Related provisions for BIPRU 7.10.69
1 - 4 of 4 items.
BIPRU 7.10 provides details of when the FSA expects to allow a firm to use a VaR model (value at risk model) for the purpose of calculating part or all of its PRR. It introduces the concept of a VaR model, the methodology behind it and the link to the standard market risk PRR rules. It then goes on to detail the application and review process. The bulk of BIPRU 7.10 specifies the model standards and risk management standards that firms will be required to meet in order to use
The models described in BIPRU 7.10 are described as VaR models in order to distinguish them from CAD 1 models, which are dealt with in BIPRU 7.9 (Use of a CAD 1 model). A VaR model is a risk management model which uses a statistical measure to predict profit and loss movement ranges with a confidence interval. From these results PRR charges can be calculated. The standards described in BIPRU 7.10, and which will be applied by the FSA, are based on and implement Annex V of the
The aim of the VaR model approach is to enable a firm with adequate risk management systems to be subject to a PRR requirement that is more closely aligned with the risks to which it is subject than the PRR requirements generated by the standard market risk PRR rules. This provides a firm with an incentive to measure market risks as accurately and comprehensively as possible. It is crucial that those responsible for managing market risk at a firm should be aware of the assumptions
There are a number of general methodologies for calculating PRR using a VaR model. The FSA does not prescribe any one method of computing VaR measures. Moreover, it does not wish to discourage any firm from developing alternative risk measurement techniques. A firm should discuss the use of any alternative techniques used to calculate PRR with the FSA.
A firm should not use the VaR model approach to calculate PRR unless it has a VaR model permission. If a firm does not have such a permission it should use the standard market risk PRR rules. Therefore, a firm needs to apply for a VaR model permission in order to calculate its PRR using a VaR model instead of (or in combination with) the standard market risk PRR rules.
A waiver or other permission allowing the use of models in the calculation of PRR will not be granted if that would be contrary to the Capital Adequacy Directive and any VaR model permission which is granted will only be granted on terms that are compatible with the Capital Adequacy Directive. Accordingly, the FSA is likely only to grant a waiver or other permission allowing the use of models in the calculation of PRR if it is a VaR model permission or a CAD 1 model waiver.
BIPRU 7.10 sets out the minimum standards that the FSA expects firms to meet before granting a VaR model permission. The FSA will not grant a VaR model permission unless it is satisfied that the requirements of BIPRU 7.10 are met and it is satisfied about the procedures in place at a firm to calculate the model PRR. In particular the FSA will not normally grant a VaR model permission unless it is satisfied about the quality of:(1) the internal controls and risk management relating
The FSA recognises that the nature of VaR models will vary between firms. The scope of and the requirements and conditions set out in a VaR model permission may therefore differ in substance or detail from BIPRU 7.10 in order to address individual circumstances adequately. However any differences will only be allowed if they are compliant with the Capital Adequacy Directive. A VaR model permission will implement any such variation by modifying BIPRU 7.10. A VaR model permission
Details of the general process for applying for a VaR model permission are set out in BIPRU 1.3 (Applications for advanced approaches). Because of the complexity of a VaR model permission, it is recommended that a firm discuss its proposed application with its usual contact at the FSA before it makes the application.
The VaR model review process may be conducted through a series of visits covering various aspects of a firm's control and IT environment. Before these visits the FSA may ask the firm to provide some information relating to the firm'sVaR model permission request accompanied by some specified background material. The VaR model review visits are organised on a timetable that allows the firm being visited sufficient time to arrange the visit and provide the appropriate pre-visit
As part of the process for dealing with an application for a VaR model permission the following may be reviewed: organisational structure and personnel; details of the firm's market position in the relevant products; revenue and risk information; valuation and reserving policies; operational controls; information technology systems; model release and control procedures; risk management and control framework; risk appetite and limit structure; future developments relevant to model
The FSA may complement its own review of a VaR model permission request with one or more reviews by a skilled person under section 166 of the Act (Reports by skilled persons). Such a review may also be used where a VaR model permission has been granted to ensure that the requirements BIPRU 7.10 and of the VaR model permission continue to be met.
