Related provisions for BIPRU 7.10.55C
1 - 20 of 52 items.
3The incremental risk charge must cover all positions which are subject to a capital charge for interest-rate specific risk in accordance with the firm'sVaR model permission, except securitisationpositions and nth-to-default credit derivatives. Where permitted by its VaR model permission, a firm may choose consistently to include all listed equity positions and derivativespositions based on listed equities for which that inclusion is consistent with how the firm internally measures
3The firm's correlation assumptions must be supported by the analysis of objective data in a conceptually sound framework. The approach to capture the incremental risk charge must appropriately reflect issuer concentrations. Concentrations that can arise within and across product classes under stressed conditions must also be reflected.
(1) 3The firm's liquidity horizons for calculating incremental risk charge must be set according to the time required to sell the position or to hedge all material and relevant price risks in a stressed market, having particular regard to the size of the position.(2) Liquidity horizons must reflect actual practice and experience during periods of both systematic and idiosyncratic stresses. The liquidity horizon must be measured under conservative assumptions and must be sufficiently
(1) 3Hedges may be incorporated into the calculation of a firm'sincremental risk charge. Positions may be netted only when long and short positions refer to the same financial instrument.(2) Hedging or diversification effects associated with long and short positions involving different instruments or different securities of the same obligor, as well as long and short positions in different issuers, may only be recognised by explicitly modelling gross long and short positions in
(1) 3The incremental risk charge must reflect the nonlinear impact of options, structured credit derivatives and other positions with material nonlinear behaviour with respect to price changes.(2) The firm must also consider the amount of model risk inherent in the valuation and estimation of price risks associated with those products.
3The amount of the capital charge for the correlation trading portfolio calculated in accordance with the all price risk measure must not be less than 8% of the capital charge that would result from applying BIPRU 7.2.48L R to all positions in the correlation trading portfolio subject to the all price risk measure.
3A firm may include in its all price risk measurepositions that are jointly managed with positions in the correlation trading portfolio and would otherwise be included in the incremental risk charge. In that case, the firm must exclude these positions from the calculation of its incremental risk charge.
3A firm must demonstrate through backtesting or other appropriate means that its all price risk measure can appropriately explain the historical price variation of these positions. A firm must be able to demonstrate to the FSA that it can identify the positions within its correlation trading portfolio, in relation to which it is authorised to use the all price risk measure, separately from those other positions in relation to which it is not authorised to do so.
(1) 3For positions within its correlation trading portfolio in relation to which a firm may use the all price risk measure, a firm must regularly apply a set of specific, predetermined stress scenarios. These stress scenarios must examine the effects of stress to default rates, recovery rates, credit spreads, and correlations on the profit and loss of the correlation trading portfolio.(2) A firm must apply the stress scenarios in (1) at least weekly and report the results to the
3If the results of the stress tests carried out in accordance with BIPRU 7.10.55Z R indicate a material shortfall in the amount of capital required under the all price risk measure, a firm must notify the FSA of this circumstance by no later than two business days after the business day on which the material shortfall occurred.
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
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 higher of:33(a) the incremental
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 for VaR3;3(5) SVARt represents the latest stressed VaR figure;33(6) SVARt-i represents the stressed VaR calculated for ibusiness days earlier;3(7) s is the multiplication factor for stressed VaR;3(8) y is the
Certain risks such as systems and controls weaknesses may not be adequately addressed by, for example, holding additional capital and a more appropriate response would be to rectify the weakness. In such circumstances, the amount of financial resources required to address these risks might be zero. However, a firm should consider whether holding additional capital might be an appropriate response until the identified weaknesses are rectified. A firm, should, in accordance with
A firm should carry out assessments of the sort described in the overall Pillar 2 rule and GENPRU 1.2.39 R at least annually, or more frequently if changes in the business, strategy, nature or scale of its activities or operational environment suggest that the current level of financial resources is no longer adequate. The appropriateness of the internal process, and the degree of involvement of senior management in the process, will be taken into account by the FSA when reviewing
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
Where a firm assesses the adequacy of its CRR in its particular circumstances in accordance with BIPRU 2.2 (Internal capital adequacy standards) and INSPRU 7.1 (Individual capital assessment) as a basis for deciding what financial resources are adequate, it should include this in the documentation produced in accordance with GENPRU 1.2.60 R.
