Related provisions for BIPRU 4.4.81
41 - 60 of 88 items.
The following must comply with the obligations laid down in BIPRU 11.3 on an individual basis:(1) a firm which is neither a parent undertaking nor a subsidiary undertaking;(2) a firm which is excluded from a UK consolidation group or non-UK sub-group2 pursuant to BIPRU 8.5; and[Note: BCD Article 68(3)](3) a firm which is part of a group which has been granted an investment firm consolidation waiver under BIPRU 8.4;[Note: CAD.Article 23]
A firmcontrolled by a parent financial holding company in the UK or a parent mixed financial holding company in the UK2 must comply with the obligations laid down in BIPRU 11.3 on the basis of the consolidated financial situation of that parent financial holding company in the UK or parent mixed financial holding company in the UK2.[Note: BCD Article 72(2)]11
A firm which is included within comparable disclosures provided on a consolidated basis by a parent undertaking whose head office is not in the UK2 may apply for a waiver from the relevant disclosure requirements in BIPRU 11.2.2 R - BIPRU 11.2.5 R. The appropriate regulator's approach to granting waivers is set out in the Supervision manual (see SUP 8).[Note: BCD Article 72(3)]
In 1997, the European Commission published an interpretative communication (Freedom to provide services and the interests of the general good in the Second Banking Directive (97/C 209/04)) (the text of this directive and the First Banking Directive is now consolidated in the Banking Consolidation Directive). The European Commission's objective in publishing this communication was to explain and clarify the EU4 rules. The European Commission deemed it desirable "to restate in a
1(1) The European Commission has not produced an interpretative communication on MiFID3. It is arguable, however, that the principles in the communication on the Second Banking Directive can be applied to investment services and activities3. This is because Chapter9 II of Title II of MiFID3 (containing provisions relating to operating conditions for investment firms3) also applies to the investment services and activities3 of firms operating under the Banking Consolidation Directive,
In giving its views, communications made by the European Commission have the status of guidance and are not binding on the national courts of EEA States. This is because it is the European Court of Justice that has ultimate responsibility for interpreting the Treaty and secondary legislation. Accordingly, the communications "do not prejudge the interpretation that the Court of Justice ...,4 which is responsible in the final instance for interpreting the Treaty and secondary legislation,
The E-Commerce Directive does not affect the responsibilities of Home State under the Single Market Directives. This includes the obligation of a Home State regulator to notify the Host State regulator of a firm's intention to establish a branch in, or provide cross border services into, the other EEA State.
1The Single Market Directives require credit institutions, insurance undertakings (other than reinsurance undertakings)5, MiFID investment firms3, AIFMs, 7UCITS management companies,8insurance intermediaries and MCD credit intermediaries8 to make a notification to the Home State before establishing a branch or providing cross border services.SUP 13.5 (Notices of intention) sets out the notification requirements for a firm seeking to establish a branch or provide cross border services.
In the opinion of the European Commission (and in the wording of the Single Market Directives) "only activities carried on within the territory of another Member State should be the subject of prior notification" (Commission interpretative communication: Freedom to provide services and the interests of the general good in the Second Banking Directive (97/C 209/04)). In determining, for the purposes of notification, whether a service is to be provided 'within' another EEA State,
Where, however, a credit institution or MiFID investment firm:22(1) intends to send a member of staff or a temporarily authorised intermediary to the territory of another EEA State on a temporary basis to provide financial services; or(2) provides advice, of the type that requires notification under either MiFID or the Banking Consolidation Directive2, to customers in another EEA State;2 the firm should make a prior notification under the freedom to provide services.
The key distinction in relation to temporary activities is whether a firm should make its notification under the freedom of establishment in a Host State, or whether it should notify under the freedom to provide services into a Host State. It would be inappropriate to discuss such a complex issue in guidance of this nature. It is recommended that, where a firm is unclear on the distinction, it should seek appropriate advice. In either case, where a firm is carrying on activities
The FCA considers5 that, in order to comply with Principle 3:Management and control (see PRIN 2.1.1 R), a firm should have appropriate procedures to monitor the nature of the services provided to its customers. Where a UK firm has non-resident customers but has not notified the EEA State in which the customers are resident that it wishes to exercise its freedom to provide services, the FCA5 would expect the firm's systems to include appropriate controls. Such controls would
(1) A firm must2 not use a credit assessment of an eligible ECAI to determine the risk weight of a securitisation position in accordance with BIPRU 9.9 unless it complies with the principles of credibility and transparency as elaborated in (2) to (6).222(2) There must be no mismatch between the types of payments reflected in the credit assessment and the types of payment to which the firm is entitled under the contract giving rise to the securitisation position in question.(3)
2Where BIPRU 9.7.2R (5) applies to securitisation positions in an ABCP programme, the firm may be granted a waiver which allows it to use the risk weight assigned to a liquidity facility in order to calculate the risk weighted exposure amount for the positions in the ABCP programme, provided that the liquidity facility ranks pari passu with the positions in the ABCP programme so that they form overlapping positions and 100% of the commercial paper issued by the ABCP programme
BIPRU 4.10 applies requirements that correspond to3 those parts of Articles 91 to 93 and Annex VIII of the Banking Consolidation Directive which are specific to the recognition of credit risk mitigation by firms using the IRB approach, and modifies the application of the provisions in BIPRU 5 to those firms.
