Related provisions for BIPRU 3.4.20
41 - 60 of 83 items.
(1) Transactions with a linear risk profile with a debt instrument as the underlying instrument must be mapped to an interest rate risk position for the debt instrument and another interest rate risk position for the payment leg.(2) Transactions with a linear risk profile that stipulate the exchange of payment against payment, including foreign exchange forwards, must be mapped to an interest rate risk position for each of the payment legs.(3) If the underlying debt instrument
A firm must not recognise netting for the purpose of applying the CCR mark to market method to an exposure treated under BIPRU 13.5.9 R (that is, the exposure value must be determined as if there were a netting set that comprises just the individual transaction).[Note: BCD Annex III Part 5 point 19 (part)]
A firm must determine the exposure value net of collateral, as follows:exposure value = *max(CMV-CMC;(j)((i)(RPTij)-(l)(RPClj))*CCRMj)where:CMV = current market value of the portfolio of transactions within the netting set with a counterparty gross of collateral.That is, where:CMV = (i)(CMVi)where:CMVi = the current market value of transaction i;CMC = the current market value of the collateral assigned to the netting set.That is, where:CMC = (l)(CMCl)whereCMCl = the current market
A firm calculating risk weighted exposure amounts in accordance with the IRB approach must disclose the following information:(1) the scope of the firm'sIRB permission;(2) an explanation and review of:(a) the structure of internal rating systems and relation between internal and external ratings;(b) the use of internal estimates other than for calculating risk weighted exposure amounts in accordance with the IRB approach;(c) the process for managing and recognising credit risk
For the purposes of BIPRU 11.6.1 R (3), the description must include the types of exposure included in the IRB exposure class, the definitions, methods and data for estimation and validation of PD and, if applicable, LGD and conversion factors, including assumptions employed in the derivation of these variables, and the descriptions of material deviations from the definition of default, including the broad segments affected by such deviations.[Note: BCD Annex XII Part 3 point
For the purposes of BIPRU 11.6.1 R (4), where a firm uses its own estimates of LGDs or conversion factors for the calculation of risk weighted exposure amounts for exposures falling into the sovereign, institution and corporate IRB exposure class1, the firm must disclose those exposures separately from exposures for which it does not use such estimates.[Note: BCD Annex XII Part 3 point 1 (part)]
A firm applying credit risk mitigation techniques must disclose the following information:(1) the policies and processes for, and an indication of the extent to which the firm makes use of, on- and off-balance sheet netting;(2) the policies and processes for collateral valuation and management;(3) a description of the main types of collateral taken by the firm;(4) the main types of guarantor and credit derivative counterparty and their creditworthiness;(5) information about market
Without prejudice to BIPRU 5.6.1 R, eligibility is limited to reciprocal cash balances between a firm and a counterparty. Only loans and deposits of the lending firm may be subject to a modification of risk weighted exposure amounts and, as relevant, expected loss amounts as a result of an on-balance sheet netting agreement.[Note: BCD Annex VIII Part 1 point 4]
For on-balance sheet netting agreements - other than master netting agreements covering repurchase transactions, securities or commodities lending or borrowing transactions and/or other capital market-driven transactions – to be recognised for the purposes of BIPRU 5 the following conditions must be satisfied:(1) they must be legally effective and enforceable in all relevant jurisdictions, including in the event of the insolvency or bankruptcy of a counterparty;(2) the firm must
The guidance in BIPRU 3.3 (Recognition of ratings agencies) applies for the purposes of BIPRU 9 as it does to exposurerisk weighting in BIPRU 3, save that the reference in BIPRU 3.3 to the regulation 221 of the Capital Requirements Regulations 20061 should be read as a reference to regulation 231 of the Capital Requirements Regulations 20061 for the purposes of BIPRU 9.