A firm must use the VaR model approach to calculate the PRR for a position:(1) to the extent that the risks in relation to that position are within the scope of the VaR model permission (see BIPRU 7.10.136R (Link to standard PRR rules: Incorporation of the model output into the capital calculation)); and(2) if the position is of a type that comes within the scope of the VaR model permission.
In accordance with BIPRU 7.10.18R (1) a VaR model permission will set out the risk categories that it covers, which are expected to be one or more of the following types:(1) interest rate general market risk;(2) interest rate specific risk (in conjunction with interest rate general market risk);(3) equitygeneral market risk;(4) equityspecific risk (in conjunction with equitygeneral market risk);(5) CIU risk;(6) foreign currency risk; and(7) commodity risk.
The FSA accepts that the scope and nature of VaR models varies across firms. This means that different firms are likely to calculate different estimates of market risk for the same portfolio. Systematic differences are due to length of data series, choice of methodology (historical or Monte Carlo simulation or variance-covariance method or a hybrid of these), differences in aggregating risks within and across broad risk factors, the treatment of options and other non-linear products
If a firm uses a holding period other than 10 business days and converts the resulting VaR measure to a ten business day equivalent measure, it should be able to justify the choice of conversion technique. For example, the square root of time method will usually be justifiable. The FSA considers it good practice ultimately to move towards the application of an actual ten business day holding period, rather than using different holding periods.
Subject to BIPRU 7.10.31R, the calculation of VaR numbers must be based on an effective historical observation period that is the longest possible consistent with a prudent VaR number. That period must be at least one year or such longer period as may be set out in the firm'sVaR model permission. However if using that prescribed observation period does not result in a sufficiently prudent way of calculating a VaR measure or a component of a VaR measure the firm must shorten this
A firm must ensure that the data series used by its VaR model is reliable. Where a reliable data series is not available, proxies or any other reasonable value-at-risk measurement technique must be used. A firm must be able to demonstrate that the technique is appropriate and does not materially understate the modelled risks.
A data series is unreliable if it has, for example, missing data points, or data points which contain stale data. Reliable data series may be difficult to obtain for new products (for example an instrument of longer dated tenor that did not previously trade) and for less liquid risk factors or positions. With regard to less liquid risk factors or positions, a firm may use a combination of prudent valuation techniques and alternative VaR estimation techniques to ensure there is
(1) If a weighting scheme or other similar method is used to calculate VaR numbers, then the effective observation period must be at least one year. Where a weighting scheme is used, the weighted average time lag of the individual observations must not be less than six Months.(2) If a specific observation period or weighted average time lag is specified in a firm'sVaR model permission, the firm must comply with that if it is longer than the period specified in (1).(3) However,
In aggregating VaR measures across risk or product categories, a firm must not use the square root of the sum of the squares approach unless the assumption of zero correlation between these categories is empirically justified. If correlations between risk categories are not empirically justified, the VaR measures for each category must simply be added in order to determine its aggregate VaR measure. But to the extent that a firm'sVaR model permission provides for a different way
Subject to BIPRU 7.10.53R (Model standards: Materiality), a VaR model should capture and accurately reflect all material risks arising on the underlying portfolio on a continuing basis insofar as those risks are within the scope of the VaR model permission. This should encompass general market risk and, to the extent that this comes within the scope of the VaR model permission, specific risk. A firm should ensure that the VaR model has sufficient risk factor granularity to be
In the case of general market risk and risks with respect to which the standard market risk PRR rules do not distinguish between general market risk and specific risk, a firm'sVaR model must capture a sufficient number of risk factors in relation to the level of activity of the firm and in particular the risks set out in BIPRU 7.10.40R - BIPRU 7.10.44R.