In the case where a firm calculating risk weighted exposure amounts under the standardised approach has more than one form of credit risk mitigation covering a single exposure (e.g. a firm has both collateral and a guarantee partially covering an exposure), the firm must subdivide the exposure into parts covered by each type of credit risk mitigation tool (e.g. a part covered by collateral and a portion covered by guarantee) and the risk weighted exposure amount for each portion
Subject to BIPRU 13.8.3 R, in respect of a securities financing transaction, if a firm:(1) has a CCR internal model method permission which covers the transaction; or(2) has a master netting agreement internal models approach permission which covers the transaction;then the firm must use the CCR internal model method approach or the master netting agreement internal models approach, as applicable, to calculate the exposure value for that transaction unless an exception in BIPRU
Notwithstanding BIPRU 13.8.2 R, a firm must determine the exposure value of a credit risk exposure outstanding with a central counterparty in accordance with BIPRU 13.8.8 R1, provided that the central counterparty'scounterparty credit riskexposures with all participants in its arrangements are fully collateralised on a daily basis.[Note: BCD Article 78(4) in respect of SFTs]
A firm may attribute an exposure value of zero for CCR to a securities financing transaction or to any other exposures in respect of that transaction (but excluding an exposure arising from collateral held to mitigate losses in the event of the default of other participants in the central counterparty's arrangements) which is outstanding with a central counterparty and has not been rejected by the central counterparty.[Note: BCD Annex III Part 2 point 6 in respect of SFTs]
In carrying out the calculations for the purposes of this chapter a firm must only include the relevant proportion of an undertaking that is a member of the UK consolidation group or non-UK sub-group6:(1) by virtue of a consolidation Article 12(1) relationship;(2) by virtue of an Article 134 relationship; or(3) because the group holds a participation in it.
In BIPRU 8.5.5 R, the relevant proportion is either:(1) (in the case of a participation) the proportion of shares issued by the undertaking held by the UK consolidation group or the non-UK sub-group6; or(2) (in the case of a consolidation Article 12(1) relationship or an Article 134 relationship), such proportion (if any) as stated in the Part 4A permission of the firm.
Article 95(2) preserves the discretion for6 the appropriate regulator to decide to exclude a BIPRU firm,4financial institution, asset management company or ancillary services undertaking that is a subsidiary undertaking in, or an undertaking in which a participation is held by, the UK consolidation group or non-UK sub-group6 for the purposes of this chapter in the following circumstances:4(1) where the head office of the undertaking concerned is situated in a country outside
An originator which, in respect of a securitisation in the non-trading book,1 has made use of BIPRU 9.3.1 R in the calculation of risk weighted exposure amounts, or a sponsor, must not, with a view to reducing potential or actual losses to investors, provide support to the securitisation beyond its contractual obligations.[Note: BCD Article 101(1)]
1An originator which has sold instruments in its trading book to an SSPE and no longer holds market risk capital requirements for these instruments, or a sponsor, must not, with a view to reducing potential or actual losses to investors, provide support to the securitisation beyond its contractual obligations.[Note: BCD Article 101(1)]
If an originator or sponsor fails to comply with BIPRU 9.6.1 R or BIPRU 9.6.1A R1 in respect of a securitisation, it must:(1) hold capital against all of the securitised exposures associated with the securitisation transaction as if they had not been securitised; and(2) disclose publicly:(a) that it has provided non-contractual support;1 and(b) the regulatory capital impact of doing so.[Note: BCD Article 101(2)]
An external credit assessment may be used to determine the risk weight of an exposure in accordance with BIPRU 3.2.20 R to BIPRU 3.2.26 R only if the ECAI which provides it is recognised by the appropriate regulator as an eligible ECAI for the purposes of the standardised approach to credit risk.[Note: BCD Article 81(1)]
Under Regulation 22(3) of the Capital Requirements Regulations 2006 the appropriate regulator is obliged to determine, taking into account the requirements set out in Schedule 2 to the Capital Requirements Regulations 2006, with which of the credit quality steps set out in Part 1 of Annex VI of the Banking Consolidation Directive the relevant credit assessments of an eligible ECAI are to be associated. Those determinations should be objective and consistent.
