Related provisions for SYSC 7.1.1
41 - 60 of 167 items.
The following parties may be recognised as eligible providers of unfunded credit protection:(1) central governments and central banks;(2) regional governments or local authorities;(3) multilateral development banks;(4) international organisationsexposures which are assigned a 0% risk weight under the standardised approach;(5) public sector entities, claims on which are treated as claims on institutions or central governments under the standardised approach;(6) institutions;(7)
A firm must be able to satisfy the FSA that it has systems in place to manage potential concentration of risk arising from the firm's use of guarantees and credit derivatives. The firm must be able to demonstrate how its strategy in respect of its use of credit derivatives and guarantees interacts with its management of its overall risk profile.[Note: BCD Annex VIII Part 2 point 15]
Where an exposure is protected by a guarantee which is counter-guaranteed by a central government or central bank, a regional government or local authority or a public sector entity claims on which are treated as claims on the central government in whose jurisdiction they are established under the standardised approach, a multilateral development bank or an international organisation,1to which a 0% risk weight is assigned under or by virtue of the standardised approach, or a public
Where a firm transfers a part of the risk of a loan in one or more tranches, BIPRU 9 applies. Materiality thresholds on payments below which no payment shall be made in the event of loss are considered to be equivalent to retained first loss positions and to give rise to a tranched transfer of risk.[Note: BCD Annex VIII Part 3 point 86]
This chapter contains rules on reverse stress testing, which require a firm to identify and assess events and circumstances that would cause its business model to become unviable. This chapter also requires the firm's senior management or governing body to review and approve the results of the reverse stress testing exercise. This should help the firm's senior management to identify the firm's vulnerabilities and design a strategy to prevent or mitigate the risk of business f
(1) A firm must be able to satisfy the FSA that the firm's risk management system for managing the risks arising on the transactions covered by the master netting agreement is conceptually sound and implemented with integrity and that, in particular, the minimum qualitative standards in (2) – (11) are met.(2) The internal risk-measurement model used for calculation of potential price volatility for the transactions is closely integrated into the daily risk-management process of
The fully adjusted exposure value (E*) for a firm using the master netting agreement internal models approach must be calculated according to the following formula:E* = max {0, [(∑E -∑C) + (VaR output of the internal models)]}where(1) (where risk weighted exposure amounts are calculated under the standardised approach) E is the exposure value for each separate exposure under the agreement that would apply in the absence of the credit protection;(2) C is the value of the securities
(1) A firm must under the standardised approach calculate risk weighted exposure amounts for repurchase transactions and/or securities or commodities lending or borrowing transactions and/or other capital market-driven transactions covered by master netting agreements under this rule.(2) E* as calculated under BIPRU 5.6.5 R to BIPRU 5.6.25 R must be taken as the exposure value of the exposure to the counterparty arising from the transactions subject to the master netting agreement
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.
Under Regulation 22(3) of the Capital Requirements Regulations 2006 the FSA is obliged to determine, taking into account the requirements set out in Schedule 2 to the Capital Requirements Regulations 2006, with which of the credit quality steps set out in Part 1 of Annex VI of the Banking Consolidation Directive the relevant credit assessments of an eligible ECAI are to be associated. Those determinations should be objective and consistent.