For interest rate risk, a VaR model must incorporate a set of risk factors corresponding to the interest rate curves in each currency in which the firm has interest rate sensitive positions. A firm must ensure that it captures the variations of volatility of rates along the yield curve. In order to achieve this, a firm must divide the yield curves of, at a minimum, the major currencies and markets in which it has material interest rate exposures into a minimum of six maturity
For commodity risk, the VaR model must use a separate risk factor at least for each commodity in which the firm has material positions. The VaR model must also capture the risk of less than perfectly correlated movements between similar, but not identical, commodities and the exposure to changes in forward prices arising from maturity mismatches. It must also take account of market characteristics, notably delivery dates and the scope provided to traders to close out position
(1) This paragraph contains guidance on the inclusion of CIUs in a VaR model.(2) The FSA may allow all types of CIU to be included within the scope of a firm'sVaR model permission.(3) BIPRU 7.10 does not distinguish between specific risk and general market risk for positions in CIUs. Therefore even if specific risk is not otherwise included within the scope of a firm'sVaR model permission, a firm should be able to demonstrate that its VaR model captures specific risk.(4) A firm
(1) If a firm'sVaR model covers the calculation of PRR with respect to specific risk the firm must meet the VaR specific risk minimum requirements in addition to the other requirements of BIPRU 7.10.(2) The VaR model must explain the historical price variation in the portfolios concerned.(3) The VaR model must capture concentration in terms of magnitude and changes of composition of the portfolios concerned.(4) The VaR model must be robust to an adverse environment.(5) The VaR
This paragraph provides guidance on BIPRU 7.10.46R (3). Take as an example a VaR model based on a factor model or on a historical simulation model. The ability of the model to explain price variation could be demonstrated by a statistical comparison over the same period of time between actual price changes on the portfolio and the profit and loss impact of risk factors included within the model. A firm may wish to include an estimate of residual variation not explained by the
(1) Where a firm is subject to event risk that is not reflected in its VaR measure, because it is beyond the 10-day holding period and 99 percent confidence interval (low probability and high severity events), the firm must ensure that the impact of such events is factored into its internal capital assessment.(2) A firm'sVaR model must conservatively assess the risk arising from less liquid positions and positions with limited price transparency under realistic market scenarios.
A firm'sVaR model must capture accurately all material price risks for positions within the scope of its VaRpermission, including risks relating to options or option-like positions. The firm must ensure that, if its VaR model does not accurately capture any material risk, the firm has capital resources adequate to cover that risk. These capital resources must be additional to those required to meet its capital resources requirement.
For example, BIPRU 7.10.53R might involve creating and documenting a prudent incremental PRR charge for the risk not captured in the VaR model and holding sufficient capital resources against this risk. In that case the firm should hold capital resources at least equal to its capital resources requirement as increased by adding this incremental charge to the model PRR. Alternatively the firm may make valuation adjustments through its profit and loss reserves to cover this material
A firm should be able to demonstrate that it meets the risk management standards set out in the VaR model permission on a legal entity basis. This is particularly important for a subsidiary undertaking in a group subject to matrix management where the business lines cut across legal entity boundaries.
A firm'sVaR model output should be an integral part of the process of planning, monitoring and controlling a firm'smarket risk profile. The VaR model should be used in conjunction with internal trading and exposure limits. The links between these limits and the VaR model should be consistent over time and understood by senior management. The firm should regard risk control as an essential aspect of the business to which significant resources need to be devoted.
A firm must have a risk control unit which is independent from business trading units and which reports directly to senior management. It:(1) must be responsible for designing and implementing the firm's risk management system;(2) must produce and analyse daily reports on the output of the VaR model and on the appropriate measures to be taken in terms of the trading limits; and(3) conduct the initial and on-going validation of the VaR model.
(1) An example of documents required by BIPRU 7.10.67R may be a manual that describes the basic principles of the risk management framework, clearly setting out empirical techniques, principles and assumptions used within it.(2) This documentation should be of sufficient detail for the FSA to be able to develop a clear understanding of how the VaR model works from that documentation on its own.
