Related provisions for BIPRU 7.1.20
1 - 17 of 17 items.
This section also has rules requiring a firm to carry out appropriate stress tests and scenario analyses for the risks it has previously identified and to establish the amount of financial resources needed in each of the circumstances and events considered in carrying out the stress tests and scenario analyses. In the case of a BIPRU firm, the FSA will consider as part of its SREP whether the BIPRU firm should hold a capital planning buffer and, in such a case, the amount and
(1) This rule amplifies some of the obligations in the overall Pillar 2 rule.(2) In the case of a BIPRU firm the processes, strategies and systems relating to concentration risk must include those necessary to ensure compliance with BIPRU 10 (Large exposures7 requirements).7(3) As part of its obligations in respect of market risk, a BIPRU firm must consider whether the value adjustments and provisions taken for positions and portfolios in the trading book enable the firm to sell
(1) As part of its obligation under the overall Pillar 2 rule, a firm must, for the major sources of risk identified in accordance with GENPRU 1.2.30R (2), carry out stress tests and scenario analyses that are appropriate to the nature, scale and complexity6 of those major sources of risk and to the nature, scale and complexity of the firm's business.666(a) [deleted]66(b) [deleted]66(i) [deleted]66(ii) [deleted]66(iii) [deleted]66(iv) [deleted]66(2) In carrying out the stress
6In order to comply with the general stress and scenario testing rule, a firm should undertake a broad range of stress tests which reflect a variety of perspectives, including sensitivity analysis, scenario analysis and stress testing on an individual portfolio as well as a firm-wide level.
6A BIPRU firm with an IRB permission which has any material credit exposures excluded from its IRB models should also include these exposures in its stress and scenario testing to meet its obligations under the general stress and scenario testing rule. A BIPRU firm without an IRB permission, or an insurer that has any material credit and counterparty credit risk exposures, should conduct analyses to assess risks to the credit quality of its counterparties, including any protection
6In carrying out the stress tests and scenario analyses required by GENPRU 1.2.42R (1), a firm should also consider any impact of the adverse circumstances on its capital resources. In particular, a firm should consider the capital resources gearing rules where its tier one capital is eroded by the event.
Stress tests and scenario analyses should be carried out at least annually. A firm should, however, consider whether the nature of the major sources of risks identified by it in accordance with GENPRU 1.2.30R (2) (Main requirement relating to risk processes, strategies 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
(1) This rule relates to the assessment of the amounts, types and distribution of financial resources, capital resources 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 GENPRU 1.2.37R (2) 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
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
Subject to GENPRU 1.2.76 G, the purpose 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
Where a firm is exposed to market risk, the6 time horizon over which stress tests and scenario analyses 6should be carried out will 6depend on, among other things,6 the maturity and liquidity of the positions stressed. For example, for the market risk arising from the holding of investments, this will 6depend upon:6666(1) the extent to which there is a regular, open and transparent market in those assets, which would allow fluctuations in the value of the investment to be more
(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
(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
6In performing stress tests and scenario analyses, a firm should take into account the risk that its group may have to bring back on to its consolidated balance sheet the assets and liabilities of off-balance sheet entities as a result of reputational contagion, notwithstanding the appearance of legal risk transfer.
Consistent with BIPRU 12.3.5R, the FSA expects that the extent and frequency of such testing, as well as the degree of regularity of governing body review under BIPRU 12.4.2R, should be proportionate to the nature scale and complexity of a firm's activities, as well as to the size of its liquidity risk exposures. Consistent with the FSA's statutory objectives under the Act, in assessing the adequacy of a firm's stress testing arrangements (including their frequency and the regularity
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
4As part of its SREP, the FSA will also consider whether a firm should hold a capital planning buffer and, in that case, the amount and quality of such capital planning buffer. In making these assessments, the FSA 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. Accordingly, a firm's capital planning buffer should be of sufficient
4For the purposes of BIPRU 2.2.19A G, BIPRU 2.2.17 G to BIPRU 2.2.19 G apply as they apply to individual capital guidance. References in those provisions to individual capital guidance or guidance should be read as if they were references to capital planning buffer. In relation to BIPRU 2.2.19G (3) and GENPRU 1.2.59 R, where the general stress and scenario testing rule, as part of the ICAAP rules, applies to a firm on a consolidated basis, the FSA may notify the firm that it should
(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) BIPRU 2.2.49 G to BIPRU 2.2.70 G set out guidance for:(a) a bank or building society;(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.
