Related provisions for BIPRU 7.10.85
1 - 20 of 20 items.
This section also has rules requiring a firm to carry out appropriate stress tests and scenario analyses for the risks it has previously identified and to establish the amount of financial resources needed in each of the circumstances and events considered in carrying out the stress tests and scenario analyses.
(1) This rule amplifies some of the obligations in the overall Pillar 2 rule.(2) In the case of a BIPRU firm the processes, strategies and systems relating to concentration risk must include those necessary to ensure compliance with BIPRU 10 (Concentration risk requirements).(3) As part of its obligations in respect of market risk, a BIPRU firm must consider whether the value adjustments and provisions taken for positions and portfolios in the trading book enable the firm to sell
(1) As part of its obligation under the overall Pillar 2 rule, a firm must, for each of the major sources of risk identified in accordance with GENPRU 1.2.30R (2), carry out stress tests and scenario analyses that are appropriate to the nature of those major sources of risk, as part of which the firm must:(a) take reasonable steps to identify an appropriate range of realistic adverse circumstances and events in which the risk identified crystallises; and(b) estimate the financial
Stress tests and scenario analyses should be carried out at least annually. A firm should, however, consider whether the nature of the major sources of risks identified by it in accordance with GENPRU 1.2.30R (2) (Main requirement relating to risk processes, strategies and systems) and their possible impact on its financial resources suggest that such tests and analyses should be carried out more frequently. For instance, a sudden change in the economic outlook may prompt a firm
(1) This rule relates to the assessment of the amounts, types and distribution of financial resources, capital resources and internal capital (referred to in this rule as "resources") under the overall Pillar 2 rule as applied on a consolidated basis and to the assessment of diversification effects as referred to in GENPRU 1.2.37R (2) as applied on a consolidated basis.(2) A firm must be able to explain how it has aggregated the risks referred to in the overall Pillar 2 rule and
A firm must make a written record of the assessments required under this section. These assessments include assessments carried out on a consolidated basis and on a solo basis. In particular it must make a written record of:(1) the major sources of risk identified in accordance with GENPRU 1.2.30R (2) (Main requirement relating to risk processes, strategies and systems);(2) how it intends to deal with those risks; and(3) details of the stress tests and scenario analyses carried
Both stress tests and scenario analyses can beundertaken by a firm to further a better understanding of the vulnerabilities that it faces under extremeconditions. They are based on the analysis of the impact of unlikely, but not impossible, events. These events can be financial, operational or legal or relate to any other risk that might have an economic impact on the firm.
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
Subject to GENPRU 1.2.76 G, the purpose of stress tests and scenario analyses under the general stress and scenario testing rule is to test the adequacy of overall financial resources. Scenarios need only be identified, and their impact assessed, in so far as this facilitates that purpose. In particular, the nature, depth and detail of the analysis depend, in part, upon the firm's capital strength and the robustness of its risk prevention and risk mitigation measures.
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 should assess the nature and severity of the economic recession or business cycle changes which are relevant to it given the nature and scale of its business. When projecting its capital resources and CRR a firm should consider a range of stresses and scenarios both in nature and severity.(2) Stress and scenario analyses should, in the first instance, be aligned with the risk appetite of the firm and the calibration of such stress and scenario analyses should be reconciled
A firm should use the results of its stress testing and scenario analysis not only to assess capital needs, but also to decide if measures should be put in place to minimise the adverse effect on the firm if the risk covered by the stress or scenario test actually materialises. Such measures might be a contingency plan or might be more concrete risk mitigation steps.
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
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
(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
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
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 must have procedures to assess and respond to the results produced from stress testing. In particular, stress testing results must be:(1) used to evaluate its capacity to absorb such losses or identify steps to be taken to reduce risk; and(2) communicated routinely to senior management and periodically to the governing body.