(1) A firm must frequently conduct a rigorous programme of stress testing. The results of these tests must be reviewed by senior management and reflected in the policies and limits the firm sets.(2) The programme must particularly address:(a) concentration risk;(b) illiquidity of markets in stressed market conditions;(c) one way markets;(d) event and jump to default risks;(e) non linearity of products;(f) deep out of the money positions;(g) positions subject to the gapping of
At least once a year, a firm must conduct, as part of its regular internal audit process, a review of its risk management process. This review must include both the activities of the business trading units and of the independent risk control unit, and must be undertaken by suitably qualified staff independent of the areas being reviewed. This review must consider, at a minimum:(1) the adequacy of the documentation of the risk management system and process;(2) the organisation
A firm must have processes in place to ensure that its VaR model has been adequately validated by suitably qualified parties independent of the development process to ensure that it is conceptually sound and adequately captures all material risks. This validation must be conducted when the VaR model is initially developed and when any significant changes are made to the VaR model. The validation must also be conducted on a periodic basis but especially where there have been any
(1) In addition to regulatory backtesting programs, testing for model validation should be carried out using additional tests which may include for example:(a) testing carried out using hypothetical changes in portfolio value that would occur were end of day positions to remain unchanged;(b) testing carried out for longer periods than required for the regular backtesting programme (for example, 3 years);(c) testing carried out using confidence intervals other than the 99 percent
In assessing whether the VaR model is implemented with integrity as described in BIPRU 7.10.58R (Stress testing), the FSA will consider in particular the information technology systems used to run the model and associated calculations. The assessment may include:(1) feeder systems; risk aggregation systems; time series databases; the VaR model system; stress testing system; the backtesting system including profit and loss cleaning systems where appropriate; data quality; reconciliations
A firm must ensure that it has adequate controls relating to:(1) the derivation of the model PRR;(2) the integrity of the backtesting programme, including the calculation of the profit and loss account;(3) the integrity and appropriateness of the VaR model, including the VaR model's geographic coverage and the completeness of data sources;(4) the VaR model's initial and ongoing development, including independent validation;(5) the valuation models, including independent validation;
A firm must periodically and actively identify all the worst case scenarios that are relevant to its portfolio. Scenarios used must be appropriate to test the effect of adverse movements in market volatilities and correlations and the effect of any change in the assumptions underlying the VaR model. Scenarios involving low probability market events must nevertheless be plausible.
Backtesting conducted only at a whole portfolio level using a single measure of profit and loss has limited power to distinguish an accurate VaR model from an inaccurate one. Backtesting should therefore be regarded as an additional safeguard rather than a primary validation tool. Such testing does however form the basis of the FSA'splus factor system. The test has been chosen as the basis of the backtesting regime because of its simplicity. A firm will therefore be expected to
A firm must have the capacity to analyse and compare its clean profit and loss figures and clean hypothetical profit and loss figures to the VaR measure, both at the level of the whole portfolio covered by the VaR model permission and at the level of individual books that contain material amounts of risk.
The ultimate purpose of backtesting is to assess whether capital is sufficient to absorb actual losses. Therefore backtesting should be performed using a measure of actual daily profit and loss. Actual daily profit and loss means the day's profit and loss arising from trading activities within the scope of the VaR model permission. This measure should, however, be 'cleaned' using BIPRU 7.10.100R inclusion in profit and loss of non-modelled factors.
The clean profit and loss figure for a particular business day is the firm's actual profit or loss for that day in respect of the trading activities within the scope of the firm'sVaR model permission, adjusted by stripping out:(1) fees and commissions;(2) brokerage;(3) additions to and releases from reserves which are not directly related to market risk (e.g. administration reserves); and(4) any inception profit exceeding an amount specified for this purpose in the firm'sVaR model
The FSA will review as part of a firm'sVaR model permission application the processes and documentation relating to the derivation of profit and loss used for backtesting. A firm's documentation should clearly set out the basis for cleaning profit and loss. To the extent that certain profit and loss elements are not updated every day (for example certain reserve calculations) the documentation should clearly set out how such elements are included in the clean profit and loss
A backtesting exception is deemed to have occurred for any business day if the clean profit and loss figure for that business day shows a loss, which in absolute magnitude, exceeds the one-day VaR measure for that business day. The only exception is if that business day is identified in the firm'sVaR model permission as giving rise to an excluded backtesting exception.
