Related provisions for IFPRU 4.6.2
1 - 20 of 21 items.
All material aspects of the rating and estimation processes must be approved by the firm'sgoverning body or a designated committee thereof and senior management. These parties must possess a general understanding of the firm'srating systems and detailed comprehension of its associated management reports.[Note: BCD Annex VII Part 4 point 124]
(1) A firm'sgoverning body or designated committee may choose to approve only material aspects of the firm'srating systems and material changes to the firm'srating systems.(2) Where a firm'sgoverning body or designated committee chooses to approve only material aspects of the firm'srating systems and material changes to the firm'srating systems:(a) the firm'sgoverning body or designated committee should define the firm's overall approach to material aspects of rating and estimation
Where the firm'srating systems are used on a unified basis for the parent undertaking and its subsidiary undertakings under BIPRU 4.2.3 R, and approval and reporting of the ratings systems are carried out at the group level, the governance requirements in BIPRU 4.3.9 R and BIPRU 4.3.11 R may be met if:(1) the subsidiary undertakings have delegated to the governing body or designated committee of the EEA parent institution or EEA parent financial holding company responsibility
Senior management must have a good understanding of the rating system's designs and operations. Senior management must ensure on an ongoing basis that the rating systems are operating properly. Senior management must be regularly informed by the credit risk control units about the performance of the rating process, areas needing improvement, and the status of efforts to improve previously identified deficiencies.[Note:BCD Annex VII Part 4 point 126]
The credit risk control unit must be independent from the personnel and management functions responsible for originating or renewing exposures and report directly to senior management. The unit must be responsible for the design or selection, implementation, oversight and performance of the rating systems. It must regularly produce and analyse reports on the output of the rating systems.[Note:BCD Annex VII Part 4 point 128]
The areas of responsibility for the credit risk control unit(s) must include the following:(1) testing and monitoring grades and pools;(2) production and analysis of summary reports from the firm'srating systems;(3) implementing procedures to verify that grade and pool definitions are consistently applied across departments and geographic areas;(4) reviewing and documenting any changes to the rating process, including the reasons for the changes;(5) reviewing the rating criteria
Notwithstanding BIPRU 4.3.16 R, a firm using pooled data according to BIPRU 4.3.92 R - BIPRU 4.3.94 R (Overall requirements for estimation) may outsource the following tasks:(1) production of information relevant to testing and monitoring grades and pools;(2) production of summary reports from the firm'srating systems;(3) production of information relevant to review of the rating criteria to evaluate if they remain predictive of risk;(4) documentation of changes to the rating
A firm must document the design and operational details of its rating systems. The documentation must evidence compliance with the minimum IRB standards and the firm'sIRB permission, and address topics including portfolio differentiation, rating criteria, responsibilities of parties that rate obligors and exposures, frequency of assignment reviews, and management oversight of the rating process.[Note:BCD Annex VII Part 4 point 31]
A firm must ensure that all documentation relating to its rating systems or otherwise required by the rules governing the IRB approach are stored, arranged and indexed in such a way that the firm would be able to make them all available to the appropriate regulator, or to make any class or description of them specified by the appropriate regulator available to the appropriate regulator, immediately on demand or within a short time thereafter.