As part of its business planning and risk management obligations under SYSC, a firm must reverse stress test its business plan; that is, it must carry out stress tests and scenario analyses that test its business plan to failure. To that end, the firm must:(1) identify a range of adverse circumstances which would cause its business plan to become unviable and assess the likelihood that such events could crystallise; and(2) where those tests reveal a risk of business failure that
Reverse stress testing should be appropriate to the nature, size and complexity of the firm's business and of the risks it bears. Where reverse stress testing reveals that a firm's risk of business failure is unacceptably high, the firm should devise realistic measures to prevent or mitigate the risk of business failure, taking into account the time that the firm would have to react to these events and implement those measures. As part of these measures, a firm should consider
(1) The FSA may request a firm to submit the design and results of its reverse stress tests and any subsequent updates as part of its ARROW risk assessment. (2) In the light of the results of a firm's reverse stress tests, the FSA may require the firm to implement specific measures to prevent or mitigate the risk of business failure where that risk is not sufficiently mitigated by the measures adopted by the firm in accordance with SYSC 20.2.1 R, and the firm's potential failure
In respect of a securitisation position in respect of which a 1250% risk weight is assigned, a firm may, as an alternative to including the position in its calculation of risk weighted exposure amounts, deduct from its capital resources the exposure value of the position. For these purposes, the calculation of the exposure value may reflect eligible funded protection in a manner consistent with BIPRU 9.14.[Note:BCD Annex IX Part 4 points 35, 74 and 75(b)]
Where a firm applies BIPRU 9.10.2 R, 12.5 times the amount deducted in accordance with that paragraph must, for the purposes of BIPRU 9.11.5 R and BIPRU 9.12.8 R, be subtracted from the amount specified in whichever of those rules applies as the maximum risk weighted exposure amount to be calculated by a firm to which one of those rules applies.[Note:BCD Annex IX Part 4 point 36 and point 76]
To demonstrate that the issuer and the proposed owner will comply with Regulation 17, and Regulations 23 and 24 of the RCB Regulations (capability of the asset pool to cover claims), the issuer should set out what it considers to be the risks of the regulation not being complied with and show how those risks have been adequately mitigated by reference to the tests and provisions set out in the covered bond or programme documentation.
Regulations 17(2)(d) (requirements on issuer relating to the asset pool) and 23(2) (requirements on owner relating to the asset pool) require the issuer of a regulated covered bond and the owner of the relevant asset pool to make arrangements so that the asset pool is of sufficient quality to give investors confidence that in the event of the failure of the issuer there will be a low risk of default in the timely payment by the owner of claims attaching to a regulated covered
The FSA will:(1) expect the issuer to demonstrate that it has in place appropriate systems, controls, procedures and policies, including in relation to risk management, underwriting, arrears and valuation; (2) expect the issuer to demonstrate that the cash-flows generated by the assets would be sufficient to meet the payments due in a timely manner including under conditions of economic stress and in the event of the failure of the issuer;(3) take account of any over collateralisation
The risk factors which the FSA will take into account in assessing the issuer's and owner's compliance with Regulations 17(2)(d) (general requirements on issuer in relation to the asset pool) and 23(2) (requirements on owner relating to the asset pool) will include credit risk of the assets, concentration risk, market risk and counterparty risk.
Concentration risk is the risk of loss from exposures being limited in number or variety. The relevant factors the FSA may consider include:(1) the level of granularity of the asset pool (i.e. what is the number and size distribution of assets in the pool); (2) whether the borrowers or collateral is unduly concentrated in a particular industry, sector, or geographical region.
For the corporate exposure class there is a separate sub-class of specialised lending exposure. A firm may calculate risk weights for these exposures, where it is able to do so, in the same way as it does for the rest of its corporate exposure class, i.e. using the foundation IRB approach or the advanced IRB approach. Where a firm is not able to use this approach it may calculate risk weights for specialised lending exposures by slotting them into predetermined risk weights.
(1) The FSA will only grant an IRB permission if it is satisfied that the firm's systems for the management and rating of credit risk exposures are sound and implemented with integrity and, in particular, that they meet the standards in BIPRU 4.2.2 R in accordance with the minimum IRB standards.(2) Under BIPRU 4.2.11 R, a firm applying for an IRB permission is required to demonstrate that it has been using for the IRB exposure classes in question rating systems that were broadly
By modifying GENPRU 2.1.51 R to allow the firm to use the IRB approach to calculate all or part of its risk weighted exposure amounts, the FSA is treating it like an application rule. The modification means that the provisions of BIPRU relating to the IRB approach supersede the rules relating to the standardised approach for exposures coming within the scope of the IRB permission.
SYSC 4.1.1 R requires
a firm to have effective processes to
identify, manage, monitor and report risks and internal control mechanisms.
