BIPRU 3.2 The central principles of the standardised approach to credit risk

BIPRU 13 sets out the method for determination of the exposure value of a financial derivative instrument, with the effects of contracts of novation and other netting agreements taken into account for the purposes of that method in accordance with BIPRU 13.7.

[Note: reference to BCD Article 78(2) first sentence. Implementation in BIPRU 13]

BIPRU 13.3 and BIPRU 13.8 set out the provisions applying to the treatment and determination of the exposure value of repurchase transactions, securities or commodities lending or borrowing transactions, long settlement transactions and margin lending transactions (SFTs).

[Note: reference to BCD Article 78(2) second sentence. Implementation in BIPRU 13]

BIPRU 13 also sets out the methods for the determination of exposure values for long settlement transactions.

BIPRU 13.8 provides that, in the case of a firm using the financial collateral comprehensive method under BIPRU 5, where an exposure takes the form of an SFT, the exposure value should be increased by the volatility adjustment appropriate to such securities or commodities set out in BIPRU 5.4.30 R to BIPRU 5.4.65 R (Supervisory volatility adjustments approach and the own estimates of volatility adjustments approach).

[Note: reference to BCD Article 78(1), part. Implementation in BIPRU 13]

BIPRU 13.3.13 R and BIPRU 13.8.8 R set out the provisions relating to determination of the exposure value of certain credit risk exposures outstanding with a central counterparty, where the central counterparty credit risk exposures with all participants in its arrangements are fully collateralised on a daily basis.

[Note: reference to BCD Article 78(4). Implementation in BIPRU 13]

A key driver of the preferential risk weight afforded retail exposures is the lower correlation and systematic risk associated with such exposures. This aspect is unrelated to the absolute number of retail exposures. Accordingly in defining what constitutes a significant number of retail exposures for the purpose of BIPRU 3.2.10 R (2), a firm need only satisfy itself that the number of retail exposures is sufficiently large to diversify away idiosyncratic risk. This assessment will be subject to supervisory review and part of a firm's SREP. It will be looked at as one of the issues relating to overall diversification.

In deciding what steps are reasonable for the purposes of BIPRU 3.2.11 R, a firm may take into account complexity and cost, as well as the materiality of the impact upon its capital calculation. A firm should be able to demonstrate to the appropriate regulator that it has complied with the obligation to take reasonable steps under BIPRU 3.2.11 R in the way it takes these factors into account.

1. (1)

   The definition of group of connected clients is set out in the Glossary. Paragraph (2) of that definition is "two or more persons ... who are to be regarded as constituting a single risk because they are so interconnected that, if one of them were to experience financial problems, the other or all of the others would be likely to encounter repayment difficulties".

2. (2)

   Say that a firm has exposures to A and B. When deciding whether A and B come within paragraph (2) of the definition two conditions should be satisfied. Firstly the connections between A and B should mean that if A experiences financial problems, B should be likely to encounter repayment difficulties. Secondly, the connections between A and B should mean that if B experiences financial problems, A should be likely to encounter repayment difficulties.

3. (3)

   The guidance in BIPRU 3.2.16 G is provided for the purpose of BIPRU 3.2.10 R only and not for the purposes of any other provision in the Handbook that uses the defined term group of connected clients.

If a firm has exposures to an owner of a retail SME in his personal capacity and exposures to the retail SME the firm should aggregate the two types of exposure for the purpose of BIPRU 3.2.10 R (3), although it should not include claims secured on residential real estate collateral. In deciding what steps are reasonable for the purposes of BIPRU 3.2.11 R in aggregating these two types of exposure, a firm may take into account the materiality of those personal exposures. A firm should be able to demonstrate to the appropriate regulator that it has complied with the obligation to take reasonable steps under BIPRU 3.2.11 R when taking into account materiality in this way.

Where an exposure is denominated in a currency other than the euro, a firm may calculate the euro equivalent for purposes of BIPRU 3.2.10 R using any appropriate set of exchange rates provided its choice has no obvious bias and that the firm is consistent in its approach to choosing rates.

A firm may monitor compliance with the €1m threshold in BIPRU 3.2.10 R on the basis of approved limits provided it has internal control procedures that are sufficient to ensure that amounts owed cannot diverge from approved limits to such an extent as to give rise to a material breach of the €1m threshold.