If a backtesting exception occurs, the firm must notify its usual supervisory contact at the FSA orally by close of business two business days after the business day for which the backtesting exception occurred. Within five business days following the end of each Month, the firm must submit to the FSA a written account of the previous Month'sbacktesting exceptions (if any). This explanation must include the causes of the backtesting exceptions, an analysis of whether the backtesting
(1) This paragraph gives guidance on the backtesting calculation and reporting process in BIPRU 7.10.96R - BIPRU 7.10.104R.(2) Let the day on which the loss referred to in BIPRU 7.10.100R is made be day n. The value-at-risk measure for that day will be calculated on day n-1, or overnight between day n-1 and day n. Profit and loss figures are produced on day n+1, and backtesting also takes place on day n+1. The firm's supervisor should be notified of any backtesting exceptions
(1) This paragraph gives guidance on the process for excluding backtesting exceptions as referred to in BIPRU 7.10.103R.(2) The FSA will respond flexibly to backtesting exceptions. However, the FSA's starting assumption will be that a backtesting exception should be taken into account for the purpose of the calculation of plus factors. If the firm believes that a backtesting exception should not count for that purpose, then it should seek a variation of its VaR model permission
If a firm'sVaR model permission covers specific risk, the firm must validate its VaR model through backtesting aimed at assessing whether specific risk is being accurately captured. This backtesting must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of its VaR model permission. If the VaR model permission provides for this backtesting to be performed on the basis of relevant sub-portfolios, these must be chosen in a consistent manner.
Specific risk backtesting involves the backtesting of a standalone specific riskVaR measure against a profit and loss series determined by reference to exposure risk factors categorised as specific risk. Alternatively specific risk backtesting may take the form of regular backtesting of trading books and portfolios that are predominantly exposed to risk factors categorised as specific risk. The precise requirements for specific risk backtesting will be specified in the firm'sVaR
Where backtesting reveals severe problems with the basic integrity of the VaR model, the FSA may withdraw model recognition. In particular, if ten or more backtesting exceptions are recorded in a 250 business day period, the FSA may apply a plus factor greater than one or the FSA may consider revoking a firm'sVaR model permission. The FSA may also consider revoking a firm'sVaR model permission if ten or more specific riskbacktesting exceptions occur in such a period.
A firm must also perform backtesting against a clean hypothetical profit and loss figure with respect to each business day. A clean hypothetical profit and loss figure for a business day means the clean profit and loss figure that would have occurred for that business day if the portfolio on which the VaR number for that business day is based remained unchanged.
(1) A clean hypothetical profit and loss figure is based on the day's change in the value of the same portfolio that was used to generate the value-at-risk forecast.(2) Backtesting under BIPRU 7.10.111R, although carried out with respect to each business day, need not be carried out each day. A firm need only carry it out sufficiently frequently to comply with its reporting requirements under BIPRU 7.10.129R. An exception arising out of such backtesting need not be reported to
The model PRR is, for any business day (the "relevant" business day), calculated in accordance with the following formula:(1) the higher of:(a) the VaR number for the relevant business day; and(b) the average of its daily VaR numbers for each of the 60 business days ending with the relevant business day, multiplied by the multiplication factor for the relevant business day; and(2) (in the case of a VaR model permission that covers specific risk) the incremental default risk charge
The VaR number for any business day means the VaR measure, in respect of the previous business day's close-of-business positions in products coming within the scope of the VaR model permission, calculated by the VaR model and in accordance with BIPRU 7.10 and any methodology set out in the VaR model permission. The VaR number must not be calculated taking into account matters on the business day for which it is the VaR number.
The following equation expresses BIPRU 7.10.113R mathematically:where:(1) PRRVaris a firm'smodel PRR;(2) VaRt represents the previous day's value-at-risk figure;(3) VaRt-i represents the value-at-risk calculated for ibusiness days earlier;(4) f is the multiplication factor; and(5) IDRC is the incremental default risk charge (if applicable).