3A firm must conduct a regular programme of stress testing and scenario analysis of its trading bookpositions, both at the trading desk level and on a firm-wide basis. The results of these tests must be reviewed by senior management and reflected in the policies and limits the firm sets.
3In carrying out the stress tests and scenario analyses required by BIPRU 7.1.17 R, a firm must incorporate and take into account any other relevant stress tests and scenario analyses that it is required to carry out under any other provision of the Handbook, and in particular under BIPRU 7.10.72 R where the firm has a VaR model permission.
3This paragraph gives guidance in relation to the stress testing programme that a firm must carry out in relation to its trading bookpositions.(1) The frequency of the stress testing of trading bookpositions should be determined by the nature of the positions.(2) The stress testing should include shocks which reflect the nature of the portfolio and the time it could take to hedge out or manage risks under severe market conditions.(3) The firm should have procedures in place to
3A firm must validate its approach to incremental risk charge. In particular, a firm must: (1) validate that its modelling approach for correlations and price changes is appropriate for its portfolio, including the choice and weights of its systematic risk factors;(2) perform a variety of stress tests (not limited to the range of events experienced historically), including sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis, to assess the qualitative and quantitative reasonableness of
(1) As part of its obligations under GENPRU 1.2.30 R (Processes, strategies and systems for risks) and GENPRU 1.2.36 R (Stress and scenario tests) a firm must carry out an evaluation of its exposure to the interest rate risk arising from its non-trading activities.(2) The evaluation under (1) must cover the effect of a sudden and unexpected parallel change in interest rates of 200 basis points in both directions.(3) A firm must immediately notify the FSA if any evaluation under
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) Business plan failure in the context of reverse stress testing should be understood as the point at which the market loses confidence in a firm and this results in the firm no longer being able to carry out its business activities. Examples of this would be the point at which all or a substantial portion of the firm's counterparties are unwilling to continue transacting with it or seek to terminate their contracts, or the point at which the firm's existing shareholders are
2This section sets out in greater detail the approach to be taken by a firm when carrying out the assessment of capital described in the preceding paragraph. This is the assessment referred to as an individual capital assessment. 3GENPRU 1.2.42 R is a general requirement for a firm to carry out stress tests and scenario analyses taking into account an appropriate range of adverse circumstances and events relevant to the firm's business and risk profile and to estimate the financial
The FSA may ask for the results of these assessments to be provided to it together with a description of the processes by which the assessments have been made, the range of results from each stress test or scenario analysis performed and the main assumptions made. The FSA may also carry out a more detailed examination of the details of the firm's processes and calculations.
8The FSA considers that:(1) in order to comply with GENPRU 2.2.79G R, the firm should, at a minimum, provide the FSA with the following information:(a) a comprehensive explanation of the rationale for the purchase;(b) the firm's financial and solvency position before and after the purchase, in particular whether the purchase, or other foreseeable internal and external events or circumstances, may increase the risk of the firm breaching its capital resources requirement or the
4The FSA expects that firms will routinely make use of stress testing and scenario analysis as a tool in the calibration and/or validation of their IRB approach parameters in order to increase the accuracy or, at least, the conservatism of the estimates. Stress testing should include a thorough exploration of various outturns different to the firm's normal expectations in order to give the firm a clear view of the potential for the forward-looking estimate to be different from
(1) The FSA 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 risk exposures
A firm must be able to satisfy the FSA 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
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
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 take into account the illiquidity of lower-quality assets. The liquidation period must be adjusted upwards in cases where there is doubt concerning the liquidity of the collateral. A firm must also identify where historical data may understate potential volatility, e.g. a pegged currency. Such cases must be dealt with by means of stress scenario assessments3.[Note:BCD Annex VIII Part 3 point 50]3