For the purpose of BIPRU 3.2.25 R (1)(c) it is the risk management functions of the group that should be integrated, rather than the group's operational management. A firm should ensure that if risk management functions are integrated in this way it should be possible for the appropriate regulator to undertake qualitative supervision of the management of the integrated risk management function.

In relation to a core concentration risk group counterparty, an 2 undertaking is included within the scope of consolidation of a group on a full basis if it is at the head of the group or if its assets and liabilities are taken into account in full as referred to in BIPRU 8.5.2 G (Basis of inclusion of undertakings in consolidation).

1. (1)

   2In relation to BIPRU 3.2.25 R (1)(ba), a subsidiary undertaking should generally be 100% owned and controlled by a single shareholder. However, if a subsidiary undertaking has more than one shareholder, that undertaking may be a member of the core UK group if all its shareholders are also members of the same core UK group.

2. (2)

   For the purpose of BIPRU 3.2.25R (1)(d) (Incorporation in the UK), if a counterparty is of a type that falls within the scope of the Insolvency Proceedings Regulation5 and it is established in the United Kingdom other than by incorporation, a firm wishing to include that counterparty in its core UK group may apply to the appropriate regulator for a waiver of this condition if it can demonstrate fully to the appropriate regulator that the counterparty's centre of main interests is situated in the United Kingdom within the meaning of that Regulation.

For the purpose of BIPRU 3.2.25R (1)(e) (Prompt transfer of capital resources): 2

1. (1)

   2in the case of an undertaking that is a firm the requirement in BIPRU 3.2.25R (1)(e) for the prompt transfer of capital resources refers to capital resources in excess of the capital and financial resources requirements to which it is subject under the regulatory system; and2

2. (2) 4

   4[deleted]

3. (3)

   4the FCA will consider the following criteria:

   1. (a)

      the speed with which funds can be transferred or liabilities repaid to the firm and the simplicity of the method for the transfer or repayment;

   2. (b)

      whether there are any interests other than those of the firm in the core concentration risk group counterparty and what impact those other interests may have on the firm's control over the core group concentration risk group counterparty and the ability of the firm to require a transfer of funds or repayment of liabilities;

   3. (c)

      whether there are any tax disadvantages for the firm or the core concentration risk group counterparty as a result of the transfer of funds or repayment of liabilities;

   4. (d)

      whether the purpose of the core concentration risk group counterparty prejudices the prompt transfer of funds or repayment of liabilities;

   5. (e)

      whether the legal structure of the core concentration risk group counterparty prejudices the prompt transfer of funds or repayment of liabilities;

   6. (f)

      whether the contractual relationships of the core concentration risk group counterparty with the firm and other third parties prejudices the prompt transfer of funds or repayment of liabilities; and

   7. (g)

      whether past and proposed flows of funds between the core concentration risk group counterparty and the firm demonstrate the ability to make prompt transfer of funds or repayment of liabilities.

The requirement in BIPRU 3.2.25 R (1)(e) for the prompt repayment of liabilities refers to the prompt repayment of liabilities when due.

The guidance in BIPRU 3.2.30 G - BIPRU 3.2.31 G does not apply to BIPRU 2.1 (Solo consolidation) even though the provisions have similar wording. This is because the purpose of the provisions in BIPRU 2.1 is to define the conditions under which two undertakings should be treated as a single undertaking. The purpose of BIPRU 3.2.25 R (1) is to define the circumstances in which it is appropriate to apply a zero risk weight.

A firm that has chosen to apply the treatment in BIPRU 3.2.25 R should monitor the exposures to which a 0% risk weight is applied under that treatment and report these to the appropriate regulator as required.

If a firm has an IRB permission and exposures are exempted from the IRB approach under BIPRU 4.2.26 R (6) the firm may apply a 0% risk weight to them under BIPRU 3.2.25 R (2) (Zero risk weighting for intra-group exposures) if the conditions in BIPRU 3.2.25 R (1) are satisfied.

BIPRU 3 Annex 1 G is a flow chart guide to assessing whether an intra-group exposure can be zero risk weighted using the standardised approach subject to the conditions set out in BIPRU 3.2.25 R - BIPRU 3.2.35 R.