of the asset.

The Risk-Weighted Assets represent the adjusted total assets that reflect the risk associated with a bank's portfolio. This adjustment is crucial for determining the Capital to Risk-Weighted Assets Ratio (CRAR), as it ensures that banks hold an appropriate amount of capital relative to the level of risk in their assets.

G

Give me some real calculation example

Sure, let's consider a simplified example with three types of assets: government bonds, residential mortgages, and corporate loans. Each category has an associated risk weight, and we'll calculate the Risk-Weighted Assets.

Let's assume the following:
1. Government bonds have a risk weight of 20%.
2. Residential mortgages have a risk weight of 50%.
3. Corporate loans have a risk weight of 100%.

Now, let's say a bank has the following exposures in each category:
1. Government bonds: $100 million
2. Residential mortgages: $50 million
3. Corporate loans: $30 million

The Risk-Weighted Assets (RWA) would be calculated as follows:

\[ RWA = (0.20 \times 100\ million) + (0.50 \times 50\ million) + (1.00 \times 30\ million) \]

\[ RWA = 20\ million + 25\ million + 30\ million \]

\[ RWA = 75\ million \]

So, in this simplified example, the Risk-Weighted Assets for the bank's portfolio would be $75 million. This adjusted amount reflects the risk associated with each category of assets, and it would be used in the calculation of the Capital to Risk-Weighted Assets Ratio (CRAR).

H

How come risk weighted can be 1?

I apologize for any confusion. In the context of risk weights in Basel III or similar regulatory frameworks, a risk weight of 1 typically means that the asset is assigned a full weight, implying higher risk. In other words, the entire exposure amount is considered when calculating the risk-weighted assets.

For example, if a corporate loan has a risk weight of 100%, it means that the full amount of the loan is included in the calculation of risk-weighted assets. On the other hand, assets with lower risk weights, such as government bonds or other highly-rated securities, might have a risk weight less than 1, implying that only a fraction of their exposure is considered in the risk-weighted assets calculation.

In summary, the risk weight of 1 is used to capture the full risk of an asset when calculating the adjusted risk-weighted assets, and it is often associated with assets that are perceived to have higher risk, such as certain types of loans or exposures. Different assets receive different risk weights based on their perceived riskiness, as determined by regulatory authorities.

give me more easy explanation

Certainly! Let's break it down in simpler terms:

Imagine you're a bank, and you have different types of assets, like loans and investments. These assets come with different levels of risk. To account for this, regulators assign "risk weights" to each type of asset. The risk weight tells you how much of that asset's value should be considered when calculating how much capital (money set aside for potential losses) a bank needs.

Now, here are some simplified examples:

1. **Government Bonds (Low Risk):**
- Risk Weight: 20%
- If you have $100 of government bonds, only $20 of it will be counted as "at risk" when calculating how much capital you need.

2. **Residential Mortgages (Medium Risk):**
- Risk Weight: 50%
- If you have $50 of residential mortgages, $25 of it will be considered "at risk" in the calculation.

3. **Corporate Loans (Higher Risk):**
- Risk Weight: 100%
- If you have $30 of corporate loans, the entire $30 will be counted as "at risk."

So, the risk weight is like a percentage that determines how much of each type of asset is counted as risky. It helps ensure that banks set aside enough money to cover potential losses, with higher-risk assets requiring more capital to be set aside.

When we talk about a risk weight of 1, it means 100%, so the entire value of that asset is considered at risk. It's just a way of adjusting for the varying levels of risk in a bank's portfolio.

so if capital to risk weighted asset no more than 8%, it means what?

If the capital to risk-weighted assets ratio is not more than 8%, it indicates that the bank's capital is less than 8% of its risk-weighted assets. This ratio is a measure of a bank's financial strength and its ability to absorb potential losses.

Here's how you can interpret it:

- **Capital to Risk-Weighted Assets Ratio (CRAR) Formula:**
\[ CRAR = \left( \frac{{Tier 1 Capital + Tier 2 Capital}}{{Risk-Weighted Assets}} \right) \times 100\% \]

- **Interpretation:**
- If the CRAR is less than 8%, it suggests that the bank has a lower capital buffer relative to the risk associated with its assets.
- A lower CRAR may indicate that the bank might be more vulnerable to financial stress or unexpected losses.
- Regulatory standards often set a minimum CRAR to ensure that banks have a sufficient capital cushion to absorb potential losses and maintain financial stability.

In summary, a capital to risk-weighted assets ratio of no more than 8% suggests that the bank's capital might be relatively low compared to the risk it has taken on through its assets. This could be a concern from a regulatory and financial stability perspective, as having an adequate capital buffer is crucial for the soundness of a financial institution.

• ← Week 1 to week 6 in learning VAR
• Some notes about python and Zen of Python →