The Reality Most Banks Are Underestimating
The UK’s decision to delay Basel 3.1 to 2027, with FRTB IMA following in 2028, is being treated by many as breathing space.
It isn’t.
It creates a compressed hybrid transition period, with a binding dual‑regime operating model in 2027 and material approval risk extending into 2028, where complexity, capital uncertainty, and regulatory scrutiny all increase at the same time.
Banks will be forced to operate across:
- Basel 2.5 IMA (legacy)
- FRTB-SA (binding capital from 2027)
- FRTB-IMA (approval-dependent from 2028)
- SA-CCR as a binding and highly influential constraint across CCR‑driven capital, leverage, CVA, and the output floor
This is not a sequencing exercise. It is a live, high-risk operating model shift, where legacy frameworks, new capital rules, and approval readiness all overlap under real capital pressure.
Most organisations are not set up to run this well.
Where Programmes Will Break
Across Basel and FRTB programmes, failure is rarely technical. It is structural.
The same patterns are already emerging:
- Dual regime operating models that don’t reconcile
Parallel runs exist, but without real control, transparency, or ownership.
- FRTB-SA treated as temporary
When in reality, it will drive capital, supervision, and business behaviour from day one.
- IMA programmes running too late and too narrow
Focused on model build, not approval readiness or desk-level viability.
- SA-CCR underestimated
Treated as a calculation, not as a strategic capital driver.
- Fragmented ownership across Risk, Finance, and Front Office
No single view of capital, no consistent steering.
This is exactly where programmes start to drift — and where recovery becomes expensive.
What Needs to Be Done Differently
Banks that navigate this successfully will not treat Basel 3.1 as a regulatory project.
They will treat it as a capital, business, and operating model transformation.
The focus shifts from compliance to control, alignment, and execution.
1. Run a Controlled Dual-Regime Model — Not Parallel Chaos
You need a single, governed structure that:
- Reconciles Basel 2.5 IMA and FRTB-SA in real time
- Connects front office, risk, and finance at desk level
- Creates transparency on capital drivers and divergence
If you cannot explain capital movements clearly, you cannot control them.
2. Treat FRTB-SA as a Strategic Constraint
FRTB-SA will define capital outcomes in 2027 and influence supervisory expectations beyond that.
That means:
- Sensitivities and data quality become critical infrastructure
- NMRF reduction is a commercial priority, not a model issue
- Desk-level capital attribution must drive behaviour
If SA is wrong, everything built on top of it fails.
3. Build IMA for Approval — Not Just Implementation
Most IMA programmes focus on passing tests. That’s not enough.
Approval depends on:
- Sustained PLA performance
- Modellability evidence
- Desk structure credibility
- Governance and control maturity
This requires early PRA engagement and disciplined execution, not a late-stage submission push.
4. Reposition SA-CCR as a Capital Engine
SA-CCR is now embedded across:
- Output floor calculations
- CVA capital
- Leverage ratio
It is not optional. It is binding — either directly or via downstream constraints.
If SA‑CCR is not actively managed, capital efficiency erodes quickly.
Leading banks are:
- Actively optimising netting, collateral, and trade structures
- Aligning IMM to SA-CCR reality (or rationalising it)
- Embedding CCR into front office decision-making
If SA-CCR is not actively managed, capital efficiency erodes quickly.
5. Unify Capital, Risk, and Business Steering
Fragmentation kills control.
You need:
- A single capital view across FRTB, CCR, CVA, and the output floor
- Forecasting capability across scenarios and stress
- Front-office aligned reporting and incentives
Capital must be visible, attributable, and actionable.
6. Engage the PRA Early — and Properly
Regulators are not just assessing models. They are assessing control, credibility, and consistency.
That means:
- Structured engagement, not reactive updates
- Transparency on weaknesses and remediation
- Independent validation readiness
Late engagement is one of the fastest ways to delay approval.
The Commercial Reality
Most Basel 3.1 programmes will not fail outright.
They will drift:
Capital outcomes become volatile
Approval timelines slip
Confidence declines internally and with regulators
And by the time intervention happens, the programme is already under pressure.
Where Brickendon Comes In
Brickendon is brought in when:
- Basel / FRTB programmes are off-track or losing control
- Delivery confidence is declining
- Regulatory timelines are at risk
- Or the programme is simply too critical to fail
We don’t advise from the sidelines.
We:
- Take full accountability for delivery
- Embed senior operators directly into the programme
- Reset governance, ownership, and execution discipline
- Align risk, finance, and front office into a single operating model
No leveraged teams.
No separation between oversight and execution.
Just control, clarity, and delivery under pressure.
Bottom Line
The Basel 3.1 delay has not reduced risk. It has concentrated it.
The question is not whether your programme is ready.
It is whether:
- You can control capital across regimes
- You can meet regulatory expectations with confidence
- And you can deliver under sustained pressure
If not, the programme is already at risk.
And if it cannot fail, waiting is not a strategy.
[email protected]
