Related provisions for IFPRU 4.12.35
1 - 20 of 41 items.
A firm seeking to achieve capital relief by deducting or applying a 1250% risk weight where permitted under articles 244 or 2452 of the UK CRR3 does not need to make the notification in IFPRU 4.12.1 R.1 However, in such cases, a firm should consider whether the characteristics of the transaction are such that the FCA would reasonably expect prior notice of it.1
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 UK CRR3 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
(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
The purpose of IFPRU 2.2.52 R to IFPRU 2.2.55 G is to enable the FCA to assess the extent, if any, to which a firm's assessment, calculated on a consolidated basis, is lower than it would be if each separate legal entity were to assess the amount of capital it would require to mitigate its risks (to the same level of confidence) were it not part of a group subject to consolidated supervision under Part One, Title II, Chapter 2 of the UK CRR5 (Prudential consolidation). The reason
(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
To be satisfied that the requirements in article 179(1) of the UK CRR1 are met, the FCA expects a firm to collect data on what it considers to be the main drivers of the risk parameters of probability of default (PD), loss given default (LGD), conversion factors (CFs) and expected loss (EL) for each group of obligors or facilities, to document the identification of the main drivers of risk parameters, and be able to demonstrate that the process of identification is reasonable
In its processes for identifying the main drivers of risk parameters, the FCA expects that a firm should 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 process need not
To demonstrate that a rating system provides for a meaningful differentiation of risk and accurate and consistent quantitative estimates of risk, the FCA expects a firm would have regard to the sensitivity of the rating to movements in fundamental risk drivers, in assigning exposures to grades or pools within a rating system (see article 171 of the UK CRR1).
The SREP is a process under which the FCA: (1) reviews the arrangements, strategies, processes and mechanisms implemented by a firm to comply with IFPRU, SYSC and with requirements imposed by or under the UK CRR4 and wider regulatory system and evaluates the risks to which the firm is, or might be, exposed;(2) determines whether the arrangements, strategies, processes and mechanisms implemented by the firm and the capital held by the firm ensures a sound management and coverage
(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
When demonstrating how article 113(6)(e) of the UK CRR2 is met, the FCA considers that, for a counterparty which is not a firm, the application should include a legally binding agreement between the firm and the counterparty. This agreement will be to promptly, on demand, by the firm increase the firm'sown funds by an amount required to ensure that the firm complies with the provisions contained in Part Two of the UK CRR2 (Own funds) and any other requirements relating to capital
The FCA also expects that a firm will be compliant with the validation requirements only where1it can demonstrate that:11(1) appropriate stability metrics should be considered across a range of economic environments (ie, longest period possible including most recent data);(2) the tolerances for the degree of divergence, and associated actions for what should happen when they are not met, is pre-defined; and(3) subsections of portfolios by characteristics affecting risk profile,
For the purposes of articles 124(2) and 126(2) of the UK CRR4, 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