A rating system comprises all of the methods, processes, controls, data collection and IT systems that support the assessment of credit risk, the assignment of exposures to grades or pools (rating), and the quantification of default and loss estimates for a certain type of exposure.[Note:BCD Annex VII Part 4 point 1]
A firm must have robust systems in place to validate the accuracy and consistency of rating systems, processes, and the estimation of all relevant risk parameters (PD, LGD, conversion factors and EL). A firm must be able to demonstrate to the appropriate regulator that the internal validation process enables it to assess the performance of internal rating and risk estimation systems consistently and meaningfully.[Note:BCD Annex VII Part 4 point 110]
(1) A firm must validate its rating systems. Its validation process must include, as a minimum, the elements set out in (2) - (8).(2) A firm must establish and define standards of objectivity, accuracy, stability and conservatism that it designs its ratings systems to meet. It must have processes that establish whether its rating systems meet those standards.(3) A firm must establish and define standards of accuracy of calibration (i.e. whether outcomes are consistent with estimate)
(1) This paragraph sets out guidance on assessing the adequacy of a rating system's discriminative power (see BIPRU 4.3.30 R (3) on the meaning of discriminative power).(2) A firm should be able to explain the performance of its rating systems against its chosen measure (or measures) of discriminative power. In making this comparison a firm should rely primarily on actual historic default experience where this is available. In particular, a firm should be able to explain:(a) the
A firm must also use other appropriate quantitative validation tools and comparisons with relevant external data sources. The analysis must be based on data that is appropriate to the portfolio, is updated regularly, and covers a relevant observation period. A firm's internal assessments of the performance of its rating systems must be based on as long a period as possible.[Note:BCD Annex VII Part 4 point 112]
Internal audit or another comparable independent auditing unit must review at least annually the firm'srating systems and its operations, including the operations of the firm and the estimation of PDs, LGDs, ELs and conversion factors. Areas of review must include adherence to all applicable minimum requirements.[Note:BCD Annex VII Part 4 point 131]
The grade or pool definitions and criteria must be sufficiently detailed to allow those charged with assigning ratings consistently to assign obligors or facilities posing similar risk to the same grade or pool. This consistency must exist across lines of business, departments and geographic locations within each rating system.[Note:BCD Annex VII Part 4 point 17 (part)]
(1) This paragraph contains guidance on BIPRU 4.3.43 R and more general guidance about the governance of rating systems.(2) In determining the assignment referred to in BIPRU 4.3.43 R, a firm should have regard to the sensitivity of the rating to movements in fundamental risk drivers.(3) A firm should, for any rating system, be able to demonstrate that it acts appropriately or has an appropriate policy, as applicable, with respect to:(a) any deficiencies caused by its not being
For grade and pool assignments a firm must document the situations in which human judgement may override the inputs or outputs of the assignment process and the personnel responsible for approving these overrides. A firm must document these overrides and the personnel responsible. A firm must analyse the performance of the exposures whose assignments have been overridden. This analysis must include assessment of the performance of exposures whose rating has been overridden by
(1) This paragraph applies to the use of statistical models and/or other mechanical methods to assign exposures to obligor grades, obligor pools, facility grades or facility pools.(2) A firm must be able to demonstrate to the appropriate regulator that the model has good predictive power and that capital requirements are not distorted as a result of its use.(3) The input variables to the model must form a reasonable and effective basis for the resulting predictions. The model
(1) This paragraph contains guidance on BIPRU 4.3.51 R (7).(2) BIPRU 4.3.51 R (7) does not require that each individual assignment of an exposure to a pool or grade should be the subject of an open-ended review by reference to factors not covered by the model if:(a) that is not necessary in order to meet the requirements of BIPRU 4 about the ability of the rating system to predict and to discriminate (as referred to in BIPRU 4.3.29 R to BIPRU 4.3.30 R (Validation of internal estimates));
A firm should ensure that IT systems relevant to the operation of its rating systems are sound and robust. A firm's IT systems should provide rapid availability of databases and appropriate archiving. Adequate controls should be in place to prevent unauthorised changes to data being made. Contingency processes and plans should be in place to deal with events of system failure. A firm should document work-flows and procedures related to data collection and storage.
A firm should be able to demonstrate to the appropriate regulator:(1) how, with respect to each rating system, both assignment of ratings and estimates of PD, LGD and conversion factors are affected by:(a) movements in the economic cycle; and(b) other cyclical effects which are material to levels of default, loss or the amount of exposures at default for the exposures covered by the rating system; and(2) the level of conservatism inherent in its ratings, as provided for by BI
Estimation of PD through the use of a technique set out in BIPRU does not remove the need to make conservative adjustments, where necessary, related to the expected range of estimation errors so that capital requirements produced by the relevant model or other rating system are not understated.
