Related provisions for BIPRU 3.4.54
21 - 40 of 111 items.
In the case of funded credit protection:(1) to be eligible for recognition the assets relied upon must be sufficiently liquid and their value over time sufficiently stable to provide appropriate certainty as to the credit protection achieved having regard to the approach used to calculate risk weighted exposure amounts and to the degree of recognition allowed; eligibility is limited to the assets set out in the CRM eligibility conditions; and(2) the lending firm must have the
In the case of unfunded credit protection:(1) to be eligible for recognition the party giving the undertaking must be sufficiently reliable, and the protection agreement legally effective and enforceable in the relevant jurisdictions, to provide appropriate certainty as to the credit protection achieved having regard to the approach used to calculate risk weighted exposure amounts and to the degree of recognition allowed; and(2) eligibility is limited to the protection providers
Notwithstanding the presence of credit risk mitigation taken into account for the purposes of calculating risk weighted exposure amounts and as relevant expected loss amounts, a firm must continue to undertake full credit risk assessment of the underlying exposure and must be in a position to demonstrate to the appropriate regulator the fulfilment of this requirement. In the case of repurchase transactions and/or securities or commodities lending or borrowing transactions the
Subject to BIPRU 5.8, BIPRU 5.9 and BIPRU 5.7.27 R to BIPRU 5.7.28 R, where the CRM eligibility conditions and the CRM minimum requirements are satisfied, the calculation of risk weighted exposure amounts under the standardised approach may be modified in accordance with the provisions of BIPRU 5.[Note: BCD Annex VIII Part 3 point 1]
For the purposes of article 115 of the EU CRR (Exposures to regional governments or local authorities), a firm may treat exposures to the following regional governments as exposures to the UK central government:(1) The Scottish Parliament;(2) The National Assembly for Wales; and(3) The Northern Ireland Assembly.
Where the FCA has published evidence showing that a well-developed and long-established residential property market is present in that territory with loss rates which do not exceed the limits in article 125(3) of the EU CRR (Exposures fully and completely secured by mortgages on residential property), a firm does not need to meet the condition in article 125(2)(b) of the EU CRR in order to consider an exposure, or any part of an exposure, as fully and completely secured for the
For the purposes of articles 124(2) and 126(2) of the EU CRR, and in addition to the conditions in those regulations, a firm may only treat exposures as fully and completely secured by mortgages on commercial immovable property located in the UK1 in line with article 126 where annual average losses stemming from lending secured by mortgages on commercial property in the UK did not exceed 0.5% of risk-weighted exposure amounts over a representative period. A firm must calculate
Where an exposure is denominated in a currency other than the euro, the FCA expects a firm to use appropriate and consistent exchange rates to determine compliance with relevant thresholds in the EU CRR. Accordingly, a firm should calculate the euro equivalent value of the exposure for the purposes of establishing compliance with the aggregate monetary limit of €1 million for retail exposures using a set of exchange rates the firm considers to be appropriate. The FCA expects a
The FCA considers an Ijara mortgage to be an example of an exposure to a tenant under a property leasing transaction concerning residential property under which the firm is the lessor and the tenant has an option to purchase. Accordingly, the FCA expects exposures to Ijara mortgages to be subject to all of the requirements that apply to exposures secured by mortgages on residential property, including in respect of periodic property revaluation (see articles 124 and 125 of the
The FCA expects a firm with exposure to a lifetime mortgage to inform the FCA of the difference in the own funds requirements on those exposures under the EU CRR and the credit risk capital requirement that would have applied under BIPRU 3.4.56A R.The FCA will use this information in its consideration of relevant risks in its supervisory assessment of the firm (see articles 124, 125 and 208 of the EU CRR).
When determining the portion of a past due item that is secured, the FCA expects the secured portion of an exposure covered by a mortgage indemnity product that is eligible for credit risk mitigation purposes under Part Three, Title II, Chapter 4 of the EU CRR (Credit risk mitigation) to qualify as an eligible guarantee (see article 129(2) of the EU CRR).