The minimum multiplication factor will never be less than three. If the FSA does set the minimum multiplication factor above three the VaR model permission will have a table that sets outs the reasons for that add on and specify how much of the add on is attributable to each reason (see BIPRU 7.10.121R). If there are weaknesses in the VaR model that may otherwise be considered a breach of the minimum standards referred to in BIPRU 7.10.24R the FSA may apply such an add on to act
Typically, any add on will be due to a specific weakness in systems and controls identified during the FSA's review that the FSA does not consider material enough to justify withholding overall model recognition. The firm will be expected to take action to address the reasons for any add on. The FSA will then review these periodically and, where satisfactory action has been taken, the add on will be removed through a variation of the VaR model permission.
The table in BIPRU 7.10.125R sets out the plus factors to be added to the minimum multiplication factor for any business day. It is based on the number of backtesting exceptions that occurred during the backtesting period as referred to in BIPRU 7.10.96R (Backtesting: Basic testing requirements) ending three business days preceding the business day for which the model PRR is being calculated.
A VaR model that correctly predicts a one-tailed 99% confidence level is expected to produce, on average, 2.5 backtesting exceptions every 250 days. Random events may cause the number of backtesting exceptions actually observed to vary. The plus factor system is designed to take this into account. Hence plus factors are only imposed on the firm if it has five or more recorded backtesting exceptions. Therefore, where a backtesting exception appears to be caused simply by chance,
A VaR model permission will contain requirements for what the firm should report to the FSA and the procedures for reporting. The precise requirements will vary from VaR model permission to VaR model permission. BIPRU 7.10.129R-BIPRU 7.10.130R set out what the FSA regards as the standard requirements.
A firm must, no later than the number of business days after the end of each quarter specified in the VaR model permission for this purpose, submit, in respect of that quarter, a report to the FSA about the operation of the VaR model, the systems and controls relating to it and any changes to the VaR model and those systems and controls. Each report must outline as a minimum the following information in respect of that quarter:(1) methodological changes and developments to the
A firm must provide to, and discuss with, the FSA details of any significant planned changes to the VaR model before those changes are implemented. These details must include information about the nature of the change and an estimate of the impact on VaR numbers and the incremental default risk charge.
The information in BIPRU 7.10.131G will vary over time. It is therefore not included in a VaR model permission as a rule but for information only. The FSA will update that information regularly in accordance with information supplied under BIPRU 7.10.129R. That updating will not amount to a variation of the VaR model permission.
By modifying GENPRU 2.1.52 R (Calculation of the market risk capital requirement) to allow the firm to use the VaR model to calculate all or part of its PRR for certain positions, the FSA is treating it like an application rule. The modification means that the PRR calculation set out in BIPRU 7.10 supersedes the standard market risk PRR rules for products and risks coming within the scope of the VaR model permission.
(1) This rule applies to a position of a type that comes within the scope of a firm'sVaR model permission.(2) If, where the standard market risk PRR rules apply, a position is subject to a PRR charge and the firm'sVaR model permission says that it covers the risks to which that PRR charge relates, the firm must, for those risks, calculate the PRR for that position under the VaR model approach rather than under the standard market risk PRR rules.(3) If, where the standard market
(1) If a firm calculates its market risk capital requirement using a combination of the standard market risk PRR rules and either the VaR model approach or the VaR model approach with the CAD 1 model approach the PRR from each method must be added together.(2) A firm must take appropriate steps to ensure that all of the approaches are applied in a consistent manner.
If:(1) the standard market risk PRR rules provide for a choice of which of the PRR charges to use or specify that one type must be used in some circumstances and that another type must be used in other circumstances;(2) one of those types is disapplied under BIPRU 7.10.136R; and(3) the other type is not disapplied;the firm:(4) must use the VaR model approach if under the standard market risk PRR rules the firm must use the standard market risk PRR rules in (2); and(5) may use
The treatment of a convertible is an example of a situation in which BIPRU 7.10.140R applies. The table in BIPRU 7.3.3R (Table: Instruments which result in notional positions) shows that there are circumstances in which under the standard market risk PRR rules a firm should calculate an equity PRR and that there are circumstances in which a firm may choose between calculating an equity PRR and an interest rate PRR. BIPRU 7.10.140R would be relevant if a firm'sVaR model permission
If a firm'sVaR model permission covers interest rate general market risk but not interest rate specific risk, the firm must calculate the interest rate PRR so far as it relates to interest rate specific risk in accordance with the standard market risk PRR rules except that the firm must not use the basic interest rate PRR calculation in BIPRU 7.3.45R (Basic interest rate calculation for equity instruments).