If a firm uses data that is pooled across institutions it must be able to demonstrate to the appropriate regulator that:(1) the rating systems and criteria of other firms in the pool are similar to its own;(2) the pool is representative of the portfolio for which the pooled data is used; and(3) the pooled data is used consistently over time by the firm for its permanent estimates.2[Note:BCD Annex VII Part 4 point 57]
If a firm uses data that is pooled across institutions it remains responsible for the integrity of its rating systems. If a firm uses such data it must be able to demonstrate to the appropriate regulator that it has sufficient in-house understanding of its rating systems, including effective ability to monitor and audit the rating process.[Note:BCD Annex VII Part 4 point 58]
(1) If:(a) a firm's internal experience of exposures of a type covered by a model or other rating system is 20 defaults or fewer; and(b) in the firm's view, reliable estimates of PD cannot be derived from external sources of default data, including the use of market price related data, for all the exposures covered by the rating system;the firm must estimate PD for exposures covered by that rating system in accordance with this rule.(2) A firm must use a statistical technique
A firm must use LGD estimates that are appropriate for an economic downturn if those are more conservative than the long-run average. To the extent a rating system is expected to deliver constant realised LGDs by grade or pool over time, a firm must make adjustments to its estimates of risk parameters by grade or pool to limit the capital impact of an economic downturn.[Note:BCD Annex VII Part 4 point 74]
A firm must use conversion factor estimates that are appropriate for an economic downturn if those are more conservative than the long-run average. To the extent a rating system is expected to deliver realised conversion factors at a constant level by grade or pool over time, a firm must make adjustments to its estimates of risk parameters by grade or pool to limit the capital impact of an economic downturn.[Note:BCD Annex VII Part 4 point 88]
'Rating philosophy' describes the point at which a rating system sits on the spectrum between the stylised extremes of a point in time (PiT) rating system and a through-the-cycle (TTC) rating system. To explain these concepts:(1) PiT: a firm seeks to explicitly estimate default risk over a fixed period, typically one year. Under such an approach, the increase in default risk in a downturn results in a general tendency for migration to lower grades. When combined with the fixed
A firm should understand where its rating systems lie on the PiT/TTC spectrum to enable it to estimate how changes in economic conditions will affect its IRB own funds requirements and it should be able to compare the actual default rates incurred against the default rate expected over the same period given the economic conditions pertaining, as implied by its PD estimate.
The term "variable scalar" is used to describe approaches in which the outputs of an underlying, relatively PiT, rating system are transformed to produce final PD estimates used for regulatory capital requirements that are relatively non-cyclical. Typically, this involves basing the resulting requirement on the long run default rate of the portfolio or its segments.
Article 169(3) of the EU CRR allows the use of direct estimates of PDs, although such a measure could be assessed over a variety of different time horizons which the EU CRR does not specify. Accordingly, the FCA considers that it acceptable in principle to use methodologies of this type in lieu of estimation of long-run averages for the grade/pool/score of the underlying rating system, where the following conditions are met. Meeting these conditions requires a firm using the
Principle 1 (in IFPRU 4.6.5 G) is the most important and challenging to achieve as it requires an ability to be able to distinguish movements not related to the economic cycle, from changes purely related to the economic cycle, and not to average these away. This is because a variable scalar approach removes the ability of a rating system to take account automatically of changes in risk through migration between its grades.
The FCA considers that, until more promising account level arrears data is collected, enabling firms to better explain the movement in their arrears rate over time, the likelihood of firms being able to develop a compliant variable scalar approach for non-mortgage retail portfolios is low. This is because of the difficulty that firms have in distinguishing between movements in default rates that result from cyclical factors and those that result from non-cyclical reasons for these
The FCA considers that one variable scalar approach, potentially compliant with the four principles in IFPRU 4.6.5 G, could involve:(1) segmenting a portfolio by its underlying drivers of default risk; and(2) estimating separate long-run default rates for each of these segmented pools.