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
The obligation to conduct an ICAAP, includes requirements on a firm to:(1) carry out regularly assessments of the amounts, types and distribution of financial resources, capital resources and internal capital that it considers adequate to cover the nature and level of the risks to which it is or might be exposed (GENPRU 1.2.30 R to GENPRU 1.2.41 G (the overall Pillar 2 rule and related rules);(2) identify the major sources of risk to its ability to meet its liabilities as they
The FSA will review an ICAAP and, if the firm has an IRB permission, the result of the firm's stress test carried out under BIPRU 4.3.39 R to BIPRU 4.3.40 R (Stress tests used in assessment of capital adequacy for a firm with an IRB permission), as part of its SREP. Provided that the FSA is satisfied with the appropriateness of a firm's capital assessment, the FSA will take into account that firm'sICAAP and stress test in its SREP. More material on stress tests for a firm with
(1) This paragraph applies to a firm whose activities are simple.(2) In carrying out its ICAAP it could:(a) identify and consider that firm's largest losses over the last 3 to 5 years and whether those losses are likely to recur;(b) prepare a short list of the most significant risks to which that firm is exposed;(c) consider how that firm would act, and the amount of capital that would be absorbed, in the event that each of the risks identified were to materialise;(d) consider
In relation to a firm whose activities are moderately complex, in carrying out its ICAAP, BIPRU 2.2.25 G (3) to (4) apply. In addition, it could:(1) having consulted the management in each major business line, prepare a comprehensive list of the major risks to which the business is exposed;(2) estimate, with the aid of historical data, where available, the range and distribution of possible losses which might arise from each of those risks and consider using shock stress tests
(1) This paragraph applies to a proportional ICAAP in the case of a firm whose activities are complex.(2) A proportional approach to that firm'sICAAP should cover the matters identified in BIPRU 2.2.26 G, but is likely also to involve the use of models, most of which will be integrated into its day-to-day management and operation.(3) Models of the sort referred to in (2) may be linked so as to generate an overall estimate of the amount of capital that a firm considers appropriate
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 with an IRB permission must ensure that there is no significant risk that it will not be able to meet its capital resource requirements for credit risk under GENPRU 2.1 (Calculation of capital resources requirements) at all times throughout an economic cycle, including the capital resources requirements for credit risk indicated by any stress test carried out under BIPRU 4.3.39 R to BIPRU 4.3.40 R (Stress tests used in assessment of capital adequacy for a firm with an IRB
The countervailing factors and off-setting actions that a firm may rely on as referred to in BIPRU 2.2.44 G include, but are not limited to, projected balance sheet shrinkage, growth in capital resources resulting from retained profits between the date of the stress test and the projected start of the economic downturn, the possibility of raising new capital in a downturn, the ability to reduce dividend payments or other distributions, and the ability to allocate capital from
(1) BIPRU 2.2.49 G to BIPRU 2.2.70 G set out guidance for:(a) a bank or building society;(b) an asset management firm; and(c) a securities firm;whose activities are either simple or moderately complex.(2) BIPRU 2.2.49 G to BIPRU 2.2.70 G provide examples of the sorts of risks which such a firm might typically face and of stress tests or scenario analyses which it might carry out as part of its ICAAP.(3) The material on securities firms is also relevant to a commoditiesfirm.
(1) As part of its obligations under GENPRU 1.2.30 R (Processes, strategies and systems for risks) and GENPRU 1.2.36 R (Stress and scenario tests) a firm must carry out an evaluation of its exposure to the interest rate risk arising from its non-trading activities.(2) The evaluation under (1) must cover the effect of a sudden and unexpected parallel change in interest rates of 200 basis points in both directions.(3) A firm must immediately notify the FSA if any evaluation under
(1) A firm must carry out the evaluations required by BIPRU 2.3.7 R as frequently as necessary for it to be reasonably satisfied that it has at all times a sufficient understanding of the degree to which it is exposed to the risks referred to in that rule and the nature of that exposure. In any case it must carry out those evaluations no less frequently than required by (2) or (3).(2) The minimum frequency of the evaluation in BIPRU 2.3.7 R (1) is once each year.(3) The minimum
Internal ratings-based analysis of the firm's credit risk profile must be an essential part of the management reporting required under BIPRU 4.3.9 R, BIPRU 4.3.11 R and BIPRU 4.3.13 R. Reporting must include at least risk profile by grade, migration across grades, estimation of the relevant parameters per grade, and comparison of realised default rates and, to the extent that own estimates are used, of realised LGDs and realised conversion factors against expectations and stress-test
