Related provisions for BIPRU 7.10.55ZC
1 - 20 of 72 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 appropriate regulator 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
(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 appropriate regulator 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
A firm must provide to, and discuss with, the appropriate regulator details of any significant planned changes to the VaR model before those changes are implemented. These details must include information about the nature of the change and an estimate of the impact on VaR numbers and the incremental risk charge.33
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 appropriate regulator 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 appropriate regulator 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]
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 FCA15 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
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
For IFPRU 4.12.3 G (3) (option 3), the1FCA intends to grant permission for an originator to make its own assessment of significant risk transfer only where it is satisfied that:1(1) in every relevant case, the reduction in own funds requirements achieved would be justified by a commensurate transfer of risk to third parties;(2) the firm has appropriately risk-sensitive policies and methodologies in place to assess the transfer of risk; and(3) such transfer of risk to third parties
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
To assess a firm's ability to use its own policies and methodologies for assessing significant risk transfer, the FCA's permission reviews will focus on:(1) the firm's understanding of the risk of any potential transactions within permission scope, including for potential underlying assets, securitisation structures and other relevant factors that affect the economic substance of risk transfer;(2) the governance around significant risk transfer assessment (including sign-off procedures)
Permissions relating to individual transactions do not need to be granted prior to the execution of a transaction. The FCA does not intend to specify the timeframe in which a firm should submit an individual transaction permission, but the firm should note that capital relief from a specific transaction will not be available until a firm has obtained permission covering the significant risk transfer assessment and capital treatment (unless the transaction is being notified under
(1) If a firm is found to have provided support to a securitisation, the expectation that the firm will provide future support to its securitisations is increased. The FCA will take account of this increased expectation in future assessments of commensurate risk transfer to that firm.(2) The FCA expects securitisation documentation to make clear, where applicable, that repurchase of securitisation positions by the originator beyond its contractual obligations is not mandatory
Generally, the amount of premium paid will not materially affect the assessment of whether significant risk transfer has occurred. This is because either: (1) the protection payment payable upon default from protection seller to protection buyer is significantly larger than the overall premium payable to the protection seller; or(2) the payment of premium leads to an immediate incurred cost.
The FCA expects originators seeking to apply the securitisation risk weights to synthetic securitisations to take into account all relevant factors to assess the amount of risk transferred. As well as the size and timing of amounts payable to the protection seller, the circumstances in which those amounts are payable can undermine the effectiveness of risk transfer. The FCA expects a firm seeking capital relief through synthetic securitisations to incorporate premiums in their
Article 238 of the EU CRR (Maturity of credit protection) requires maturity to be assessed in considering significant risk transfer. When considering the effective maturity of synthetic securitisations, the FCA expects a firm to consider whether the transaction contained an option to terminate the protection at the discretion of the protection buyer.
4For the purposes of calculating the risk-based approach, the FCA5 would normally expect the UK RIE to provide the FCA5 with an annual financial risk assessment that identifies the risks to its business. As a financial risk assessment is likely to form an integral part of the UK RIE's management process and decision-making culture, the FCA5 would normally expect it to be approved by the UK RIE'sgoverning body.555
4The FCA5 would normally expect to use the financial risk assessment prepared by the UK RIE in the course of preparing individual guidance on the amount of financial resources that it considers is sufficient for a UK RIE to hold in order to satisfy the recognition requirements. The financial risk assessment would provide the basis for calculating the amount of eligible financial resources that should be held by the UK RIE under the risk-based approach.5
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
4Where a UK RIE is a member of a group, the FCA5 would normally expect the annual risk assessment to be accompanied by a consolidated balance sheet: 5(1) of any group in which the UK RIE is a subsidiary undertaking; or(2) (if the UK RIE is not a subsidiary undertaking in any group) of any group of which the UK RIE is a parent undertaking.
4The FCA5 would expect to consider the financial risk assessment, any proposal with respect to an operational risk buffer and, if applicable, the consolidated balance sheet, in formulating its guidance on the amount of eligible financial resources it considers to be sufficient for the UK RIE to hold in order to meet the recognition requirements. In formulating its guidance, the FCA5 would, where relevant, consider whether or not the financial risk assessment makes adequate provision
(1) [deleted]55(2) The FCA5 would normally expect a UK RIE to hold, in addition to the minimum amount determined under REC 2.3.9G (1)(a)(i), an operational risk buffer consistent with a risk-based approach.5(a) Where the amount of eligible financial resources calculated by a UK RIE under REC 2.3.17G (5) (the risk-based approach) is greater than the amount of eligible financial resources calculated under REC 2.3.13 G (the standard approach), and the difference is of an amount sufficient
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, own funds and internal capital that it considers adequate to cover the nature and level of the risks to which it is or might be exposed (IFPRU 2.2.1 R to IFPRU 2.2.6 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 fall due
As part of its SREP, the FCA will also consider whether a firm should hold a capital planning buffer and the amount and quality of such capital planning buffer. In making these assessments, the FCA will have regard to the nature, scale and complexity of a firm's business and of the major sources of risks relevant to such business as referred to in the general stress and scenario testing rule and SYSC 20 (Reverse stress testing), as applicable. Accordingly, a firm'scapital planning
In the circumstance in IFPRU 2.3.23 G, the FCA may ask a firm for alternative or more detailed proposals and plans or further assessments and analyses of capital adequacy and risks faced by the firm. The FCA will seek to agree with the firm appropriate timescales and scope for any such additional work, in the light of the circumstances which have arisen.