If a firm'sVaR model permission covers equitygeneral market risk but not equityspecific risk, the firm must calculate the equity PRR so far as it relates to equityspecific risk in accordance with the standard market risk PRR rules except that the PRR for equityspecific risk must be calculated under the standard equity method.
(1) To the extent that a firm'sVaR model permission does not allow it to use an approach set out in BIPRU 7.10 the relevant provisions in BIPRU 7.10 do not apply to that firm.(2) If a provision of the Handbook refers to BIPRU 7.10, that reference must, in the case of a particular firm with a VaR model permission, be treated as excluding provisions of BIPRU 7.10 that do not apply under the VaR model permission and as taking into account any modifications to BIPRU 7.10 made by the
If a firm ceases to meet any of the requirements set out in BIPRU 7.10, the FSA's policy is that the VaR model permission should cease to have effect. In part this will be achieved by making it a condition of a firm'sVaR model permission that it complies at all times with the minimum standards referred to in BIPRU 7.10.26R - BIPRU 7.10.53R. Even if they are not formally included as conditions, the FSA is likely to consider revoking the VaR model permission if the requirements
A firm may change its VaR model to such extent as it sees fit, except that it must not make a change that (either on its own or together with other changes since the date of VaR model permission) would:(1) be inconsistent with VaR model permission or BIPRU 7.10; or(2) mean that backtesting in accordance with BIPRU 7.10 and the VaR model permission would result in the use of data that is inappropriate for the purposes of measuring the performance of the VaR model.
Table of application, notification and vetting fees
(1) Fee payer |
(2) Fee payable |
Due date |
(a) Any applicant for Part IV permission (including an incoming firm applying for top-up permission) |
(1) Unless (2) applies, in1 respect of a particular application, the highest of the tariffs set out in FEES 3 Annex 1 part 11 which apply to that application. (2) In respect of a particular application which is: (i) a straightforward or moderately complex case for the purposes of FEES 3 Annex 1 part 1, and (ii) only involves a simple change of legal status as set out in FEES 3 Annex 1 part 6, the fee payable is 50% of the tariff that would otherwise be payable in FEES 3 Annex 1 part 11 1 |
On or before the application is made |
(b) Any Treaty firm that wishes to exercise a Treaty right to qualify for authorisation under Schedule 4 to the Act (Treaty rights) in respect of regulated activities for which it does not have an EEA right |
(1) Where no certificate has been issued under paragraph 3(4) of Schedule 4 to the Act the fee payable is, in respect of a particular exercise, set out in FEES 3 Annex 1, part 4 (2) Where a certificate in (i) has been issued no fee is payable |
On or before the notice of exercise is given |
(c) Any applicant for a certificate under article 54 of the Regulated Activities Order |
2,000 |
On or before the application is made |
(d) Applicants for an authorisation order for, or recognition of, a collective investment scheme |
FEES 3 Annex 2, part 1 |
On or before the application is made |
(f) Any person seeking an order under section 326(1) of the Act to become a designated professional body. |
10,000 |
30 days after the order is granted |
(g) Any applicant for recognition as a UK recognised body under section 287 or section 288 of the Act |
FEES 3 Annex 3, part 1 |
On or before the date the application is made |
(h) Any applicant for recognition as an overseas recognised body under section 287 or section 288 and section 292 of the Act |
FEES 3 Annex 3, part 2 |
On or before the date the application is made |
(i) An applicant for listing (under the listing rules) |
FEES 3 Annex 4, part 1 |
On or before the date the application is made |
(j) Applicant for approval as sponsor (under the listing rules) |
FEES 3 Annex 4, part 2 |
On or before the date the application is made |
(k) Issuers of tranches from debt issuance programmes and securitised derivative tranches |
FEES 3 Annex 4, part 1 |
An upfront fee is required per tranche for draw downs in the following 12 months |
(l) Under the listing rules, an issuer involved in specific events or transactions during the year where documentation is subject to a transaction vetting |
FEES 3 Annex 5, part 1, unless the transaction would come within the definition of significant transaction under category (q) in this table, in which case the fee payable under that category.2 |