The general stress and scenario testing rule requires a firm to carry out stress tests and scenario analyses as part of its obligations under the overall Pillar 2 rule. 6Both stress tests and scenario analyses are 6undertaken by a firm to further a better understanding of the vulnerabilities that it faces under adverse 6conditions. They are based on the analysis of the impact of a range of events of varying nature, severity and duration6. These events can be financial, operational
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
(1) 6In identifying an appropriate range of adverse circumstances and events in accordance with GENPRU 1.2.42R (2):(a) a firm will need to consider the cycles it is most exposed to and whether these are general economic cycles or specific to particular markets, sectors or industries;(b) for the purposes of GENPRU 1.2.42R (2)(a), the amplitude and duration of the relevant cycle should include a severe downturn scenario based on forward looking hypothetical events, calibrated against
A firm may consider scenarios in which expected future profits will provide capital reserves against future risks. However, it would only be appropriate to take into account profits that can be foreseen with a reasonable degree of certainty as arising before the risk against which they are being held could possibly arise. In estimating future reserves, a firm should deduct future dividend payment estimates from projections of future profits.
The pension scheme itself (i.e. the scheme's assets and liabilities) is not the focus of the risk assessment but rather 6the firm's obligations towards the pension scheme . A firm should include in its estimate of financial resources both its expected obligations to the pension scheme and any increase in obligations that may arise in a stress scenario.6666
A firm must have robust systems in place to validate the accuracy and consistency of rating systems, processes, and the estimation of all relevant risk parameters (PD, LGD, conversion factors and EL). A firm must be able to demonstrate to the FSA that the internal validation process enables it to assess the performance of internal rating and risk estimation systems consistently and meaningfully.[Note:BCD Annex VII Part 4 point 110]
(1) This paragraph sets out guidance on assessing the adequacy of a rating system's discriminative power (see BIPRU 4.3.30 R (3) on the meaning of discriminative power).(2) A firm should be able to explain the performance of its rating systems against its chosen measure (or measures) of discriminative power. In making this comparison a firm should rely primarily on actual historic default experience where this is available. In particular, a firm should be able to explain:(a) the
A firm must have sound internal standards for situations where deviations in realised PDs, LGDs, conversion factors and, where EL is used, total losses, from expectations become significant enough to call the validity of the estimates into question. These standards must take account of business cycles and similar systematic variability in default and loss experience. Where realised values continue to be higher than expected values, a firm must revise estimates upward to reflect
A firm's own estimates of the risk parameters PD, LGD, conversion factor and EL must incorporate all relevant data, information and methods. The estimates must be derived using both historical experience and empirical evidence, and must not be based purely on judgemental considerations. The estimates must be plausible and intuitive and must be based on the material drivers of the respective risk parameters. The less data a firm has, the more conservative it must be in its estimation.[Note:BCD
(1) A firm must collect data on what it considers to be the main drivers of the risk parameters PD, LGD, conversion factor and EL for each group of obligors or facilities.(2) A firm must document its identification of the main drivers of risk parameters.(3) A firm must be able to demonstrate that its process of identification is reasonable and appropriate.