An originator which, in respect of a securitisation, has made use of BIPRU 9.3.1 R in the calculation of risk weighted exposure amounts, or a sponsor, must not, with a view to reducing potential or actual losses to investors, provide support to the securitisation beyond its contractual obligations.[Note: BCD Article 101(1)]
If an originator or sponsor fails to comply with BIPRU 9.6.1 R in respect of a securitisation, it must:(1) hold capital against all of the securitised exposures associated with the securitisation transaction as if they had not been securitised; and(2) disclose publicly:(a) that it has provided non-contractual support, and(b) the regulatory capital impact of doing so.[Note: BCD Article 101(2)]
(1) Securitisation documentation should make clear, where applicable, that any repurchase of securitised exposures or securitisation positions by the originator or sponsor beyond its contractual obligations is not mandatory and may only be made at fair market value. In general, any such repurchase should be subject to a firm's credit review and approval process, which should be adequate to ensure that the repurchase complies with BIPRU 9.6.1 R.(2) If an originator or sponsor repurchases
The criteria which the FSA must apply when assessing ECAIs for recognition for exposurerisk weighting purposes are set out in Regulation 22 and Schedule 1 to the Capital Requirements Regulations 2006. In making an assessment against those criteria and in carrying out the mapping process described in BIPRU 3.3.7 G to BIPRU 3.3.9 G the FSA will have regard to the approach set out in the Committee of European Banking Supervisors' "Guidelines on the recognition of External Credit
The list of eligible ECAIs includes those who have been recognised as eligible for exposurerisk weighting purposes by a competent authority of another EEA State and are subsequently recognised as eligible ECAIs by the FSA without carrying out its own evaluation process under Regulation 22(2) of the Capital Requirements Regulations 2006.
Subject to GENPRU 1.3.9 R to GENPRU 1.3.10 R and GENPRU 1.3.36 R, except where a rule in GENPRU, BIPRU or INSPRU provides for a different method of recognition or valuation, whenever a rule in GENPRU, BIPRU or INSPRU refers to an asset, liability, exposure, equity or income statement item, a firm must, for the purpose of that rule, recognise the asset, liability, exposure, equity or income statement item and measure its value in accordance with whichever of the following are applicable:(1)
Except where a rule in GENPRU, BIPRU or INSPRU makes different provision, GENPRU 1.3.4 R applies whenever a rule in GENPRU, BIPRU or INSPRU refers to the value or amount of an asset, liability, exposure, equity or income statement item, including:(1) whether, and when, to recognise or de-recognise an asset or liability;(2) the amount at which to value an asset, liability, exposure, equity or income statement item; and(3) which description to place on an asset, liability, exposure,
If a firm has an investment firm consolidation waiver, it must:(1) ensure that each CAD investment firm in the UK consolidation group or non-EEA sub-group which is a firm or an EEA firm has in place systems to monitor and control the sources of capital and funding of all the members in the UK consolidation group or non-EEA sub-group;(2) notify the FSA of any serious risk that could undermine the financial stability of the UK consolidation group or non-EEA sub-group, as soon as
Although an investment firm consolidation waiver switches off most of this chapter, a firm should still carry out the capital adequacy calculations in BIPRU 8.3 to BIPRU 8.8 as if those parts of this chapter still applied to the UK consolidation group or non-EEA sub-group and report these to the FSA. It should also still monitor large exposure risk on a consolidated basis.
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
Stress testing is a way of identifying the risk to a firm posed by a breakdown of model assumptions or by low-probability events. Where stress tests reveal unacceptable vulnerability to a given set of circumstances, a firm should take prompt steps to manage those risks appropriately, for example by hedging against the outcome or reducing the size of the firm'sexposure.
A firm should assess its exposure to changes in interest rates, in particular risks arising from the effect of interest rate changes on non-trading book activities that are not captured by the CRR. In doing so, a firm may wish to use stress tests to determine the impact on its balance sheet of a change in market conditions.
A firm should assess its exposure to risks transferred through the securitisation of assets should those transfers fail for whatever reason. A firm should consider the effect on its financial position of a securitisation arrangement failing to operate as anticipated or of the values and risks transferred not emerging as expected.