On or before the date that relevant documentation is first submitted to the FSA |
(m) Under the prospectus rules, an issuer or person requesting approval or vetting of the documents arising in relation to specific events or transactions that it might be involved in during the year |
FEES 3 Annex 5, part 2, unless the transaction would come within the definition of significant transaction under category (q) in this table, in which case the fee payable under that category.2 |
On or before the date that relevant documentation is first submitted to the FSA |
(n) Applicants to be added to the list of designated investment exchanges |
50,000 |
On or before the date the application is made |
2(o) In connection with rules (or future rules) implementing the Capital Requirements Regulations 2006 (including any amendments): (i) a firm applying to the FSA for a waiver or concession (or guidance on the availability of either): or (ii) a firm'sEEA parent applying to its Home State regulator for the use of the Internal Ratings Based approach and the Home State regulator requesting the FSA's assistance in accordance with the Capital Requirements Regulations 2006 . 112 |
If the firm is applying to the FSA:2 (1) unless2 (2) applies, FEES 3 Annex 6;2 (2) (a) unless2 (b) applies a1firm submitting a second application for a waiver or concession or1guidance described in column (1) within 12 months of the first application (where the fee was paid in accordance with (1)) must pay 50% of the fee applicable to it under FEES 3 Annex 6, but only in respect of that second application (b) No fee is payable by a firm in relation to a successful application for a waiver or a concession based on a minded to grant decision in respect of the same matter following a complete application for guidance in accordance with prescribed submission requirements.1 (c) No fee is payable by a firm applying to its Home State regulator where the Home State regulator has requested the assistance of the FSAand the firm falls within Group 4 of Part 1 of FEES 3 Annex 6.2 212 |
Where the firm has made an application directly to the FSA, on or before the date the application is made, otherwise within 30 days after the FSA notifies the firm that its EEA parent's Home State regulator has requested the FSA's assistance.2 2 |
(p) A firm applying for a variation of its Part IV permission |
(1) Unless (2) applies, if the proposed new1 business of the firm would1 fall within one or more activity groups specified in Part 1 of FEES 4 Annex 1 not applicable before the application1, the fee is 50% of the highest of the tariffs set out in which apply to that application. (2) If the only change is that the1 A.12 activity group tariff applied to the firm's business before the variation and the A.13 activity group will apply after variation, no fee is payable(3) In all other cases, other than applications by credit unions, the fee payable is 250, unless the variation involves only the reduction (and no other increases) in the scope of a Part IV permission in which case no fee is payable.1 11 |
On or before the date the application is made |
2(q) A significanttransaction, being one where: (i) the issuer has a market capitalisation in excess of 1.5 billion and it is a new applicant for a primary listing under the listing rules, or involved in a reverse or hostile takeover or a significant restructuring; or (ii) the issuer has a market capitalisation in excess of 5 billion and is involved in a class 1 transaction or a transaction requiring vetting of an equity prospectus or equivalent document ; or (iii) the issuer is proposing a Depositary Receipt issue intended to raise more than 5billion. |
50,000 |
On or before the date that the relevant documentation is first submitted to the FSA.3 33 |
2(r) Providers of reporting or trade matching systems applying for recognition under MiFID as an Approved Reporting Mechanism. |
20,000 |
On or before the date the application is made. |
(1) This rule does not apply in respect of government and public securities.(2) Not more than 20% in value of the scheme property is to consist of deposits with a single body.(3) Not more than 10% in value of the scheme property is to consist of transferable securities or money-market instruments issued by any single body subject to COLL 5.6.23 R (Schemes replicating an index).(4) In applying (3) certificates representing certain securities are to be treated as equivalent to the