Except in relation to those functions described in SYSC 8.1.5 R, where a firm relies on a third party for the performance
of operational functions which are not critical or important for the performance
of relevant services and activities (see SYSC 8.1.1 R (1)) on a continuous
and satisfactory basis, it should take into account, in a manner that
A common platform firm must in particular
take the necessary steps to ensure that the following conditions are satisfied:(1) the service provider must have
the ability, capacity, and any authorisation required
by law to perform the outsourced functions,
services or activities reliably and professionally;(2) the service provider must carry
out the outsourced services
effectively, and to this end the firm must
establish methods for assessing the standard of performance of the service
provider;(3)
(1) If a firm'sremuneration policy is not aligned with effective risk management it is likely that employees will have incentives to act in ways that might undermine effective risk management.(2) The Remuneration Code covers all aspects of remuneration that could have a bearing on effective risk management including salaries, bonuses, long-term incentive plans, options, hiring bonuses, severance packages and pension arrangements. In applying the Remuneration Code, a firm should
(1) The specific remuneration requirements in this chapter may apply only in relation to certain categories of employee. But the FSA would expect firms, in complying with the Remuneration Code general requirement, to apply certain principles on a firm-wide basis.(2) In particular, the FSA considers that firms should apply the principle relating to guaranteed variable remuneration on a firm-wide basis (Remuneration Principle 12(c); SYSC 19A.3.40 R to SYSC 19A.3.43 G). (3) The
1(1) GENPRU 3.1 applies to every firm that is a member of a financial conglomerate other than:(a) an incoming EEA firm;(b) an incoming Treaty firm;(c) a UCITS qualifier; and(d) an ICVC.(2) GENPRU 3.1 does not apply to a firm with respect to a financial conglomerate of which it is a member if the interest of the financial conglomerate in that firm is no more than a participation.(3) GENPRU 3.1.25 R (Capital adequacy requirements: high level requirement), GENPRU 3.1.26 R (Capital
GENPRU 3.1.35 R implements Article 7(4) and Article 8(4) of the Financial Groups Directive, which provide that where a financial conglomerate is headed by a mixed financial holding company, the sectoral rules regarding risk concentration and intra-group transactions of the most important financial sector in the financial conglomerate, if any, shall apply to that sector as a whole, including the mixed financial holding company.
Articles 7(3) (Risk concentration) and 8(3) (Intra-group transactions) and Annex II (Technical application of the provisions on intra-group transactions and risk concentration) of the Financial Groups Directive say that Member States may apply at the level of the financial conglomerate the provisions of the sectoral rules on risk concentrations and intra-group transactions. GENPRU 3.1 does not take up that option, although the FSA may impose such obligations on a case by case
Afirm must ensure that the sectoral rules regarding risk concentration and intra-group transactions of the most important financial sector in the financial conglomerate referred to in GENPRU 3.1.34 R are complied with with respect to that financial sector as a whole, including the mixed financial holding company. The FSA'ssectoral rules for these purposes are those identified in the table in GENPRU 3.1.36 R.
For an originator or sponsor, the risk weighted exposure amounts calculated in respect of its positions in a securitisation may be limited to the risk weighted exposure amounts which would be calculated for the securitised exposures had they not been securitised subject to the presumed application of a 150% risk weight to all past due items and items belonging to regulatory high risk categories (see BIPRU 3.4.104 R and BIPRU 3 Annex 3 R) amongst the securitised exposures.[Note:BCD
(1) A firm having an unratedsecuritisation position may apply the treatment set out in this paragraph for calculating the risk weighted exposure amount for that position provided the composition of the pool of exposuressecuritised is known at all times.(2) A firm may apply the weighted-average risk weight that would be applied to the securitised exposures referred to in (1) under the standardised approach by a firm holding the exposures multiplied by a concentration ratio.(3)
The risks arising from securitisation transactions in relation to which a firm is investor,3originator or sponsor, including reputational risks,3 must be evaluated and addressed through appropriate policies and procedures, to ensure in particular that the economic substance of the transaction is fully reflected in risk assessment and management decisions.[Note:BCD Annex V point 8]3
The FSA expects an originator to continue to monitor any risks that it may be subject to when it has excluded the securitised exposures from its calculation of risk weighted exposure amounts. The originator should consider capital planning implications where risks may return and the impact that securitisation has on the quality of the remaining exposures held by the originator.