When determining whether exposures in the form of units or shares in a CIU are associated with particularly high risk, the FCA expects the following features would be likely to give rise to such risk:(1) an absence of external credit assessment of such CIU from an ECAI recognised under article 132(2) of the EU CRR (Items representing securitisation positions) and where such CIU has specific features (such as high levels of leverage or lack of transparency) that prevent it from
The FCA expects a firm's assessment of whether types of exposure referred to in article 128(3) of the EU CRR are associated with particularly high risk to include consideration of exposures arising out of a venture capital business (whether the firm itself carries on the venture capital business or not) . The FCA considers "venture capital business" to include the business of carrying on any of the following:(1) advising on investments, managing investments, arranging (bringing
(1) If a firm has decided to make use of the credit assessments of export credit agencies, when risk weightingexposures to central governments or central banks, if two or more credit assessments are available to a firm from export credit agencies or if credit assessments are available to a firm from both nominated ECAIs and export credit agencies, the firm must adopt the approach in this rule.(2) If two credit assessments are available and correspond to different risk weights
Where no directly applicable credit assessment exists for a certain item, but a credit assessment exists for a specific issuing program or facility to which the item constituting the exposure does not belong or a general credit assessment exists for the issuer, then that credit assessment must be used if it produces a higher risk weight than would otherwise be the case or if it produces a lower risk weight and the exposure in question ranks pari passu or senior in all respects
Notwithstanding BIPRU 3.6.20 R, when an exposure arises through a firm's participation in a loan that has been extended by a multilateral development bank whose preferred creditor status is recognised in the market, the credit assessment on the obligors' domestic currency item may be used for risk weighting purposes.[Note: BCD Annex VI Part 3 point 17]
Within the corporate exposureIRB exposure class, a firm must separately identify as specialised lending exposures, exposures which possess the following characteristics:(1) the exposure is to an entity which was created specifically to finance and/or operate physical assets;(2) the contractual arrangements give the lender a substantial degree of control over the assets and the income that they generate; and(3) the primary source of repayment of the obligation is the income generated
If a firm is using or is applying to use the advanced IRB approach for some or all of its exposures in the sovereign, institution and corporate IRB exposure class, then specialised lending exposures treated under BIPRU 4.5.8 R (Slotting) must be treated as being dealt with under the advanced IRB approach for the purposes of the calculations in BIPRU 4.2.30 R and BIPRU 4.2.31 R. If a firm is not using or applying to use the advanced IRB approach for any of its exposures in the
A firm using the methods set out in BIPRU 4.5.8 R (Slotting) for assigning risk weights for specialised lending exposures is exempt from the requirement to have an obligor rating scale which reflects exclusively quantification of the risk of obligor default for these exposures. Notwithstanding BIPRU 4.4.7 R (Seven grades for exposures to sovereigns, institutions and corporates), a firm must have for these exposures four grades for non-defaulted obligors and one grade for defaulted
(1) A firm using the methods set out in BIPRU 4.5.8 R (Slotting) for assigning risk weights for specialised lending exposures must assign each of these exposures to a grade in accordance with BIPRU 4 Annex 1 R, taking into account the following factors:(a) financial strength;(b) political and legal environment;(c) transaction and/or asset characteristics;(d) strength of the sponsor and developer including any public private partnership income stream; and(e) security package.(2)
A firm may generally assign preferential risk weights of 50% to exposures in category 1, and a 70% risk weight to exposures in category 2 if:(1) its IRB permission allows this; and(2) the firm's underwriting characteristics and other risk characteristics are substantially strong for the relevant category.[Note:BCD Annex VII Part 1 point 6 (part)]
Where a firm'sIRB permission authorises it generally to assign preferential risk weights as outlined in BIPRU 4.5.10 R of 50% to exposures in category 1, and 70% to exposures in category 2, the EL value for exposures in category 1 must be 0%, and for exposures in category 2 must be 0.4%.[Note:BCD Annex VII Part 1 point 31 (part)]
The originator of a traditional securitisation may exclude securitised exposures from the calculation of risk weighted exposure amounts and expected loss amounts if either of the following conditions is fulfilled:(1) 2significant credit risk associated with the securitised exposures is considered to have been transferred to third parties; or(2) 2the originator applies a 1250% risk weight to all securitisation positions it holds in the securitisation or deducts these securitisation
Where there is a clean-up call option, the following conditions must be satisfied:(1) the clean-up call option is exercisable at the discretion of the originator;(2) the clean-up call option may only be exercised when 10% or less of the original value of the exposuressecuritised remains unamortised; and(3) the clean-up call option is not structured to avoid allocating losses to credit enhancement positions or other positions held by investors and is not otherwise structured to
The securitisation documentation must not contain clauses that:(1) other than in the case of early amortisation provisions, require positions in the securitisation to be improved by the originator including but not limited to altering the underlying credit exposures or increasing the yield payable to investors in response to a deterioration in the credit quality of the securitised exposures; or(2) increase the yield payable to holders of positions in the securitisation in response
For the purposes of BIPRU 9.4.7 R, an originator will be considered to have maintained effective control over the transferred exposures if it has the right to repurchase from the transferee the previously transferred exposures in order to realise their benefits or if it is obligated to re-assume transferred risk. The originator's retention of servicing rights or obligations in respect of the exposures does not of itself constitute indirect control of the exposures.[Note:BCD Annex
2Significant credit risk will be considered to be transferred for an originator in the following cases:(1) 2the risk weighted exposure amounts of the mezzanine securitisation positions held by the originator in the securitisation do not exceed 50% of the risk weighted exposure amounts of all mezzanine securitisation positions existing in this securitisation;(2) 2where there are no mezzanine securitisation positions in a given securitisation and the originator can demonstrate that
2An originator must notify the appropriate regulator that it is relying on the deemed transfer of significant credit risk under BIPRU 9.4.11R within a reasonable period before or after a relevant transfer, not being later than one month after the date of the transfer. The notification must include the following information:(1) 2the risk weighted exposure amount of the securitised exposures and retained securitisation positions; (2) 2the exposure value of the securitised exposures
2In the event that the appropriate regulator decides that the possible reduction in risk weighted exposure amounts which the originator would achieve by the securitisation referred to in BIPRU 9.4.11R is not justified by a commensurate transfer of credit risk to third parties, it will use its powers under section 55J (Variation etc on the Authority's own initiative) of the Act to require the firm to increase its risk weight exposure amount to an amount commensurate with the appropriate
Article 400(2) of the EU CRR permits the FCA to fully or partially exempt exposures incurred by a firm to intra-group undertakings that meet the specified criteria from the limit stipulated in article 395(1) of the EU CRR in relation to a firm's group of connected clients that represent its wider group. The FCA will consider exempting non-trading book and trading book exposures to intra-group undertakings if specified conditions throughout IFPRU 8.2 are met.
