Related provisions for IFPRU 2.2.67
1 - 20 of 20 items.
As part of its obligations under the overall Pillar 2 rule, a firm must :(1) make an assessment of the firm-wide impact of the risks identified in line with that rule, to which end a firm must aggregate the risks across its various business lines and units, taking appropriate account of the correlation between risks; (2) take into account the stress tests that the firm is required to carry out as follows: (a) (for a significant IFPRU firm) under the general stress and scenario
(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
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.
In carrying out the stress tests and scenario analyses under IFPRU 2.2.37 R (1), a firm should also consider any impact of the adverse circumstances on its own funds. In particular, a firm should consider the capital ratios in article 92 of the UK CRR5 (Own funds requirements) where its common equity tier 1 capital and additional tier 1 capital is eroded by the event.
For the purpose of IFPRU 2.2.37 R (5), a firm should consider whether the nature of the major sources of risks identified by it, in line with IFPRU 2.2.7 R (2) (Main requirement relating to risk strategies, processes 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 to revise the parameters of some of its stress tests
A firm must make a written record of the assessments required under this chapter. These assessments include those carried out on a consolidated basis and on an individual basis. In particular, it must make a written record of:(1) the major sources of risk identified in accordance with the overall Pillar 2 rule;(2) how it intends to deal with those risks; and(3) details of the stress tests and scenario analyses carried out, including any assumptions made in relation to scenario
For the purpose of the ICAAPrules as they apply on a consolidated basis or on a sub-consolidated basis: (1) the firm must ensure that the FCA consolidation group has the processes, strategies and systems required by the overall Pillar 2 rule;(2) the risks to which the overall Pillar 2 rule and the general stress and scenario testing rule refer are those risks as they apply to each member of the FCA consolidation group;(3) the reference in the overall Pillar 2 rule to amounts
(1) This rule relates to the assessment of the amounts, types and distribution of financial resources, own funds 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 IFPRU 2.2.14 R (3)(b) 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 the
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. Both stress tests and scenario analyses are undertaken by a firm to further a better understanding of the vulnerabilities that it faces under adverse conditions. They are based on the analysis of the impact of a range of events of varying nature, severity and duration. These events can be financial, operational
One of the main purposes 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, the time horizon over which stress tests and scenario analyses should be carried out will depend on, among other things, the maturity and liquidity of the positions stressed. For example, for the market risk arising from the holding of investments, this will depend upon:(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 readily
(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
(1) 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. The calibration of the stress 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.(2) In identifying adverse circumstances and events in line with IFPRU
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.
If a firm has a current funding obligation in excess of normal contributions or there is a risk that such a funding obligation will arise then, when calculating available capital resources, the firm should include these sources of risk as part of its:2(1) stress tests and scenario analysis under IFPRU 2.2.37R and considering at least the scenarios in IFPRU 2.2.81G; and2(2) capital projections under IFPRU 2.2.73G.2
A firm should include in the written record in IFPRU 2.2.43 R (Documentation of risk assessments) a description of the broad business strategy of the FCA consolidation group or the non-UK sub-group4 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 on an individual basis and consolidated
In 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 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 appropriate regulator's statutory objectives under the Act, in assessing the adequacy of a firm's stress testing arrangements (including their frequency
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, own funds and internal capital that it considers adequate to cover the nature and level of the risks to which it is or might be exposed (IFPRU 2.2.1 R to IFPRU 2.2.6 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 fall due
(1) As part of its SREP, the FCA will also consider whether a firm should hold a capital planning buffer and the amount and quality of such capital planning buffer. 2(2) In making these assessments, the FCA 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 and SYSC 20 (Reverse stress testing), and the extent to which the firm has used
For the purposes of IFPRU 2.3.21 G, 1IFPRU 2.3.20 G1 applies as it applies to individual capital guidance. References in those provisions to individual capital guidance should be read as if they were references to capital planning buffer. In relation toIFPRU 2.2.62 R, where the general stress and scenario testing rule or SYSC 20 (Reverse stress testing), as part of the ICAAPrules, applies to a firm on a consolidated basis, the FCA may notify the firm that it should hold a group
(1) This paragraph applies to a firm that is not a significant IFPRU firm (see IFPRU 1.2.3 R) whose activities are simple and primarily not credit-related.(2) In carrying out its ICAAP it could: (a) identify and consider that firm's largest losses over the last three to five 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
(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
A firm with an IRB permission must ensure that there is no significant risk of it being unable to meet its own funds requirements for credit risk under Part Three, Title II of the UK CRR4 (Capital requirements for credit risk) at all times throughout an economic cycle, including the own funds requirements for credit risk indicated by any stress test carried out under article 177 of the UK CRR4 (Stress tests used in assessment of capital adequacy for a firm with an IRB permission)
(1) IFPRU 2.3.58 G to IFPRU 2.3.67 G set out guidance for:(a) an asset management firm; and(b) a securities firm; (2) IFPRU 2.3.58 G to IFPRU 2.3.67 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 commodities firm.
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 appropriate regulator 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 appropriate regulator 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
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 appropriate regulator may notify
(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) 66BIPRU 2.2.61 G to BIPRU 2.2.70 G set out guidance for:(a) 6[deleted]6(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
(1) A firm must have in place contingency funding plans setting out adequate strategies and proper implementation measures in order to address potential liquidity shortfalls. (2) The contingency funding plans must be: (a) in writing;(b) approved by the firm'sgoverning body;(c) regularly tested; and(d) updated on the basis of the outcome of the stress tests, testing alternative scenarios set out in MIPRU 4.2D.8 R.
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 appropriate regulator if any
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 appropriate regulator 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 appropriate regulator may also carry out a more detailed examination of the details of the firm's processes and calculations.
This section 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 and internal capital needed in each of the circumstances and events considered in that analyses. The FCA will consider, as part of its SREP, whether the firm should hold a capital planning buffer and the amount and quality of that buffer. The capital planning buffer is an amount separate,
4The appropriate regulator 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
4The financial risk assessment should be based on a methodology which provides a reasonable estimate of the potential business losses which a UK RIE might incur in stressed but plausible market conditions. The FCA5 would expect a UK RIE to carry out a financial risk assessment at least once in every twelve-month period, or more frequently if there are material changes in the nature, scale or complexity of the UK RIE's operations or its business plans that suggest such financial
A firm must be able to satisfy the appropriate regulator 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
(1) When identifying recovery options, a firm should consider a range of scenarios of severe macroeconomic and financial stress relevant to the firm's specific conditions. (2) The range of scenarios should include system-wide events and stress specific to individual legal persons and groups.[Note: article 5(6) of RRD]
(1) The FCA9 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
(1) 1A firm must satisfy the FCA that it has adequate risk management processes to control the risks to which it may be exposed as a result of carrying out credit risk mitigation.(2) These 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 mitigation.
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)
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. 18141212144
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