Related provisions for BIPRU 4.3.111
41 - 58 of 58 items.
To achieve a soundness standard comparable to those under the IRB approach, LGD estimates should reflect the economic cycle. Therefore, the FCA expects a firm to incorporate dependence of the recovery rate on the economic cycle into the IRC model. Should the firm use a conservative parameterisation to comply with the IRB standard of the use of downturn estimates, evidence of this should be submitted in quarterly reporting to the FCA, bearing in mind that for trading portfolios,
This table belongs to BIPRU 3.7.1 R[Note: BCD Annex II]CategoryItemPercentageFull riskGuarantees having the character of credit substitutesCredit derivativesAcceptancesEndorsements on bills not bearing the name of another credit institutionTransactions with recourseIrrevocable standby letters of credit having the character of credit substitutesAssets purchased under outright forward purchase agreementsForward depositsThe unpaid portion of partly-paid shares and securitiesAsset
1(1) 1Where the conditions set out in BIPRU 5.5.5 R are satisfied, the portion of the exposure collateralised by the current surrender value of credit protection falling within the terms of BIPRU 5.5.4 R must be either:(a) 1subject to the risk weights specified in (3) where the exposure is subject to the standardised approach to credit risk; or(b) 1assigned an LGD of 40% where the exposure is subject to the IRB approach but not subject to the firm's own estimates of LGD.(2) 1In
(1) A firm which has an IRB permission must publicly disclose the information laid down in BIPRU 11.6.1 Rto BIPRU 11.6.4 R.(2) A firm which recognises credit risk mitigation in accordance with BIPRU 5 must publicly disclose the information laid down in BIPRU 11.6.5 R.(3) [deleted]3[Note: BCD Article 145(2), CAD Article 39]1
The EAD required for IRB purposes is the exposure expected to be outstanding under a borrower's current facilities should it go into default in the next year, assuming that economic downturn conditions occur in the next year and a firm's policies and practices for controlling exposures remain unchanged other than changes that result for the economic downturn conditions.
In the case of a portfolio for which there is insufficient default experience to provide any confidence in statistical measures of discriminative power, the FCA expects a firm to use other methods. For example, analysis of whether the firm's rating systems and an external measurement approach (eg, external ratings) rank common obligors in broadly similar ways. Where such an approach is used, the FCA would expect a firm to ensure it does not systematically adjust its individual
A firm must disclose the following information regarding compliance with BIPRU 3, BIPRU 4, 5, BIPRU 7, 5 and the overall Pillar 2 rule:(1) a summary of the firm's approach to assessing the adequacy of its internal capital to support current and future activities;(2) for a firm calculating risk weighted exposure amounts in accordance with the standardised approach to credit risk, 8% of the risk weighted exposure amounts for each of the standardised credit risk exposure classes;(3)
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
(1) Where credit protection eligible under BIPRU 5 (Credit risk mitigation) and, if applicable, BIPRU 4.10 (Credit risk mitigation under the IRB approach) is provided directly to the SSPE, and that protection is reflected in the credit assessment of a position by a nominated ECAI, the risk weight associated with that credit assessment may be used.(2) If the protection is not eligible under BIPRU 5 (Credit risk mitigation) and, if applicable, BIPRU 4.10 (Credit risk mitigation
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
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
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
BIPRU 13.3 sets out the calculations of exposure values for financial derivative instrument, long settlement transactions and certain other transactions under the standardised approach and, subject to BIPRU 4, under the IRB approach. BIPRU 13.4, 13.5 and 13.6 set out the provisions relating to the CCR mark to market method, the CCR standardised method and the CCR internal model method in turn.
The FCA would expect to replace 90 days with 180 days in the days past due component of the definition of default for exposures secured by residential real estate in the retail exposure class, and/or for exposures to PSEs,1 where this was requested by the firm. Where this occurred, it would be specified in the firm's IRB permission.
A 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 firm without IRB permission should conduct analyses to assess risks to the credit quality of its counterparties, including any protection sellers, considering both on and off-balance sheet exposures.