Related provisions for BIPRU 5.2.6

41 - 45 of 45 items.
Results filter

Search Term(s)

Filter by Modules

Filter by Documents

Filter by Keywords

Effective Period

Similar To

To access the FCA Handbook Archive choose a date between 1 January 2001 and 31 December 2004 (From field only).

4Where liabilities are linked to orders made under section 148 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 the risks associated with the business8 may be mitigated by holding assets to cover an alternative index which is reasonably expected to at least cover the section 148 order (e.g. RPI plus a margin) over the duration of the link. The firm's exposure to an order under section 148 exceeding this index should be appropriately limited by putting a cap on the liabilities linked
BIPRU 8.7.22RRP
A firm must not use both the financial collateral simple method and the financial collateral comprehensive method with respect to its UK consolidation group or non-UK sub-group5.
BIPRU 3.4.98GRP
For the purposes of BIPRU 3.4.97 R, the secured portion of a past due item is dealt with under BIPRU 5 (Credit risk mitigation). A firm may treat the secured portion of an exposure covered by a mortgage indemnity product that meets the relevant CRM eligibility criteria as secured for the purposes of BIPRU 3.4.97 R. The risk weight to be applied to the secured portion is determined under BIPRU 5.7.21 R to BIPRU 5.7.24 R. The risk weight of the unsecured portion is determined in
IFPRU 2.3.41GRP
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
BIPRU 2.2.32GRP
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 CRR against its assumptions