Related provisions for IFPRU 2.2.66
1 - 18 of 18 items.
As part of its obligations under the overall Pillar 2 rule, a firm must :(1) make an assessment of the firm-wide impact of the risks identified in line with that rule, to which end a firm must aggregate the risks across its various business lines and units, taking appropriate account of the correlation between risks; (2) take into account the stress tests that the firm is required to carry out as follows: (a) (for a significant IFPRU firm) under the general stress and scenario
(1) As part of its obligation under the overall Pillar 2 rule, a firm that is a significant IFPRU firm must:(a) for the major sources of risk identified in line with IFPRU 2.2.7R(2), carry out stress tests and scenario analyses that are appropriate to the nature, scale and complexity of those major sources of risk and to the nature, scale and complexity of the firm's business; and(b) carry out the reverse stress testing under SYSC 20 (Reverse stress testing).(2) In carrying out
For the purpose of IFPRU 2.2.37 R (5), a firm should consider whether the nature of the major sources of risks identified by it, in line with IFPRU 2.2.7 R (2) (Main requirement relating to risk strategies, processes and systems), and their possible impact on its financial resources suggest that such tests and analyses should be carried out more frequently. For instance, a sudden change in the economic outlook may prompt a firm to revise the parameters of some of its stress tests
(1) This rule relates to the assessment of the amounts, types and distribution of financial resources, own funds and internal capital (referred to in this rule as "resources") under the overall Pillar 2 rule as applied on a consolidated basis and to the assessment of diversification effects as referred to in IFPRU 2.2.14 R (3)(b) as applied on a consolidated basis.(2) A firm must be able to explain how it has aggregated the risks referred to in the overall Pillar 2 rule and the
One of the main purposes of stress tests and scenario analyses under the general stress and scenario testing rule is to test the adequacy of overall financial resources. Scenarios need only be identified, and their impact assessed, in so far as this facilitates that purpose. In particular, the nature, depth and detail of the analysis depend, in part, upon the firm's capital strength and the robustness of its risk prevention and risk mitigation measures.
Both stress testing and scenario analyses are forward-looking analysis techniques which seek to anticipate possible losses that might occur if an identified risk crystallises. In applying them, a firm should decide how far forward to look. This should depend upon:(1) how quickly it would be able to identify events or changes in circumstances that might lead to a risk crystallising resulting in a loss; and(2) after it has identified the event or circumstance, how quickly and effectively
(1) In identifying an appropriate range of adverse circumstances and events in accordance with IFPRU 2.2.37 R (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 IFPRU 2.2.37 R (2)(a), the amplitude and duration of the relevant cycle should include a severe downturn scenario based on forward-looking hypothetical events, calibrated against
(1) Stress and scenario analyses should, in the first instance, be aligned with the risk appetite of the firm, as well as the nature, scale and complexity of its business and of the risks that it bears. The calibration of the stress and scenario analyses should be reconciled to a clear statement setting out the premise upon which the firm's internal capital assessment under the overall Pillar 2 rule is based.(2) In identifying adverse circumstances and events in line with IFPRU
A firm should use the results of its stress testing and scenario analysis not only to assess capital needs, but also to decide if measures should be put in place to minimise the adverse effect on the firm if the risk covered by the stress or scenario test actually materialises. Such measures might be a contingency plan or might be more concrete risk mitigation steps.
(1) [deleted]66(2) Stress and scenario analyses should, in the first instance, be aligned with the risk appetite of the firm, as well as the nature, scale and complexity of its business and of the risks that it bears. The6 calibration of the 6stress and scenario analyses should be reconciled to a clear statement setting out the premise upon which the firm's internal capital assessment under the overall Pillar 2 rule is based.66(3) [deleted]66(4) In identifying adverse circumstances
A firm should use the results of its stress testing and scenario analysis not only to assess capital needs, but also to decide if measures should be put in place to minimise the adverse effect on the firm if the risk covered by the stress or scenario test actually materialises. Such measures might be a contingency plan or might be more concrete risk mitigation steps.