In its processes for identifying the main drivers of risk parameters, a firm must set out its reasons for concluding that the data sources chosen provide in themselves sufficient discriminative power and accuracy and why additional potential data sources do not provide relevant and reliable information that would be expected materially to improve the discriminative power and accuracy of its estimates of the risk parameter in question. This does not require an intensive analysis
A firm must be able to provide a breakdown of its loss experience in terms of default frequency, LGD, conversion factor, or loss where EL estimates are used, by the factors it sees as the drivers of the respective risk parameters. A firm must be able to demonstrate to the FSA that its estimates are representative of long-run experience.[Note:BCD Annex VII Part 4 point 50]
A firm must use LGD estimates that are appropriate for an economic downturn if those are more conservative than the long-run average. To the extent a rating system is expected to deliver constant realised LGDs by grade or pool over time, a firm must make adjustments to its estimates of risk parameters by grade or pool to limit the capital impact of an economic downturn.[Note:BCD Annex VII Part 4 point 74]
A firm must use conversion factor estimates that are appropriate for an economic downturn if those are more conservative than the long-run average. To the extent a rating system is expected to deliver realised conversion factors at a constant level by grade or pool over time, a firm must make adjustments to its estimates of risk parameters by grade or pool to limit the capital impact of an economic downturn.[Note:BCD Annex VII Part 4 point 88]
Information is needed to support the FSA's risk based approach to the supervision of all regulated entities. Risk based supervision is intended to ensure that the allocation of supervisory resources and the supervisory process are compatible with the regulatory objectives and the FSA's general duties under the Act. The central element of the process of risk based supervision is a systematic assessment by the FSA (a risk assessment) of the main supervisory risks and concerns for
For each UK recognised body, the FSA will conduct a periodic risk assessment. This assessment will take into account relevant considerations including the special position of recognised bodies under the Act, the nature of the UK recognised body's members, the position of other users of its facilities and the business environment more generally.
The risk assessment will guide the FSA's supervisory focus. It is important, therefore, that there is good dialogue between the FSA and the recognised body. The FSA expects to review its risk assessment with the staff of the UK recognised body to ensure factual accuracy and a shared understanding of the key issues, and may discuss the results of the risk assessment with key individuals of the UK recognised body. If appropriate, the FSA may send a detailed letter to the body's
A common platform firm must establish, implement and maintain adequate risk management policies and procedures, including effective procedures for risk assessment, which identify the risks relating to the firm's activities, processes and systems, and where appropriate, set the level of risk tolerated by the firm.[Note: article 7(1)(a) of the MiFID implementing Directive, article 13(5) second paragraph of MiFID]
2(1) SYSC 4.1.3 R requires a BIPRU firm to ensure that its internal control mechanisms and administrative and accounting procedures permit the verification of its compliance with rules adopted in accordance with the Capital Adequacy Directive at all times. In complying with this obligation, a BIPRU firm should document the organisation and responsibilities of its risk management function and it should document its risk management framework setting out how the risks in the business
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)]
For the purposes of BIPRU 11.6.1 R (9), where appropriate, a firm must further decompose the information to provide analysis of PD and, for a firm using own estimates of LGDs and/or conversion factors, LGD and conversion factor outcomes against estimates provided in the quantitative risk assessment disclosures under BIPRU 11.6.1 R to BIPRU 11.6.4 R.[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
The estimates for determining the risk parameters PD, LGD, conversion factor and EL must reflect all relevant information available to the purchasing firm regarding the quality of the underlying receivables, including data for similar pools provided by the seller, by the purchasing firm, or by external sources. The purchasing firm must evaluate any data relied upon which is provided by the seller.[Note: BCD Annex VII Part 4 point 53]
(1) A firm must monitor both the quality of the purchased receivables and the financial condition of the seller and servicer. In particular a firm must comply with the remaining provisions of this rule.(2) A firm must assess the correlation among the quality of the purchased receivables and the financial condition of both the seller and servicer, and have in place internal policies and procedures that provide adequate safeguards to protect against such contingencies, including
For its corporate exposure purchased receivables a firm must comply with the minimum requirements set out in BIPRU 4.8.11 R - BIPRU 4.8.15 R. For corporate exposure purchased receivables that comply in addition with the conditions set out in BIPRU 4.8.18 R, and where it would be unduly burdensome for a firm to use the risk quantification standards for corporate exposures as set out in the minimum IRB standards for these receivables, the risk quantification standards for retail
Where a firm is a member of a group, it should base its ICAAP on the consolidated financial position of the group. The group assessment should include information on diversification benefits and transferability of resources between members of the group and an apportionment of the capital required by the group as a whole to the firm (GENPRU 1.2.44 G to GENPRU 1.2.56 G (Application of GENPRU 1.2 on a solo and consolidated basis: Processes and tests)). A firm may, instead of preparing
A firm may decide to hold additional capital to mitigate any weaknesses in its overall control environment. These weaknesses might be indicated by the following:(1) a failure by a firm to complete an assessment of its systems and controls to establish whether they comply with SYSC; or(2) a failure by a firm's senior management to approve its financial results; or(3) a failure by a firm to consider an analysis of relevant internal and external information on its business and control
Counterparty risk rules only partially capture the risk of settlement failure as the quantification of risk is only based on mark-to-market values and does not take account of the volatility of the securities over the settlement period. A securities firm's assessment of its exposure to counterparty risk should take into account:(1) whether it acts as arranger only or whether it also executes trades;(2) the types of execution venues which it uses; for example, the London Stock
A firm may approach its assessment of adequate capital by developing a model, including an ECM (see BIPRU 2.2.27 G), for some or all of its business risks. The assumptions required to aggregate risks modelled and the confidence levels adopted should be considered by a firm's senior management. A firm should also consider whether any relevant risks, including systems and control risks, are not captured by the model.