A firm should assess its exposure to residual risks that may result from the partial performance or failure of credit risk mitigation techniques for reasons that are unconnected with their intrinsic value. This could result from, for instance, ineffective documentation, a delay in payment or the inability to realise payment from a guarantor in a timely manner. Given that residual risks can always be present, a firm should assess the appropriateness of its CRR against its assumptions
A firm should assess, and monitor, in detail its exposure to sectoral, geographic, liability and asset concentrations. The FSA considers that concentrations in these areas increase a firm's exposure to credit risk. Where a firm identifies such concentrations it should consider the adequacy of its CRR.
Table: specific risk PRAs
This table belongs to BIPRU 7.2.43R.
Issuer |
Residual maturity |
|
Debt securities issued or guaranteed by central governments, issued by central banks, international organisations, multilateral development banks or EEA States' regional governments or local authorities which would qualify for credit quality step 1 or which would receive a 0% risk weight under the standardised approach to credit risk. |
Any |
0% |
(A) Debt securities issued or guaranteed by central governments, issued by central banks, international organisations, multilateral development banks or EEA States' regional governments or local authorities which would qualify for credit quality step 2 or 3 under the standardised approach to credit risk. (B) Debt securities issued or guaranteed by institutions which would qualify for credit quality step 1 or 2 under the standardised approach to credit risk. (C) Debt securities issued or guaranteed by institution which would qualify for credit quality step 3 under BIPRU 3.4.34 R (Exposures to institutions: Credit assessment based method) or which would do so if it had an original effective maturity of three months or less. (D) Debt securities issued or guaranteed by corporates which would qualify for credit quality step 1 or 2 under the standardised approach to credit risk. (E) Other qualifying debt securities (see BIPRU 7.2.49R) |
Zero to six months |
0.25% |
over 6 and up to and including 24 months |
1% |
|
Over 24 months |
1.6% |
|
(A) Debt securities issued or guaranteed by central governments, issued by central banks, international organisations, multilateral development banks or EEA States' regional governments or local authorities or institutions which would qualify for credit quality step 4 or 5 under the standardised approach to credit risk. (B) Debt securities issued or guaranteed by corporates which would qualify for credit quality step 3 or 4 under the standardised approach to credit risk. (C) Exposures for which a credit assessment by a nominated ECAI is not available. |
Any |
8% |
(A) Debt securities issued or guaranteed by central governments, issued by central banks, international organisations, multilateral development banks or EEA States' regional governments or local authorities or institution which would qualify for credit quality step 6 under the standardised approach to credit risk. (B) Debt securities issued or guaranteed by corporate which would qualify for credit quality step 5 or 6 under the standardised approach to credit risk. (C) An instrument that shows a particular risk because of the insufficient solvency of the issuer of liquidity. This paragraph applies even if the instrument would otherwise qualify for a lower PRA under this table. |
Any |
12% |
Note: The question of what a corporate is and of what category a debt security falls into must be decided under the rules relating to the standardised approach to credit risk. |
||
There are three broad purposes of stress testing and scenario analysis. Firstly, it can be used as a means of quantifying how much capital might be absorbed if an adverse event or events occurred. As such it represents a simple ‘what if’ approach to estimating exposure to risks. This might be a proportionate approach to risk management for an unsophisticated business. Secondly, it can be used to provide a check on the outputs and accuracy of risk models; particularly, in identifying
Both stress testing and scenario analyses are forward-looking analysis techniques, which seek to anticipate possible losses that might occur if an identified risk crystallises. In applying them, a firm should decide how far forward to look. This should depend upon:(1) how quickly it would be able to identify events or changes in circumstances that might lead to a risk crystallising resulting in a loss; and(2) after it has identified the event or circumstance, how quickly and effectively
The time horizon over which stress tests and scenario analysisshould be carried out shoulddepend on the maturity and liquidity of the positions stressed. For example, for the market risk arising from the holding of investments, this shoulddepend upon:(1) the extent to which there is a regular, open and transparent market in those assets, which would allow fluctuations in the value of the investment to be more readily and quickly identified; and(2) the extent to which the market