6A firm should include in the written record referred to in GENPRU 1.2.60 R a description of the broad business strategy ofthe insurance group, the UK consolidation group or the non-EEA sub-group of which it is a member, the group’s view of its principal risks and its approach to measuring, managing and controlling the risks. This description should include the role of stress testing, scenario analysis and contingency planning in managing risk at the solo and consolidated lev
(1) This paragraph applies to a firm that is not a significant IFPRU firm (see IFPRU 1.2.3 R) whose activities are simple and primarily not credit-related.(2) In carrying out its ICAAP it could: (a) identify and consider that firm's largest losses over the last three to five years and whether those losses are likely to recur;(b) prepare a short list of the most significant risks to which that firm is exposed;(c) consider how that firm would act, and the amount of capital that
(1) This paragraph applies to a proportional ICAAP in the case of a firm that is a significant IFPRU firm (see IFPRU 1.2.3 R) whose activities are complex.(2) A proportional approach to that firm'sICAAP should cover the matters identified in IFPRU 2.3.34 G and IFPRU 2.3.35 G, but is likely also to involve the use of models, most of which will be integrated into its day-to-day management and operation.(3) Models of the kind referred to in (2) may be linked to generate an overall
A firm with an IRB permission must ensure that there is no significant risk of it being unable to meet its own funds requirements for credit risk under Part Three, Title II of the EU CRR (Capital requirements for credit risk) at all times throughout an economic cycle, including the own funds requirements for credit risk indicated by any stress test carried out under article 177 of the EU CRR (Stress tests used in assessment of capital adequacy for a firm with an IRB permission)
The obligation to conduct an ICAAP, includes requirements on a firm to:(1) carry out regularly assessments of the amounts, types and distribution of financial resources, capital resources and internal capital that it considers adequate to cover the nature and level of the risks to which it is or might be exposed (GENPRU 1.2.30 R to GENPRU 1.2.41 G (the overall Pillar 2 rule and related rules);(2) identify the major sources of risk to its ability to meet its liabilities as they
(1) This paragraph applies to a small3firm whose activities are simple and primarily not credit-related.3(2) In carrying out its ICAAP it could:(a) identify and consider that firm's largest losses over the last 3 to 5 years and whether those losses are likely to recur;(b) prepare a short list of the most significant risks to which that firm is exposed;(c) consider how that firm would act, and the amount of capital that would be absorbed, in the event that each of the risks identified
(1) 66BIPRU 2.2.61 G to BIPRU 2.2.70 G set out guidance for:(a) 6[deleted]6(b) an asset management firm; and(c) a securities firm;whose activities are either simple or moderately complex.(2) BIPRU 2.2.49 G to BIPRU 2.2.70 G provide examples of the sorts of risks which such a firm might typically face and of stress tests or scenario analyses which it might carry out as part of its ICAAP.(3) The material on securities firms is also relevant to a commoditiesfirm.
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
For the purposes of SYSC 12.1.8 R, the question of whether the risk management processes and internal control mechanisms are adequate, sound and appropriate should be judged in the light of the nature, scale and complexity of the group's business and of the risks that the group bears. Riskmanagement processes must include the stress testing and scenario analysis required by GENPRU 1.2.42 R and GENPRU 1.2.49R (1)(b).4
4The financial risk assessment should be based on a methodology which provides a reasonable estimate of the potential business losses which a UK RIE might incur in stressed but plausible market conditions. The FCA5 would expect a UK RIE to carry out a financial risk assessment at least once in every twelve-month period, or more frequently if there are material changes in the nature, scale or complexity of the UK RIE's operations or its business plans that suggest such financial
For a larger and/or more complex firm, appropriate systems to evaluate and manage interest rate risk in the non-trading book should 2include:2(1) the ability to measure the exposure and sensitivity of the firm's activities, if material, to repricing risk, yield curve risk, basis risk and risks arising from embedded optionality (for example, pipeline risk, prepayment risk) as well as2changes in assumptions (for example those about customer behaviour);2(2) consideration as to whether
(1) The appropriate regulator considers that, while the firm'sgoverning body is ultimately responsible for risk governance throughout the business, firms should consider establishing a governing body risk committee to provide focused support and advice on risk governance.(2) Where a firm has established a governing body risk committee, its responsibilities will typically include:(a) providing advice to the firm'sgoverning body on risk strategy, including the oversight of current
SUP 4.3.13 R is not intended to be exhaustive of the professional advice that a firm should take whether from an actuary appointed under this chapter or from any other actuary acting for the firm. Firms should consider what systems and controls are needed to ensure that they obtain appropriate professional advice on financial and risk analysis; for example:11(1) risk identification, quantification and monitoring;1(2) stress and scenario testing;1(3) ongoing financial conditions;1(4)
A firm must be able to satisfy the appropriate regulator that it has adequate risk management processes to control the 1risks to which the firm may be exposed as a result of carrying out credit risk mitigation. Those processes must include appropriate stress tests and scenario analyses relating to those risks, including residual risk and the risks relating to the intrinsic value of the credit risk mitigation1.[Note: BCD Annex VIII Part 2 point 1]1