The general eligibility criteria for using the methods in BIPRU 7.7.4R and BIPRU 7.7.9R - BIPRU 7.7.11R, for CIUs issued by companies supervised or incorporated within the EEA are that:(1) the CIU's prospectus or equivalent document must include:(a) the categories of assets the CIU is authorised to invest in;(b) if investment limits apply, the relative limits and the methodologies to calculate them;(c) if leverage is allowed, the maximum level of leverage; and(d) if investment
(1) A firm may calculate the securities PRR for position risk (general market risk and specific risk) for positions in CIUs in accordance with the methods set out in the securities PRR requirements or, if the firm has a VaR model permission, in accordance with the methods set out in BIPRU 7.10 (Use of a Value at Risk Model), to assumed positions representing those necessary to replicate the composition and performance of the externally generated index or fixed basket of equities
(1) If:(a) a firm'sIRB permission allows it to use this treatment; and(b) the conditions in (2)(16) are satisfied,a firm may attribute to an unrated position in an asset backed commercial paper programme a derived rating as laid down in (3).(2) Positions in the commercial paper issued from the programme must be rated positions.(3) Under the ABCP internal assessment approach, the unrated position must be assigned by the firm to one of the rating grades described in (5). The position
Where there is a securitisation of revolving exposures subject to an early amortisation provision, the originator must calculate an additional risk weighted exposure amount in accordance with this section in respect of the risk that the levels of credit risk to which it is exposed may increase following the operation of the early amortisation provision. Accordingly this section sets out how an originator must calculate a risk weighted exposure amount when it sells revolving exposures
The risk weighted exposure amount to be calculated in accordance with BIPRU 9.13.1 R must be determined by multiplying the amount of the investors interest (as defined in BIPRU 9.13.4 R or BIPRU 9.13.6 R) by the product of:(1) the appropriate conversion figure as indicated in BIPRU 9.13.16 R, BIPRU 9.13.19 R or BIPRU 9.13.20 R; and(2) the weighted average risk weight that would apply to the securitised exposures if the exposures had not been securitised.[Note:BCD Annex IX Part
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
(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
An originator which, in respect of a securitisation in the non-trading book,1 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)]
(1) The support described in BIPRU 9.6.5 G (1) is permitted by BIPRU 9.6.1 R.(2) The support described in BIPRU 9.6.5 G (3) is not permitted by BIPRU 9.6.1 R.(3) The support described in BIPRU 9.6.5 G (2) may be permitted by BIPRU 9.6.1 R under the following conditions:(a) the fact that the firm may give it is expressly set out in the contractual and marketing documents for the securitisation;(b) the nature of the support that the firm may give is precisely described in the documentation;(c)
(1) 8In relation to the cancellation or deferral of the payment of a coupon in accordance with GENPRU 2.2.64R (4) and GENPRU 2.2.64R (5), GENPRU 2.2.68A R, or GENPRU 2.2.69B R, the FSA expects that situations where a coupon may need to be cancelled or deferred will be resolved through analysis and discussion between the firm and the FSA. If the FSA and the firm do not agree on the cancellation or deferral of the payment of a coupon, then the FSA may consider using its powers
8The FSA considers that:(1) in order to comply with GENPRU 2.2.79G R, the firm should, at a minimum, provide the FSA with the following information:(a) a comprehensive explanation of the rationale for the purchase;(b) the firm's financial and solvency position before and after the purchase, in particular whether the purchase, or other foreseeable internal and external events or circumstances, may increase the risk of the firm breaching its capital resources requirement or the