A firm with a non-core large exposures grouppermission may (in line with that permission) exempt, from the application of article 395(1) of the EU CRR (Limits to large exposures), exposures, including participations or other kinds of holdings, incurred by a firm to:(1) its parent undertaking; or(2) other subsidiary undertakings of that parent undertaking; or(3) its own subsidiary undertakings;in so far as those undertakings are covered by the supervision on a consolidated basis
A firm may only make use of the non-core large exposure group exemption where the following conditions are met: (1) the total amount of the non-trading book exposures from the firm to its non-core large exposures group does not exceed 100% of the firm'seligible capital; or (if the firm has a core UK grouppermission) the total amount of non-trading book exposures from its core UK group (including the firm) to its non-core large exposures group does not exceed 100% of the core
The FCA will assess core UK group and non-core large exposure group applications against article 400(2)(c) on a case-by-case basis. The FCA will only approve this treatment for non-core large exposure group undertakings where the conditions in article 400(2)(c) are met. A firm should note that the FCA will still make a wider judgement whether it is appropriate to grant this treatment even where the conditions in article 400(2)(c) are met.
A firm must immediately notify the FCA in writing if it becomes aware that any exposure that it has treated as exempt under IFPRU 8.2.6 R or any counterparty that it has been treating as a member of its non-core large exposures group has ceased to meet the conditions for application of the treatment in this section.
A firm may only make use of the exemptions provided in this section where the following conditions are met:(1) the specific nature of the exposure, the counterparty or the relationship between the firm and the counterparty eliminate or reduce the risk of the exposure; and(2) any remaining concentration risk can be addressed by other equally effective means, such as the arrangements, processes and mechanisms in article 81 of CRD (Concentration risk).[Note: article 400(3) of the
If a firm has an exposure to a person ('A') when A is acting on his own behalf, and also an exposure to A when A acts in his capacity as trustee, custodian or general partner of an investment trust, unit trust, venture capital or other investment fund, pension fund or a similar fund (a "fund"), the firm may treat the latter exposure as if it was to the fund, unless such a treatment would be misleading.
When considering whether the treatment described is misleading, factors a firm should consider include:(1) the degree of independence of control of the fund, including the relation of the fund's board and senior management to the firm or to other funds or to both;(2) the terms on which the counterparty, when acting as trustee, is able to satisfy its obligation to the firm out of the fund of which it is trustee;(3) whether the beneficial owners of the fund are connected to the
In deciding whether a transaction is at arm's length, the following factors should be taken into account:(1) the extent to which the person to whom the firm has an exposure ('A') can influence the firm's operations through, for example, the exercise of voting rights;(2) the management role of A where A is also a director of the firm; and(3) whether the exposure would be subject to the firm's usual monitoring and recovery procedures if repayment difficulties emerged.
(1) A firm must notify the FCA that it is relying on the deemed transfer of significant credit risk under article 243(2) of the EU CRR (Traditional securitisation) or article 244(2) of the EU CRR (Synthetic securitisation), including when this is for the purposes of article 337(5) of the EU CRR, no later than one month after the date of the transfer.(2) The notification in (1) must include sufficient information to allow the FCA to assess whether the possible reduction in risk-weighted
An originator of securitisations is able to use the securitisation risk weights (and not calculate own funds requirements on the assets underlying its securitisation) in either of the following cases:(1) the firm transfers significant credit risk associated with the securitisedexposures to third parties; or(2) the firm deducts from common equity tier 1 capital or applies a 1250% risk weight to all positions it holds in the securitisation.
The significant risk transfer requirements in articles 243 (Traditional securitisation) or 244 (Synthetic securitisation) of the EU CRR provide three options for a firm to demonstrate how it transfers significant credit risk for any given transaction:(1) the originator does not retain more than 50% of the risk-weighted exposure amounts of mezzanine securitisation positions, where these are:(a) securitisation positions to which a risk weight lower than 1250% applies; and(b) more
Where the FCA considers that the possible reduction in risk-weighted exposure amounts (RWEA) achieved via the securitisation is not justified by a commensurate transfer of credit risk to third parties, significant risk transfer will be considered to not have been achieved. Consequently, a firm will not be able to recognise any reduction in RWEA due to the transaction.
Notification under IFPRU 4.12.1 G should include sufficient information to enable the FCA to assess whether the possible reduction in RWEA which would be achieved by the securitisation is justified by a commensurate transfer of credit risk to third parties. The FCA expects this to include the following:(1) details of the securitisation positions, including rating, exposure value and RWEA broken down by securitisation positions sold and retained;(2) key transaction documentation
The FCA's review will focus on the proportion of credit risk transferred, compared to the proportion by which RWEA are reduced in the transaction. Where the FCA judges that the reduction in RWEA is not justified by a commensurate transfer of credit risk to third parties, it will inform the firm that significant risk transfer has not been achieved by this transaction. Otherwise, the FCA will inform the firm that it does not object to the transaction.