To the extent that the basis of segmentation is not sufficient completely to explain movements in non-cyclical default risk, the long-run default rate for that segment will not be stable (eg, a change in the mix of the portfolio within the segment could change the long-run default rate). In such cases, the FCA would expect a firm to make a conservative compensating adjustment to the calibration of the long-run average PD for the affected segments and be able to demonstrate that
The FCA expects a firm to review and amend as necessary the long run default rate to be applied to each segment on a regular (at least an annual) basis. When reviewing the long run default rate to be applied to each segment, the FCA expects a firm to consider the extent to which:(1) realised default rates are changing due to cyclical factors and the scaling factors needs to be changed;(2) new information suggests that both the PiT PDs and the long run PDs should be changed; and(3)
The FCA expects that, over time, the actual default rates incurred in each segment would form the basis of PD estimates for the segments. However, at the outset, the key calibration issue is likely to be the setting of the initial long-run default rate for each segment, as this will underpin the PD of the entire portfolio for some years to come. A firm should apply conservatism in this area and this is something on which the FCA is likely to focus on in model reviews.
A firm should put in place a governance process to provide a judgemental overlay to assess its choices of segments, PD estimates and scalars, both initially and on a continuing basis. Moreover, where the basis of its estimation is a formulaic approach, the FCA considers that the act of either accepting or adjusting the estimate suggested by the formula would represent the exercise of judgement.
The FCA expects a firm to consider the following issues when seeking to apply a variable scalar approach for UK mortgages:(1) in respect of Principle 2 (IFPRU 4.6.5 G), the commonly used Council for Mortgage Lenders database was based on arrears data and not defaults during a period, and the use of these data without further analysis and adjustment can undermine the accuracy of any calculations; and(2) in respect of Principle 3 (IFPRU 4.6.5 G), the historical data time period
The FCA expects a firm that is including mortgage arrears data as a proxy for default data to:(1) carry out sensitivity analysis identifying the circumstances in which the assumption that arrears may be used as a proxy for default would produce inaccuracy in long-run PD estimates;(2) set a standard for what might constitute a potentially significant level of inaccuracy, and demonstrate why, in practice, the use of this proxy would not result in any significant inaccuracy;(3) establish
When using historical mortgage data as a key input into variable scalar models, the FCA expects a firm to:(1) carry out sensitivity analysis identifying the implications of using different cut-off dates for the start of the reference data set; and(2) justify the appropriateness of its choice of cut-off date.
Where a firm has not chosen to apply the definition of default at the level of an individual credit facility in accordance with article 178(1) of the EU CRR, the FCA expects it to ensure that the PD associated with unsecured exposures is not understated as a result of the presence of any collateralised exposures.
Where a firm chooses to apply the definition of default at the level of an individual credit facility, in accordance with article 178(1) of the EU CRR, and a customer has defaulted on a facility, then default on that facility is likely to influence the PD assigned to that customer on other facilities. The FCA expects a firm to take this into account in its estimates of PD (see article 178(1) of the EU CRR).
To ensure that a rating system provides a meaningful differentiation of risk and accurate and consistent quantitative estimates of risk, the FCA expects a firm to develop country-specific mid-market PD models. Where a firm develops multi-country mid-market PD models, the FCA expects the firm to be able to demonstrate that the model rank orders risk and predicts default rates for each country where it is to be used for own funds requirements calculation.
