Supervision 2025
Stress-test transparency: how much is too much?
The transparency drive to disclose bank stress-test results comes with costs
Supervisors widely use suptech tools for data collection and validation
AI use is growing but remains much less widespread than suptech
Resolution framework update planned by 56% of supervisors
Non-central bank supervisory authorities less likely to have bail-in powers
Collateral pre-positioning reported in half of jurisdictions
Most supervisors believe banks are ready to access emergency central bank liquidity
Supervisors report low adoption of newer global standards
High income supervisors more likely to have regulations in place
Data automation at ‘moderate’ level in most supervisors
Over 70% of supervisors plan to upgrade data collection in the next year
Three in five supervisory authorities publish oversight outcomes
Majority of respondents release supervision details in annual report
Digitalisation is top strategic priority for supervisors
Majority of supervisors have a strategy document but only half make them public
Most supervisors monitor banks’ exposure to non-banks
But majority do not apply Pillar 2 requirements specific to non-bank exposures
Supervisors review banks’ asset quality at varied frequencies
Middle income supervisors tend to review assets more often than high income counterparts
Systemic banks prioritised in onsite inspections
Supervisors’ activities commonly include interviews, reviews and verifications
Onsite inspection frequency tailored to individual firms’ risk profiles
All authorities in high and middle income countries engage in risk-based exercises
Pillar 2 supervisory requirements broadly decided at national level
Only 15% of authorities operate regional supervision offices
Supervisors rate resource sufficiency higher than staffing
Annual salary of supervision officials averages just over $40,000
Most supervisors have mandate to oversee non-banks
Supervision department staff average just over 150 individuals