A firm'sUK consolidation group means a1 group that is identified as a UK consolidation group in accordance with the decision tree in BIPRU 8 Annex 1 R (Decision tree identifying a UK consolidation group); the members of that group are:111(1) 1where either Test 1A or Test 1B in BIPRU 8 Annex 1 R apply, the members of the consolidation group made up of the sub-group of the parent institution in the UK6 identified in BIPRU 8 Annex 1 R together with any other person who is a member
Pursuant to the third paragraph of article 95(2) of the UK CRR7, the5 purpose of BIPRU 9 is to apply requirements that correspond to7:5(1) Articles 94 to 96, paragraphs (1) and (5) of Article 97 , Article 99, Article 100(1) and Article 101;(2) Points 8 and 9 of Annex V; and(3) Parts 2, 3 (in part) and 4 of Annex IX;of the Banking Consolidation Directive.
The risks arising from securitisation transactions in relation to which a firm is investor,3originator or sponsor, including reputational risks,3 must be evaluated and addressed through appropriate policies and procedures, to ensure in particular that the economic substance of the transaction is fully reflected in risk assessment and management decisions.[Note:BCD Annex V point 8]3
The purpose of this appendix is to give guidance:(1) to UK firms on some of the issues that arise when carrying on passported activities1(see SUP App 3.5and SUP App 3.6);111(2) to all firms on the relationship between regulated activities and activities passported under the Single Market Directives (see SUP App 3.9and SUP App 3.101).11
Pursuant to the third paragraph of article 95(2) of the UK CRR3, the2 purpose of BIPRU 11 is to apply requirements that correspond to:32(1) (a) Article 68(3);(b) Article 72;(c) Articles 145 to 149; and(d) Annex XII;of the Banking Consolidation Directive; and(2) (a) Article 2, in part;(b) Point 3 of Article 23, in part; and(c) Article 39;of the Capital Adequacy Directive.
(1) Where a firm uses the standardised approach set out in BIPRU 3 (Standardised approach to credit risk) for the calculation of risk weighted exposure amount for the standardised credit risk exposure class to which the securitised exposures would otherwise be assigned under BIPRU 3, then it must calculate the risk weighted exposure amount for a securitisation position in accordance with the standardised approach to securitisations set out in BIPRU 9.9, BIPRU 9.10, BIPRU 9.11
Simplified summary of the territorial scope of the regulated mortgage activities for contracts entered into on or after IP completion day65, to be read in conjunction with the rest of this section.
[Note: readers wishing to understand the territorial scope of the regulated mortgage activities for contracts entered into before IP completion day6 may wish to refer to the version of this guidance as at the date on which the relevant contract was entered into.]5
This table belongs to PERG 4.11.8 G
Individual borrower resident and located: |
|||
in the United Kingdom |
outside the United Kingdom |
||
Service provider carrying on regulated activity from establishment in the United Kingdom |
land in the United Kingdom |
Yes |
Yes |
land outside the United Kingdom |
No |
No |
|
Service provider carrying on regulated activity from establishment outside the United Kingdom |
land in the United Kingdom |
Yes |
No |
land outside the United Kingdom |
No |
No |
|
Yes = authorisation or exemption required No = authorisation or exemption not required |
|||
A firm may not apply the second method in BIPRU 8.7.13R (3) (accounting consolidation for the whole group) or apply accounting consolidation to parts of its UK consolidation group or non-UK sub-group5 under method three as described in BIPRU 8.7.13R (4)(a) for the purposes of the calculation of the consolidated market risk requirement unless the group or sub-group and the undertakings in that group or sub-group satisfy the conditions in this rule. Instead the firm must use the
(1) 3A firm may use the supervisory formula method to calculate the appropriate position risk adjustment for specific risk where:(a) the firm is permitted to apply the supervisory formula method to the same position if it was held in its non-trading book in accordance with BIPRU 9.12; or(b) otherwise, the firm is expressly permitted by its VaR model permission to apply the supervisory formula method to calculate the appropriate position risk adjustment for specific risk.(2) The
A debt security is a qualifying debt security if:(1) it qualifies for a credit quality step under the standardised approach to credit risk corresponding at least to investment grade; or(2) it has a PD which, because of the solvency of the issuer, is not higher than that of the debt securities referred to under (1) under the IRB approach; or(3) it is a debt security for which a credit assessment by a nominated ECAI is unavailable and which meets the following conditions:(a) it