The FCA expects a firm to estimate PD for a rating system in line with this section where the firm's internal experience of defaults for that rating system was 20 defaults or fewer, and reliable estimates of PD cannot be derived from external sources of default data, including the use of market price-related data. In PD estimation for all exposures covered by the rating system, the FCA expects the firm to:(1) use a statistical technique to derive the distribution of defaults implied
A firm should establish quantified and documented targets and standards, against which it should test the accuracy of data used in its rating systems. Such tests should cover:(1) a report and accounts reconciliation, including whether every exposure has a PD, LGD and, if applicable, conversion factor for reporting purposes;(2) whether the firm's risk control environment has key risk indicators for the purpose of monitoring and ensuring data accuracy;(3) whether the firm has an
In respect of data inputs, the testing for accuracy of data (including the reconciliation referred to above) should be sufficiently detailed so that, together with other available evidence, it gives reasonable assurance that data input into the rating system is accurate, complete and appropriate. The FCA considers that input data fails to meet the required standard if it gives rise to a serious risk of material misstatement in the own funds requirement either immediately or s
For the FCA to be satisfied that a firm documents its ratings systems appropriately, in accordance with article 144(1)(e) of the EU CRR, it would expect a firm to be able to demonstrate that it has an appropriate policy for any ratings system in relation to:(1) any deficiencies caused by its not being sensitive to movements in fundamental risk drivers or for any other reason;(2) the periodic review and action in the light of such review;(3) providing appropriate internal guidance
To demonstrate that rating systems provide for meaningful assessment, the FCA expects that a firm's documentation relating to data should include clear identification of responsibility for data quality. A firm should set standards for data quality, aim to improve them over time and measure its performance against those standards. Furthermore, a firm should ensure that its data is of high enough quality to support its risk management processes and the calculation of its own funds
To estimate PDs that are long run averages of one-year default rates for obligor grades or pools, the FCA expects a firm to estimate expected default rates for the grade/pool over a representative mix of good and bad economic periods, rather than simply taking the historic average of default rates actually incurred by the firm over a period of years. The FCA expects that a long run estimate would be changed when there is reason to believe that the existing long run estimate is
To demonstrate compliance with article 144(1) of the EU CRR, the FCA expects a firm to take into account the following factors in understanding differences between their historic default rates and their PD estimates, and in adjusting the calibration of their estimates as appropriate:(1) the rating philosophy of the system and the economic conditions in the period over which the defaults have been observed;(2) the number of defaults, as a low number is less likely to be representative
To demonstrate that a rating system provides for a meaningful differentiation of risk and accurate and consistent quantitative estimates of risk, the FCA expects a firm would have regard to the sensitivity of the rating to movements in fundamental risk drivers, in assigning exposures to grades or pools within a rating system (see article 171 of the EU CRR).
A firm's systems for the management and rating of credit risk exposures must be sound and implemented with integrity and, in particular, they must meet the following standards in accordance with the minimum IRB standards:(1) the firm'srating systems provide for a meaningful assessment of obligor and transaction characteristics, a meaningful differentiation of risk and accurate and consistent quantitative estimates of risk;(2) internal ratings and default and loss estimates used
(1) This guidance sets out the basis on which a firm may rely upon a rating system or data provided by another member of its group.(2) A firm may rely upon a rating system or data provided by another member of its group if the following conditions are satisfied:(a) the firm only does so to the extent that it is appropriate, given the nature and scale of the firm's business and portfolios and the firm's position within the group;(b) the group is an EEA banking and investment group;(c)
(1) This paragraph provides guidance on BIPRU 4.2.2 R and in particular BIPRU 4.2.2 R (1).(2) The information that a firm produces or uses for the purpose of the IRB approach should be reliable and take proper account of the different users of the information produced (customers, shareholders, regulators and other market participants).(3) A firm should establish quantified and documented targets and standards, against which it should test the accuracy of data used in its rating
This paragraph provides further guidance on BIPRU 4.2.2 R and in particular BIPRU 4.2.2 R (2). In the appropriate regulator's view risk management has an essential role in informing risk decisions. However, an essential role does not necessarily mean an exclusive role or even always a primary role. There may be justifiable differences between the IRB approach and the firm's use of rating systems for its internal purposes as referred to in BIPRU 4.2.2 R (2). For example, internal
A firm must be able to demonstrate that it has been using for the IRB exposure classes in question rating systems that were broadly in line with the minimum IRB standards for internal risk measurement and management purposes for at least three years prior to the date of its IRB permission.[Note:BCD Article 84(3)]
In meeting the experience requirement under BIPRU 4.2.11 R, the appropriate regulator would expect a firm to be able to demonstrate that it has been:(1) operating an internal rating system with estimates of PD;(2) meeting the standards in BIPRU 4 for senior management knowledge and reporting; and(3) meeting the standards in BIPRU 4 relating to the use of rating systems in its business;for the required minimum 3 year period.
In meeting the experience requirement under BIPRU 4.2.13 R, the appropriate regulator would expect a firm to be able to demonstrate that it has been:(1) operating an internal rating system with estimates of LGD and with conversion factors; and(2) compliant with BIPRU 4.2.11 R as applied to the advanced IRB approach.for the required minimum 3 year period.