The FCA intends to apply two materiality limits to the proportion of risk-weighted exposure amount (RWEA) relief that can be taken under any permission covering multiple transactions:(1) transaction level limit any transaction that would, in principle, be within the scope of the permission, but that resulted in an RWEA reduction exceeding 1% of the firm's credit risk-related RWEAs as at the date of the firm's most recent regulatory return, will fall outside the scope of a multiple
Given that significant risk transfer should be met on a continuing basis, permissions will typically include a requirement to notify the FCA of any change in circumstances from those under which the permission was granted (eg, where the amount of credit risk transfer had changed materially). Any reduction in credit risk transfer subsequent to the permission being granted will require the firm to take a commensurate reduction in RWEA relief. If a firm does not effect a commensurate
An originator must transfer a significant amount of credit risk associated with securitisedexposures to third parties to be able to apply the securitisation risk weights set out in Part Three, Title II, Chapter 5 of the EU CRR (Securitisation), and any associated reduction in own funds requirements must be matched by a commensurate transfer of risk to third parties.
Where a firm achieves significant risk transfer for a particular transaction, the FCA expects it to continue to monitor risks related to the transaction to which it may still be exposed. The firm should consider capital planning implications of securitised assets returning to its balance sheet. The EU CRR requires a firm to conduct regular stress testing of its securitisation activities and off-balance sheet exposures. The stress tests should consider the firm-wide impact of stressed
Subject to BIPRU 9.11.5 R, the risk weighted exposure amount of a rated securitisation position or resecuritisation position2 must be calculated by applying to the exposure value the risk weight associated with the credit quality step with which the credit assessment has been determined to be associated, as prescribed in BIPRU 9.11.2 R .2[Note:BCD Annex IX Part 4 point 6]2
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)
(1) This provision contains guidance on the requirement in BIPRU 9.11.6 R (1) that the composition of the pool of exposuressecuritised must be known at all times.(2) The composition should be known sufficiently at the time of purchase for the firm to be able accurately to calculate the risk weighted exposure amounts of the pool under the standardised approach.(3) Thereafter, any change to the composition of the pool during the life of the transaction that would lead to an increase
Subject to the availability of a more favourable treatment by virtue of the provisions concerning liquidity facilities in BIPRU 9.11.10 RBIPRU 9.11.12 R, a firm may apply to securitisation positions meeting the conditions set out in BIPRU 9.11.9 R a risk weight that is the greater of:(1) 100%, or(2) the highest of the risk weights that would be applied to any of the securitised exposures under the standardised approach by a firm holding the exposures.[Note:BCD Annex IX Part 4
When the conditions in this paragraph have been met, and in order to determine its exposure value, a conversion figure of 50% may be applied to the nominal amount of a liquidity facility. The risk weight to be applied is the highest risk weight that would be applied to any of the securitised exposures under the standardised approach by a firm holding the exposures. Those conditions are as follows:11(1) the liquidity facility documentation must clearly identify and limit the circumstances
To determine its exposure value, a conversion figure of 0% may be applied to the nominal amount of a liquidity facility that is unconditionally cancellable provided that the conditions set out at BIPRU 9.11.10 R are satisfied and that repayment of draws on the facility are senior to any other claims on the cash flows arising from the securitised exposures.[Note:BCD Annex IX Part 4 point 15]
Where a firm calculates the risk weighted exposure amount of a securitisation position under the standardised approach, where credit protection is obtained on a securitisation position, the calculation of risk weighted exposure amounts may be modified in accordance with BIPRU 5 (Credit risk mitigation).[Note:BCD Annex IX Part 4 point 34]
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)
When a firm conducts an internal hedge using a credit derivative – i.e. hedges the credit risk of an exposure in the non-trading book with a credit derivative booked in the trading book – in order for the protection to be recognised as eligible for the purposes of BIPRU 4.10 or BIPRU 5 the credit risk transferred to the trading book must be transferred out to a third party or parties. In such circumstances, subject to the compliance of such transfer with the requirements for the
Subject to BIPRU 5.7.9 R, for the credit protection deriving from a guarantee or credit derivative to be recognised the following conditions must be met:(1) the credit protection must be direct;(2) the extent of the credit protection must be clearly defined and incontrovertible;(3) the credit protection contract must not contain any clause, the fulfilment of which is outside the direct control of the lender, that:(a) would allow the protection provider unilaterally to cancel the
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
The treatment of BIPRU 5.7.9 R applies, also, to an exposure which is not counter-guaranteed by an entity listed in that rule if the exposure's counter-guarantee is in its turn directly guaranteed by one of the listed entities and the conditions listed in BIPRU 5.7.9 R are satisfied.[Note: BCD Annex VIII Part 2 point 17]
(1) The value of unfunded credit protection (G) is the amount that the protection provider has undertaken to pay in the event of the default or non-payment of the borrower or on the occurrence of other specified credit events.(2) In the case of credit derivatives which do not include as a credit event restructuring of the underlying obligation involving forgiveness or postponement of principal, interest or fees that result in a credit loss event (e.g. value adjustment, the making