IT systems include the computer systems and infrastructure required for the automation of processes, such as application and operating system software; network infrastructure; and desktop, server, and mainframe hardware. Automation may reduce a firm's exposure to some 'people risks' (including by reducing human errors or controlling access rights to enable segregation of duties), but will increase its dependency on the reliability of its IT systems.
A firm should establish and maintain appropriate systems and controls for the management of its IT system risks, having regard to:(1) its organisation and reporting structure for technology operations (including the adequacy of senior management oversight);(2) the extent to which technology requirements are addressed in its business strategy;(3) the appropriateness of its systems acquisition, development and maintenance activities (including the allocation of responsibilities
Operating processes and systems at separate geographic locations may alter a firm's operational risk profile (including by allowing alternative sites for the continuity of operations). A firm should understand the effect of any differences in processes and systems at each of its locations, particularly if they are in different countries, having regard to:(1) the business operating environment of each country (for example, the likelihood and impact of political disruptions or
1A firm must establish, implement and maintain adequate policies and procedures sufficient to ensure compliance of the firm including its managers, employees and appointed representatives (or where applicable, tied agents)3 with its obligations under the regulatory system and for countering the risk that the firm might be used to further financial crime.2[Note: article 13(2) of MiFID]242
A common platform firm must, taking into4account the nature, scale and complexity of its business, and the nature and range of investment services and activities undertaken in the course of that business, establish, implement and maintain adequate policies and procedures designed to detect any risk of failure by the firm to comply with its obligations under the regulatory system, as well as associated risks, and put in place adequate measures and procedures designed to minimise
Schedule to the Recognition Requirements Regulations, paragraph 3
2(1) |
The [UK RIE] must ensure that the systems and controls used in the performance of its [relevant functions] are adequate, and appropriate for the scale and nature of its business. |
|
(2) |
Sub-paragraph (1) applies in particular to systems and controls concerning - |
|
(a) |
the transmission of information; |
|
(b) |
the assessment, mitigation and management of risks to the performance of the [UK RIE'srelevant functions]; |
|
(c) |
the effecting and monitoring of transactions on the [UK RIE]; |
|
(ca) |
the technical operation of the [UK RIE], including contingency arrangements for disruption to its facilities; |
|
(d) |
the operation of the arrangements mentioned in paragraph 4(2)(d); and |
|
(e) |
(where relevant) the safeguarding and administration of assets belonging to users of the [UK RIE's] facilities. |
|
The following paragraphs set out other matters to which the FSA may have regard in assessing the systems and controls used for the transmission of information, risk management, the effecting and monitoring of transactions, the operation of settlement arrangements (the matters covered in paragraphs 4(2)(d) and 19(2)(b) of the Schedule to the Recognition Requirements Regulations) and the safeguarding and administration of assets .
In assessing a UK recognised body's systems and controls for assessing and managing risk, the FSA may also have regard to the extent to which these systems and controls enable the UK recognised body to:(1) identify all the general, operational, legal and market risks wherever they arise in its activities;(2) measure and control the different types of risk;(3) allocate responsibility for risk management to persons with appropriate knowledge and expertise; and(4) provide sufficient,
The management report required by DTR 4.1.8 R must also give an indication of:(1) any important events that have occurred since the end of the financial year;(2) the issuer's likely future development;(3) activities in the field of research and development;(4) the information concerning acquisitions of own shares prescribed by Article 22 (2) of Directive 77/91/EEC;(5) the existence of branches of the issuer; and(6) in relation to the issuer's use of financial instruments and where
(1) Responsibility statements must be made by the persons responsible within the issuer.(2) The name and function of any person who makes a responsibility statement must be clearly indicated in the responsibility statement.(3) For each person making a responsibility statement, the statement must set out that to the best of his or her knowledge:(a) the financial statements, prepared in accordance with the applicable set of accounting standards, give a true and fair view of the
