Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/280597 
Authors: 
Year of Publication: 
2019
Series/Report no.: 
AEI Economics Working Paper No. 2019-08
Publisher: 
American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Washington, DC
Abstract: 
Since the 2009 Supervisory Capital Assessment Program (SCAP), US regulators have employed a representative bank model as the benchmark of comparison in mandatory stress test exercises. For risk management functions, a bank's own stress model must be calibrated to reflect the bank's historical performance. I analyze stress test forecasts produced by individual bank and a representative bank stress test models. Each model is calibrated using different data, but an identical statistical approach similar to the Fed's 2009 SCAP CLASS model. I compare stress test forecasts to actual institution performance over the first 3 years of the financial crisis. Forecasts from the representative bank model differ dramatically from those produced by bank specific models and actual outcomes. The results highlight the policy uncertainty inherent in using stress tests, both to set minimum bank capital requirements and to assess the capital adequacy needed to maintain banking system stability.
Subjects: 
financial stability
banking
JEL: 
A
Document Type: 
Working Paper

Files in This Item:
File
Size





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.