Where unfunded credit protection is denominated in a currency different from that in which the exposure is denominated (a currency mismatch) the value of the credit protection must be reduced by the application of a volatility adjustment HFX as follows:G* = G x (1-HFX)where:(1) G is the nominal amount of the credit protection;(2) G* is G adjusted for any foreign currency risk; and(3) Hfx is the volatility adjustment for any currency mismatch between the credit protection and the
For the purposes of BIPRU 3.2.20 R to BIPRU 3.2.26 R, g shall be the risk weight to be assigned to an exposure, the exposure value (E) of1 which is fully protected by unfunded credit protection (GA), where:(1) g is the risk weight of exposures to the protection provider as specified under the standardised approach; 1(2) GA is the value of G* as calculated under BIPRU 5.7.17 R further adjusted for any maturity mismatch as laid down in BIPRU 5.8; and1(3) 1E is the exposure value
Where the protected amount is less than the exposure value and the protected and unprotected portions are of equal seniority – i.e.1 the firm and the protection provider share losses on a pro-rata basis, proportional regulatory capital relief is afforded. For the purposes of BIPRU 3.2.20 R to BIPRU 3.2.26 Rrisk weighted exposure amounts must be calculated in accordance with the following formula:(E-GA) x r + GA x gwhere:1(1) E is the exposure value; according to BIPRU 3.2.1 R
A firm may apply the treatment provided for in BIPRU 3.4.5 R to BIPRU 3.4.7 R to exposures or parts of exposures guaranteed by the central government or central bank, where the guarantee is denominated in the domestic currency of the borrower and the exposure is funded in that currency.[Note: BCD Annex VIII Part 3 point 89]
Where a firm obtains credit protection for a number of exposures under terms that the first default among the exposures will trigger payment and that this credit event will terminate the contract, the firm may modify the calculation of the risk weighted exposure amount and, as relevant, the expected loss amount of the exposure which would in the absence of the credit protection produce the lowest risk weighted exposure amount under the standardised approach or the IRB approach
Where the nth default among the exposures triggers payment under the credit protection provided by a credit derivative, a firm purchasing the protection may only recognise the protection for the calculation of risk weighted exposure amounts and, as relevant, expected loss amounts if protection has also been obtained for defaults 1 to n-1 or when n-1 defaults have already occurred. In such cases the methodology must follow that set out in BIPRU 5.7.27 R for first-to-default derivatives
For contracts that are structured to settle outstanding exposure following specified payment dates and where the terms are reset such that the market value of the contract is zero on these specified dates, a firm must treat the residual maturity as equal to the time until the next reset date.[Note: BCD Annex III Part 3, Table 1 footnote 27 (part)]
For the purpose of calculating the potential future credit exposure in accordance with BIPRU 13.4.3 R a firm may apply the percentages in the table in BIPRU 13.4.11 R instead of those prescribed in the table in BIPRU 13.4.5 R provided that it makes use of the commodity extended maturity ladder approach for contracts relating to commodities other than gold.
This table belongs to BIPRU 13.4.10 R
Residual maturity |
Precious metals (except gold) |
Base metals |
Agricultural products (softs) |
Other, including energy products |
One year or less |
2% |
2,5% |
3% |
4% |
Over one year, not exceeding five years |
5% |
4% |
5% |
6% |
Over five years |
7.5% |
8% |
9% |
10% |
[Note: BCD Annex III Part 3, Table 2]
In application of the CCR mark to market method:(1) in BIPRU 13.4.2 R a firm may obtain the current replacement cost for the contracts included in a netting agreement by taking account of the actual hypothetical net replacement cost which results from the agreement; in the case where netting leads to a net obligation for the firm calculating the net replacement cost, the current replacement cost is calculated as "0"; and(2) in BIPRU 13.4.3 R a firm may reduce the figure for potential
For the calculation of the potential future credit exposure according to the formula in BIPRU 13.4.17 R perfectly matching contracts included in the netting agreement may be taken into account as a single contract with a notional principal equivalent to the net receipts.[Note: BCD Annex III Part 7 point c(ii) (part)]
To ensure that estimates of LGDs take into account the most up-to-date experience, the FCA expects a firm to take account of data for relevant incomplete workouts (ie, defaulted exposures for which the recovery process is still in progress, with the result that the final realised losses in respect of those exposures are not yet certain) (see article 179(1)(c) of the EU CRR).
To ensure that sovereign LGD models are sufficiently conservative in view of the estimation error that may arise from the lack of data on losses to sovereigns, the FCA expects a firm to apply a 45% LGD floor to each unsecured exposure in the sovereign asset class (see article 179(1)(a) of the EU CRR).
To ensure that its LGD estimates are oriented towards downturn conditions, the FCA expects a firm to have a process through which it:(1) identifies appropriate downturn conditions for each IRB exposure class within each jurisdiction;(2) identifies adverse dependencies, if any, between default rates and recovery rates; and(3) incorporates adverse dependencies, if identified, between default rates and recovery rates in the firm's estimates of LGD in a manner that meets the requirements
To ensure that its LGD estimates incorporate material discount effects, the FCA expects a firm's methods for discounting cash flows to take account of the uncertainties associated with the receipt of recoveries for a defaulted exposure. For example, by adjusting cash flows to certainty-equivalents or by using a discount rate that embodies an appropriate risk premium; or by a combination of the two.