If a firm has surplus eligible partnership capital or eligible LLP members' capital that it wishes to repay in circumstances other than those set out in GENPRU 2.2.93 R or GENPRU 2.2.94 R it may apply to the FSA for a waiver to allow it to do so. If a firm applies for such a waiver the information that the firm supplies with the application might include:(1) a demonstration that the firm would have sufficient capital resources to meet its capital resources requirement immediately
The rules in GENPRU 1.2 require a firm to identify and assess risks to its being able to meet its liabilities as they fall due, to assess how it intends to deal with those risks and to quantify the financial resources it considers necessary to mitigate those risks. To meet these requirements, a firm should consider:(1) the extent to which capital is an appropriate mitigant for the risks identified; and(2) assess the amount and quality of capital required.
In assessing the adequacy of a firm'scapital resources, the FSA draws on more than just a review of the submitted ICA. Use is made of wider supervisory knowledge of a firm and of wider market developments and practices. When forming a view of any individual capital guidance to be given to a firm, the review of the firm'sICA along with the ARROW risk assessment and any other issues arising from day-to-day supervision will be considered.
The FSA will take a risk-based and proportionate approach to the review of a firm'sICA, focusing on the firm's approach to dealing with the key risks it faces. Any individual capital guidance given will reflect the judgements reached through the ARROW review process as well as the review of the firm'sICA.
In the tables in BIPRU 5.4.35 R – BIPRU 5.4.38 R and in BIPRU 5.4.41 R to BIPRU 5.4.43 R, the credit quality step with which a credit assessment of the debt security is associated is the credit quality step with which the external credit assessment is associated under the standardised approach. For the purposes of this rule, BIPRU 5.4.7 R also applies.[Note:BCD Annex VIII Part 3 point 38]
For unrated debt securities issued by institutions and satisfying the eligibility criteria in BIPRU 5.4.5 R the volatility adjustments are the same as for securities issued by institutions or corporates with an external credit assessment associated with credit quality steps 2 or 3.[Note:BCD Annex VIII Part 3 point 41]
In determining relevant categories, a firm must take into account the type of issuer of the security the external credit assessment of the securities, their residual maturity, and their modified duration. Volatility estimates must be representative of the securities included in the category by the firm.[Note:BCD Annex VIII Part 3 point 44]
An obligor grade means for the purpose of BIPRU 4 as it applies to the sovereign, institution and corporate IRB exposure class a risk category within a rating system's obligor rating scale, to which obligors are assigned on the basis of a specified and distinct set of rating criteria, from which estimates of PD are derived. A firm must document both the relationship between obligor grades in terms of the level of default risk each grade implies and the criteria used to distinguish
To the extent that a firm associates or maps its internal grades to the scale used by an ECAI or similar organisations and then attributes the default rate observed for the external organisation's grades to the firm's grades, mappings must be based on a comparison of internal rating criteria to the criteria used by the external organisation and on a comparison of the internal and external ratings of any common obligors. Biases or inconsistencies in the mapping approach or underlying
For exposures to companies where the total annual sales for the consolidated group of which the firm is a part is less than EUR 50 million a firm may use the following correlation formula for the calculation of risk weights for corporate exposures. In this formula S is expressed as total annual sales in millions of Euros with EUR 5 million < = S < = EUR 50 million. Reported sales of less than EUR 5 million must be treated as if they were equivalent to EUR 5 million. In accordance