(1) A firm may take full allowance when the value of two legs always move in the opposite direction and broadly to the same extent.(2) This will be the case in the following situations:(a) the two legs consist of completely identical instruments; or(b) a long cash position is hedged by a total rate of return swap (or vice versa) and there is an exact match between the reference obligation and the underlying exposure (i.e., the cash position).(3) The maturity of the swap itself
An 80% offset may be applied when the value of two legs always move in the opposite direction and where there is an exact match in terms of the reference obligation, the maturity of both the reference obligation and the credit derivative, and the currency of the underlying exposure. In addition, key features of the credit derivative contract must not cause the price movement of the credit derivative materially to deviate from the price movements of the cash position. To the extent
(1) A firm may take partial allowance when the value of two legs usually move in the opposite direction. This would be the case in the situations set out in (2) - (4).(2) The first situation referred to in (1) is that the position falls under BIPRU 7.11.16 R (2)(b) but there is an asset mismatch between the reference obligation and the underlying exposure. However, the positions meet the following requirements:(a) the reference obligation ranks pari passu with or is junior to
The information in the investment policy, including quantitative information concerning the exposures mentioned in LR 15.2.7 R, should be sufficiently precise and clear as to enable an investor to:(1) assess the investment opportunity;(2) identify how the objective of risk spreading is to be achieved; and(3) assess the significance of any proposed change of investment policy.
In determining whether a UK recognised body has financial resources sufficient for the proper performance of its relevant functions, the FSA may have regard to:(1) the operational and other risks to which the UK recognised body is exposed;(2) if the UK recognised body acts as a central counterparty or otherwise guarantees the performance of transactions in specified investments, the counterparty and market risks to which it is exposed in that capacity; (3) the amount and composition
In assessing whether a UK recognised body has sufficient financial resources in relation to counterparty and market risks, the FSA may have regard to:(1) the amount and liquidity of its financial assets and the likely availability of liquid financial resources to the UK recognised body during periods of major market turbulence or other periods of major stress for the financial system; and(2) the nature and scale of the UK recognised body's exposures to counterparty and market
BIPRU 3.1 sets out how a firm should calculate the credit risk capital component, which is one of the elements that make up the credit risk capital requirement under GENPRU 2.1.51 R. Part of that calculation involves calculating risk weighted exposure amounts for exposures in the firm'snon-trading book. The rest of BIPRU 3 sets out how the firm should carry out that calculation.
A firm may offset gamma and vega exposures arising from the products listed in BIPRU 7.9.37G (5) where it can demonstrate that it trades different types of interest rate-related options as a portfolio and takes steps to control the basis risk between different types of implied volatility. To the extent that this is the case an individual matrix is not required for each of the products listed in BIPRU 7.9.37G (5) and a combined scenario matrix may be used.
Where it is imprudent fully to offset long-dated and short-dated vega exposure owing to the risk of non-parallel shifts in the yield curve, a firm should use an appropriate number of scenario matrices to take account of non-parallel shifts in the yield curve according to the maturity of the option or underlying.
In using the scenario matrix approach, none of the steps followed will take specific account of a firm's exposure to rho risk. Where a firm can demonstrate that for interest rate-related options the rho sensitivity is effectively included in the delta sensitivities produced, there is no separate capital requirement relating to rho. For all other options except commodity options, a firm should calculate a rho sensitivity ladder by currency using its CAD 1 model and either feed
BIPRU 13.3 sets out the calculations of exposure values for financial derivative instrument, long settlement transactions and certain other transactions under the standardised approach and, subject to BIPRU 4, under the IRB approach. BIPRU 13.4, 13.5 and 13.6 set out the provisions relating to the CCR mark to market method, the CCR standardised method and the CCR internal model method in turn.