The FCA expects a firm using advanced IRB approaches to have done the following in respect of wholesale LGD estimates:(1) applied LGD estimates at transaction level;(2) ensured that all LGD estimates (both downturn and non-downturn) are cautious, conservative and justifiable, given the paucity of observations. Under article 179(1)(a) of the EU CRR, estimates must be derived using both historical experience and empirical evidence, and not be based purely on judgemental consideration.
The extent to which a borrower's assets are already given as collateral will clearly affect the recoveries available to unsecured creditors. If the degree to which assets are pledged is substantial, this will be a material driver of LGDs on such exposures. Although potentially present in all transactions, the FCA expects a firm to be particularly aware of this driver in situations in which borrowing on a secured basis is the normal form of financing, leaving relatively few assets
To calculate the risk weighted exposure amount of a securitisation position, the relevant risk weight must be assigned to the exposure value of the position in accordance with BIPRU 9.9 - BIPRU 9.14 based on the credit quality of the position.[Note:BCD Article 96(1) (part) and Annex IX1, Part 4 point 1]
(1) Where there is an exposure to different tranches in a securitisation, the exposure to each tranche must be considered a separate securitisation position.(2) The providers of credit protection to securitisation positions must be treated as holding positions in the securitisation.(3) securitisation positions include exposures to a securitisation arising from interest rate or currency derivative contracts.[Note:BCD Article 96(2)]
Subject to BIPRU 9.9.5 R,(1) where a firm calculates risk weighted exposure amounts under the standardised approach to securitisations outlined in BIPRU 9.11, the exposure value of an on-balance sheet securitisation position must be its balance sheet value;(2) where a firm calculates risk weighted exposure amounts under the IRB approach to securitisations outlined in BIPRU 9.12, the exposure value of an on-balance sheet securitisation position must be measured gross of value adjustments;(3)
Where a securitisation position is subject to funded credit protection, the exposure value of that position may be modified in accordance with and subject to the requirements of BIPRU 5 (Credit risk mitigation) as further specified in BIPRU 9.11.13 R and BIPRU 9.14.[Note:BCD Annex IX Part 4 point 4]
(1) Where a firm has two or more overlapping positions in a securitisation the firm must, to the extent that the positions overlap, include in its calculation of risk weighted exposure amounts only the position, or portion of a position, producing the higher risk weighted exposure amounts. The firm may also recognise such an overlap between capital charges for specific risk in relation to positions in the trading book and capital charges for positions in the non-trading book,
Subject to the provisions of GENPRU that deal with the deduction of securitisation positions at stage M in the relevant capital resources table, the risk weighted exposure amount must be included in the firm's total of risk weighted exposure amounts for the purposes of the calculation of its credit risk capital requirement.[Note:BCD Article 96(4)]
Table: Calculation of net underwriting exposure
This table belongs to BIPRU 7.8.34R
Time |
Reduction factor to be applied to net underwriting position |
100% |
|
100% |
|
90% |
|
75% |
|
75% |
|
50% |
|
25% |
|
Working day 6 onwards |
0% |
A firm must take reasonable steps to establish and maintain such systems and controls to monitor and manage its underwriting and sub-underwriting business as are appropriate to the nature, scale and complexity of its underwriting and sub-underwriting business. In particular, a firm must have systems to monitor and control its underwritingexposures between the time of the initial commitment and working day one in the light of the nature of the risks incurred in the markets in
A firm should take reasonable steps to:(1) allocate responsibility for the management of its underwriting and sub-underwriting business;(2) allocate adequate resources to monitor and control its underwriting and sub-underwriting business;(3) satisfy itself that its systems to monitor exposure to counterparties will calculate, revise and update its exposure to each counterparty arising from its underwriting or sub-underwriting business;(4) satisfy itself of the suitability of each
(1) An originator of a synthetic securitisation may calculate risk weighted exposure amounts1, and, as relevant, expected loss amounts, for the securitised exposures in accordance with BIPRU 9.5.3 R and BIPRU 9.5.4 R, if either of the following conditions is fulfilled:1(a) 1significant credit risk is considered to have been transferred to third parties, either through funded or unfunded credit protection; or(b) 1the originator applies a 1250% risk weight to all securitisation
1In the event that the appropriate regulator decides that the possible reduction in risk weighted exposure amounts which the originatorcredit institution would achieve by the securitisation referred to in BIPRU 9.5.1R (6) is not justified by a commensurate transfer of credit risk to third parties, it will use its powers under section 55J (Variation etc on the Authority's own initiative) of the Act to require the firm to increase its risk weight exposure amount to an amount commensurate
(1) In calculating risk weighted exposure amounts for the securitised exposures, where the conditions in BIPRU 9.5.1 R are met, the originator of a synthetic securitisation must, subject to the treatment of maturity mismatches set out in BIPRU 9.5.6 R-BIPRU 9.5.8 R, use the relevant calculation methodologies set out in BIPRU 9.9-BIPRU 9.14and not those set out in BIPRU 3 (Standardised credit risk) or BIPRU 4 (IRB approach).(2) For firms calculating risk weighted exposure amounts
Subject to the treatment of maturity mismatches set out in BIPRU 9.5.6 R-BIPRU 9.5.8 R, the originator must calculate risk weighted exposure amounts in respect of all tranches in the securitisation in accordance with the provisions of BIPRU 9.9-BIPRU 9.14. For example, where a tranche is transferred by means of unfunded credit protection to a third party, the risk weight of that third party must be applied to the tranche in the calculation of the originatorsrisk weighted exposure