The illustration must include under the heading "Risks - important things you must consider" statements and warnings on the following:(1) a brief statement of the specific circumstances in which the mortgage lender is able to repossess the property;(2) a statement of how the mortgage lender will treat any negative equity arising during the life of the lifetime mortgage7 and at the time the amount borrowed under the lifetime mortgage7 is due to be repaid in full;77(3) a statement
Under the heading "Risks - important things you must consider" the illustration must also include the following if they apply:(1) for drawdown mortgages where there is a monthly (or such other frequency as may apply) cash sum payable, a statement that inflation can erode the value of the cash sum over time; (2) where:(a) the lifetime mortgage7 is linked to an investment; and7(b) the payments required on the lifetime mortgage7 will be deducted from the income from the investment;
8The illustration must include under the heading "Risks - important things you must consider" brief statements and warnings on all material risks involving a home reversion plan, including:(1) prominently at the beginning of the section: "A home reversion is a complex property transaction. You should seek legal advice to ensure that you fully understand all of the implications for you and your home and for anyone who might otherwise inherit the property.";(2) the effect of the
8Under the heading "Risks - important things you must consider" the illustration must also include the following if they apply:(1) for an instalment reversion plan, a statement that if the customer dies in the early years of the plan, income payments will cease and therefore the full expected benefits of the plan will not be obtained;(2) (a) for an instalment reversion plan where there is a regular cash sum payable; and(b) where:(i) the home reversion plan is linked to an investment;
If the liquidation period used by a firm in its day-to-day risk management process is longer than that set out in BIPRU 5.4 for the type of transaction in question, the firm's volatility adjustments must be scaled up in accordance with the square root of time formula set out in BIPRU 5.4.52 R.[Note: BCD Annex VIII Part 3 point 54]
A firm must have established procedures for monitoring and ensuring compliance with a documented set of policies and controls for the operation of its system for the estimation of volatility adjustments and for the integration of such estimations into its risk management process.[Note:BCD Annex VIII Part 3 point 55]
An independent review of a firm's system for the estimation of volatility adjustments must be carried out regularly in the firm's own internal auditing process. A review of the overall system for the estimation of volatility adjustments and for integration of those adjustments into the firm's risk management process must take place at least once a year and must specifically address, at a minimum:(1) the integration of estimated volatility adjustments into daily risk management;(2)
A firm with portfolios concentrated in a particular market segment and range of default risk must have enough obligor grades within that range to avoid undue concentrations of obligors in a particular grade. Significant concentrations within a single grade must be supported by convincing empirical evidence that the obligor grade covers a reasonably narrow PD band and that the default risk posed by all obligors in the grade falls within that band.[Note:BCD Annex VII Part 4 point
Separate exposures to the same obligor must be assigned to the same obligor grade, irrespective of any differences in the nature of each specific transaction. Exceptions, where separate exposures are allowed to result in multiple grades for the same obligor are:(1) country transfer risk, this being dependent on whether the exposures are denominated in local or foreign currency;(2) where the treatment of associated guarantees to an exposure may be reflected in an adjusted assignment
For all off-balance sheet items other than mentioned in BIPRU 4.4.37 R, BIPRU 4.4.45 R, BIPRU 4.4.71 R - BIPRU 4.4.78 R, BIPRU 4.6.44 R, BIPRU 4.8.28 R and BIPRU 4.8.29 R, the exposure value must be the following percentage of its value:(1) 100% if it is a full risk item;(2) 50% if it is a medium risk item;(3) 20% if it is a medium/low risk item; and(4) 0% if it is a low risk item.For the purposes of this rule the off-balance sheet items must be assigned to risk categories as
Subject to BIPRU 4.4.59 R to BIPRU 4.4.60 R, BIPRU 4.5.6 R, BIPRU 4.5.8 R - BIPRU 4.5.10 R (Risk weights for specialised lending), BIPRU 4.8.16 R, BIPRU 4.8.17 R (Risk weights for corporate exposure purchased receivables) and BIPRU 4.9.3 R (Securitisation: provision of credit protection), risk weighted exposure amounts must be calculated according to the formulae in the table in BIPRU 4.4.58 R and the adjustment formula in BIPRU 4.4.79 R (Double default).[Note:BCD Annex VII Part