(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
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
Information is needed to support the FCA's1 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 FCA's1 general duties under the Act. The central element of the process of risk based supervision is a systematic assessment by the FCA1 (a risk assessment) of the main supervisory risks and concerns
For each UK recognised body, the FCA1 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.1
The risk assessment will guide the FCA's1 supervisory focus. It is important, therefore, that there is good dialogue between the FCA1 and the recognised body. The FCA1 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 FCA1 may send a detailed letter to the body's
A firm should carry out assessments of the sort described in the overall Pillar 2 rule and IFPRU 2.2.13 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 FCA when reviewing
A firm must evaluate and address through appropriate policies and procedures the risks arising from securitisation transactions in relation to which a firm is investor, originator or sponsor, including reputational risks, to ensure, in particular, that the economic substance of the transaction is fully reflected in risk assessment and management decisions.[Note: article 82(1) of CRD]
A firm must make a written record of the assessments required under this chapter. These assessments include those carried out on a consolidated basis and on an individual basis. In particular, it must make a written record of:(1) the major sources of risk identified in accordance with the overall Pillar 2 rule;(2) how it intends to deal with those risks; and(3) details of the stress tests and scenario analyses carried out, including any assumptions made in relation to scenario
The focus of the risk assessment is on the firm's obligations towards the pension scheme, not of the pension scheme itself (ie, the scheme’s assets and liabilities). 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.
A firm should include in the written record in IFPRU 2.2.43 R (Documentation of risk assessments) a description of the broad business strategy of the FCA 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 on an individual basis and consolidated
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
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) [deleted]1313(2) The term 'risk management function' in SYSC 7.1.6 R and SYSC 7.1.7 R refers to the generally understood concept of risk assessment within a firm, that is, the function of setting and controlling risk exposure.32917(3) For a firm that is not a relevant authorised person, the risk
management function is not a controlled function itself, but is part of
the systems and controls function or the PRA's systems and controls
controlled function (CF28).17(4) For a
(1) 13A CRR firm's risk management function (SYSC 7.1.6 R) must be independent from the operational functions and have sufficient authority, stature, resources and access to the management body.(2) The risk management function must ensure that all material risks are identified, measured and properly reported. It must be actively involved in elaborating the firm's risk strategy and in all material risk management decisions and it must be able to deliver a complete view of the whole
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 FCA supervision
model risk assessment process applies to all firms,
although the detail required may vary from firm to firm. For example, some firms may
experience a highly intensive level of contact although others may only be
contacted once every four years. Firms judged
as high impact are likely to require a more detailed assessment. A peer review
process within the FCA assists
consistency and will be focused on firms and
sectors of the industry that could cause, or are
(1) The FCA intends
to communicate the outcomes of its pillars of supervision to each firm within an appropriate time frame. In
the case of firms in which risks
have been identified which could have a material bearing on the FCA meeting its statutory
objectives, the FCA will
also outline a remedial programme intended to address these.(2) The FCA considers
that it would generally be inappropriate for a firm to
disclose its FCA risk assessment
to third parties, except to those who
(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
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
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
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 appropriate regulator 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 regulator’s risk assessment and any other issues arising from day-to-day supervision will be considered.
The appropriate regulator 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 regulator’s review process as well as the review of the firm'sICA.
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 FSAappropriate regulator 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 FSAappropriate regulator 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
In IFPRU 4.10.1 G:(1) developmental evidence means evidence that substantiates whether the logic and quality of a rating system (including the quantification process) adequately discriminates between different levels of, and delivers accurate estimates of, PD, EL, LGD and conversion factors (as applicable); and(2) process verification means the process of establishing whether the methods used in a rating system to discriminate between different levels of risk and to quantify
The FCA expects a firm to 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, the FCA expects a firm to be able to explain the extent of any potential inaccuracy in these measures, caused, in particular, by small sample size and the potential for divergence in the future, whether