For the purposes of calculating risk weighted exposure amounts in accordance with BIPRU 9.5.3 R, any maturity mismatch between the credit protection by which the tranching is achieved and the securitised exposures must be taken into consideration in accordance with BIPRU 9.5.7 R-BIPRU 9.5.8 R.[Note:BCD Annex IX Part 2 point 5]
The maturity of the securitised exposures must be taken to be the longest maturity of any of those exposures subject to a maximum of five years. The maturity of the credit protection must be determined in accordance with BIPRU 5 (Credit risk mitigation) and, so far as relevant, BIPRU 4.10 (Credit risk mitigation under the IRB approach).[Note:BCD Annex IX Part 2 point 6]
(1) An originator must ignore any maturity mismatch in calculating risk weighted exposure amounts for tranches appearing pursuant to BIPRU 9.9-BIPRU 9.14 with a risk weight of 1250%. For all other tranches the maturity mismatch treatment prescribed in BIPRU 5.8 (Maturity mismatches) must be applied in accordance with the following formula:RW* is [RW(SP) x (t-t*)/(T-t*)] + [RW(Ass) x (T-t)/(T-t*)](2) The following apply for the purposes of the formula in (1):(a) RW* is risk weighted
Subject to BIPRU 13.8.3 R, in respect of a securities financing transaction, if a firm:(1) has a CCR internal model method permission which covers the transaction; or(2) has a master netting agreement internal models approach permission which covers the transaction;then the firm must use the CCR internal model method approach or the master netting agreement internal models approach, as applicable, to calculate the exposure value for that transaction unless an exception in BIPRU
Where BIPRU 13.8.2 R does not apply, a firm must use one of the following approaches to determine the exposure value of a securities financing transaction, as appropriate:(1) if the transaction is covered by a master netting agreement which satisfies the requirements for recognition set out in BIPRU 5.6.1 R to BIPRU 5.6.3 R, a firm may calculate the exposure value under the master netting agreement method set out in BIPRU 5.6.5 R to BIPRU 5.6.11 R (Calculation of the fully adjusted
If a firm calculates the exposure value of a securities financing transaction as its on-balance sheet value, in accordance with BIPRU 13.8.4 R (2), it may recognise the effects of financial collateral in the same way as for its other exposures, for example by using either the financial collateral simple method or the financial collateral comprehensive method. However firms should note that the financial collateral simple method is not available:(1) to a firm using the IRB approach
Notwithstanding BIPRU 13.8.2 R, a firm must determine the exposure value of a credit risk exposure outstanding with a central counterparty in accordance with BIPRU 13.8.8 R1, provided that the central counterparty'scounterparty credit riskexposures with all participants in its arrangements are fully collateralised on a daily basis.[Note: BCD Article 78(4) in respect of SFTs]
A firm may attribute an exposure value of zero for CCR to a securities financing transaction or to any other exposures in respect of that transaction (but excluding an exposure arising from collateral held to mitigate losses in the event of the default of other participants in the central counterparty's arrangements) which is outstanding with a central counterparty and has not been rejected by the central counterparty.[Note: BCD Annex III Part 2 point 6 in respect of SFTs]
In calculating the ‘fully adjusted exposure value’ (E*) for the exposures subject to an eligible master netting agreement covering repurchase transactions and/or securities or commodities lending or borrowing transactions and/or other capital market-driven transactions, a firm must calculate the volatility adjustments to be applied in the manner set out in BIPRU 5.6.6 R to BIPRU 5.6.11 R either using the supervisory volatility adjustments approach or the own estimates of volatility
E* must be calculated according to the following formula:E* = max {0, [(∑(E) -∑ (C)) + ∑ (|net position in each security| x Hsec) + (∑|Efx| x Hfx)]}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 or commodities borrowed, purchased or received or the cash borrowed or received
The master netting agreement internal models approach1 is an alternative to using the supervisory volatility adjustments approach or the own estimates of volatility adjustments approach in calculating volatility adjustments for the purpose of calculating the ‘fully adjusted exposure value’ (E*) resulting from the application of an eligible master netting agreement covering repurchase transactions, securities or commodities lending or borrowing transactions and/or other capital
A firm may use the master netting agreement internal models approach independently of the choice it has made between the standardised approach and the IRB approach for the calculation of risk weighted exposure amounts. However, if a firm uses the master netting agreement internal models approach, it must do so for all counterparties and securities, excluding immaterial portfolios where it may use the supervisory volatility adjustments approach or the own estimates of volatility
(1) A firm must be able to satisfy the appropriate regulator 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
2This paragraph provides guidance in relation to BIPRU 5.6.19R (8). In carrying out the stress testing programme, a firm should evaluate the simultaneous impact of individual stress scenarios on its counterparty exposures, its positions and the aggregate amount of margin calls that it would receive. A firm's stress scenarios should take into account the possibility that the liquidation period may be substantially longer than 5 days for repurchase transactions and securities lending
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
If the FCA gives individual capital guidance to a firm, the FCA will state what amount and quality of capital the FCA considers the firm needs to hold in order to comply with the overall financial adequacy rule. It will generally do so by saying that the firm should hold own funds of an amount which is at least equal to a specified percentage of that firm'sown funds requirements plus one or more static add-ons for specific risks, in line with the overall Pillar 2 rule.