A firm must have in place sound stress testing processes for use in the assessment of its capital adequacy. Stress testing must involve identifying possible events or future changes in economic conditions that could have unfavourable effects on the firm's credit exposures and assessment of the firm's ability to withstand such changes.[Note:BCD Annex VII Part 4 point 40]
(1) A firm must regularly perform a credit risk stress test to assess the effect of certain specific conditions on its total capital requirements for credit risk. The test to be employed must be one chosen by the firm. The test to be employed must be meaningful and reasonably conservative. Stressed portfolios must contain the vast majority of a firm's total exposures covered by the IRB approach.(2) The stress test must be designed to assess the firm's ability to meet its capital
2This section sets out in greater detail the approach to be taken by a firm when carrying out the assessment of capital described in the preceding paragraph. This is the assessment referred to as an individual capital assessment. The rules in GENPRU 1.2 also (see GENPRU 1.2.30R (1)(c)) require a firm to identify and assess risks to its being able to meet its CRR in the future. This is a separate requirement from that to carry out an ICA, and guidance on this requirement is provided
GENPRU 1.2.42 R requires a firm to carry out stress tests and scenario analyses for each of the major sources of risk identified in accordance with GENPRU 1.2.30 R. A firm may also approach the assessment of the adequacy of its capital resourcesin another way. The method should be proportionate to the size and nature of its business.
The FSA may ask for the results of these assessments to be provided to it together with a description of the processes by which the assessments have been made, the range of results from each stress test or scenario analysis performed and the main assumptions made. The FSA may also carry out a more detailed examination of the details of the firm's processes and calculations.
(1) A firm must have a routine and rigorous program of stress testing in place as a supplement to the CCR analysis based on the day-to-day output of the firm's risk measurement model.(2) The results of this stress testing must be reviewed periodically by senior management and must be reflected in the CCR policies and limits set by management and the governing body.(3) Where stress tests reveal particular vulnerability to a given set of circumstances, prompt steps must be taken
(1) A firm must have in place sound stress testing processes for use in the assessment of capital adequacy for CCR.(2) These stress measures must be compared with the measure of EPE and considered by the firm as part of the process set out in GENPRU 1.2.42 R.(3) Stress testing must also involve identifying possible events or future changes in economic conditions that could have unfavourable effects on a firm's credit exposures and an assessment of the firm's ability to withstand
(1) A firm must stress test its CCRexposures, including jointly stressing market risk and credit risk factors.(2) In its stress tests of CCR, a firm must consider concentration risk (to a single counterparty or groups of counterparties), correlation risk across market risk and credit risk, and the risk that liquidating the counterparty's positions could move the market.(3) In its stress tests a firm must also consider the impact on its own positions of such market moves and integrate
(1) A firm must meet the standards set out in (2) to (9) for the purpose of calculating capital requirements.(2) The estimate of potential loss must be robust to adverse market movements relevant to the long-term risk profile of the firm's specific holdings. The data used to represent return distributions must reflect the longest sample period for which data is available and be meaningful in representing the risk profile of the firm's specific equity exposures. The data used must
SUP 4.3.13 R is not intended to be exhaustive of the professional advice that a firm should take whether from an actuary appointed under this chapter or from any other actuary acting for the firm. Firms should consider what systems and controls are needed to ensure that they obtain appropriate professional advice on financial and risk analysis; for example:11(1) risk identification, quantification and monitoring;1(2) stress and scenario testing;1(3) ongoing financial conditions;1(4)
The following information must be disclosed by a firm which calculates its market risk capital requirement using a VaR model:(1) for each sub-portfolio covered:(a) the characteristics of the models used;(b) a description of stress testing applied to the sub-portfolio;(c) a description of the approaches used for backtesting and validating the accuracy and consistency of the internal models and modelling processes;(2) the scope of the firm'sVaR model permission; and(3) a description
A firm must take into account the illiquidity of lower-quality assets. The liquidation period must be adjusted upwards in cases where there is doubt concerning the liquidity of the collateral. A firm must also identify where historical data may understate potential volatility, e.g. a pegged currency. Such cases must be dealt with by means of a stress scenario.[Note:BCD Annex VIII Part 3 point 50]