A firm should assess its exposure to changes in interest rates, particularly risks arising from the effect of interest-rate changes on non-trading book activities that are not captured by the own funds requirements. 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 own funds requirements
A firm should assess and monitor, in detail, its exposure to sectoral, geographic, liability and asset concentrations. The FCA 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 own funds requirements.
(1) A securities firm may consider the impact of the following situations on its capital levels when assessing its exposure to concentration risk: (a) the potential loss that could arise from large exposures to a single counterparty; (b) the potential loss that could arise from exposures to large transactions or to a product type; and(c) the potential loss resulting from a combination of events such as a sudden increase in volatility leaving a hitherto fully-margined client unable
Where a securities firm deals in illiquid securities (eg, unlisted securities or securities listed on illiquid markets) or holds illiquid assets, potentially large losses can arise from trades that have failed to settle or because of large unrealised market losses. Therefore, a securities firm may consider the impact of liquidity risk on its exposure to: (1) credit risk; and(2) market risk.
Counterparty risk requirements 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
If the calculation of the amount of an exposure or of a combination of exposures under BIPRU 13 would materially understate the amount of the counterparty credit risk the firm must increase the amount of the credit risk capital requirement by an amount sufficient to compensate for that understatement.
If a firm in relation to an exposure covered by BIPRU 13:(1) has an exposure of a non-standard type; or(2) an exposure that is part of a non-standard arrangement; or(3) has an exposure that, taken together with other exposures (whether or not they are subject to BIPRU 13), gives rise to a non-standard counterparty credit risk; or(4) is subject to the rule in BIPRU 13.2.1 R;it must notify the appropriate regulator as soon as practicable of that fact, the counterparty involved,
A firm must judge the question of what is non-standard for the purposes of BIPRU 13.2.2 R by reference to the standards:(1) prevailing at the time the rule is being applied; and(2) of firms generally who carry on business which might give rise to exposures covered by BIPRU 13 rather than merely by reference to the firm's own business.
The appropriate regulator 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.
(1) The appropriate regulator expects firms to conduct regular stress testing in relation to their securitisation activities and off-balance sheet exposures. The stress tests should consider the firm-wide impact of those activities and exposures in stressed market conditions and the implications for other sources of risk, for example, credit risk, concentration risk, counterparty risk, market risk, liquidity risk and reputational risk. Stress testing of securitisation activities
BIPRU 9 deals with:(1) requirements for investors,3originators and sponsors of securitisations of non-trading bookexposures;3(2) the calculation of risk weighted exposure amount for securitisation positions for the purposes of calculating either the credit risk capital component or the counterparty risk capital component; and3(3) the requirements that investors, originators and sponsors of securitisations in the trading book will have to meet (BIPRU 9.3.1AR, BIPRU 9.3.15R to BIPRU
In accordance with BIPRU 3.2.1 R (2) and BIPRU 3.2.2 R, a firm must:(1) assign an off-balance sheet item listed in the table in BIPRU 3.7.2 R to the risk category indicated in column 1 of that table; and(2) determine the exposure value of that item as the percentage of its value for the appropriate risk category as set out in column 3 of the table in BIPRU 3.7.2 R.
This table belongs to BIPRU 3.7.1 R
[Note: BCD Annex II]
Category |
Item |
Percentage |
Full risk |
Guarantees having the character of credit substitutes Credit derivatives Acceptances Endorsements on bills not bearing the name of another credit institution Transactions with recourse Irrevocable standby letters of credit having the character of credit substitutes Assets purchased under outright forward purchase agreements Forward deposits The unpaid portion of partly-paid shares and securities Asset sale and repurchase agreements as defined in Article 12(3) and (5) of the Bank Accounts Directive Other items also carrying full risk |
100% |
Medium risk |
Documentary credits issued and confirmed (see also medium/low risk). Warranties and indemnities (including tender, performance, customs and tax bonds) and guarantees not having the character of credit substitutes. Irrevocable standby letters of credit not having the character of credit substitutes. Undrawn credit facilities (agreements to lend, purchase securities, provide guarantees or acceptance facilities) with an original maturity of more than one year. Note issuance facilities (NIFs) and revolving underwriting facilities (RUFs). |
50% |
Medium/low risk |
Documentary credits in which underlying shipment acts as collateral and other self-liquidating transactions. Undrawn credit facilities (agreements to lend, purchase securities, provide guarantees or acceptance facilities) with an original maturity of up to and including one year which may not be cancelled unconditionally at any time without notice or that do not effectively provide for automatic cancellation due to deterioration in a borrower's creditworthiness. |
20% |
Low risk |
Undrawn credit facilities (agreements to lend, purchase securities, provide guarantees or acceptance facilities) which may be cancelled unconditionally at any time without notice, or that do effectively provide for automatic cancellation due to deterioration in a borrower's creditworthiness. Retail credit lines may be considered as unconditionally cancellable if the terms permit the firm to cancel them to the full extent allowable under consumer protection and related legislation. |
0% |