In the appropriate regulator's view the standard required by BIPRU 4.2.11 R and BIPRU 4.2.13 R is for a rating system to be improved in the light of experience during the three year period so that it meets the minimum requirements more fully for the last year than for the two prior years, provided that the rating system has not changed so profoundly that experience from the first or second years becomes of marginal relevance in assessing the reliability of the changed rating
(1) To the extent that its IRB permission permits this, a firm permitted to use the IRB approach in the calculation of risk weighted exposure amounts and expected loss amounts3 for one or more IRB exposure classes may apply the standardised approach in accordance with this rule.3(2) A firm may apply the standardised approach to the IRB exposure class referred to in BIPRU 4.3.2 R (1) (Sovereigns) where the number of material counterparties is limited and it would be unduly burdensome
An obligor grade means for the purpose of BIPRU 4 as it applies to the sovereign, institution and corporate IRB exposure class a risk category within a rating system's obligor rating scale, to which obligors are assigned on the basis of a specified and distinct set of rating criteria, from which estimates of PD are derived. A firm must document both the relationship between obligor grades in terms of the level of default risk each grade implies and the criteria used to distinguish
In addition to complying with the material in BIPRU 4.3.54 R (Data maintenance) a firm must collect and store:(1) complete rating histories on obligors and recognised guarantors;(2) the dates the ratings were assigned;(3) the key data and methodology used to derive the rating;(4) the person responsible for the rating assignment;(5) the identity of obligors and exposures that defaulted;(6) the date and circumstances of such defaults;(7) data on the PDs and realised default rates
To the extent that a firm uses data on internal default experience for the estimation of PDs it must be able to demonstrate in its analysis that the estimates are reflective of underwriting standards and of any differences in the rating system that generated the data and the current rating system. Where underwriting standards or rating systems have changed, a firm must add a greater margin of conservatism in its estimate of PD.[Note:BCD Annex VII Part 4 point 63]
1A facility grade means for the purpose of the advanced IRB approach a risk category within a rating system's facility scale to which exposures are assigned on the basis of a specified and distinct set of rating criteria from which own estimates of LGDs are derived. The grade definition must include both a description of how exposures are assigned to the grade and of the criteria used to distinguish the level of risk across grades.[Note:BCD Annex VII Part 4 point 10]
The FCA expects a firm to have a validation process that includes the following:(1) standards of objectivity, accuracy, stability and conservatism that it designs its ratings systems to meet and processes that establish whether its rating systems meet those standards;(2) standards of accuracy of calibration (ie, whether outcomes are consistent with estimates) and discriminative power (ie, the ability to rank-order risk) that it designs its rating systems to meet and processes
In IFPRU 4.10.1 G:(1) developmental evidence means evidence that substantiates whether the logic and quality of a rating system (including the quantification process) adequately discriminates between different levels of, and delivers accurate estimates of, PD, EL, LGD and conversion factors (as applicable); and(2) process verification means the process of establishing whether the methods used in a rating system to discriminate between different levels of risk and to quantify
The FCA expects a firm to be able to explain the performance of its rating systems against its chosen measure (or measures) of discriminative power. In making this comparison, a firm should rely primarily on actual historic default experience where this is available. In particular, the FCA expects a firm to be able to explain the extent of any potential inaccuracy in these measures, caused, in particular, by small sample size and the potential for divergence in the future, whether
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
(1) Where the firm's rating systems are used on a unified basis under article 20(6) of the EU CRR, the FCA considers that the governance requirements in article 189 of the EU CRR can only be met if the subsidiaries have delegated to the governing body or designated committee of the EEA parent institution, EEA parent financial holding company or EEA parent mixed financial holding company responsibility for approval of the firm's rating systems.(2) The FCA expects an appropriate
(1) The FCA may permit the exemption of exposures to sovereigns and institutions under article 150(1)(a) and (b) of the EU CRR respectively only if the number of material counterparties is limited and it would be unduly burdensome to implement a rating system for such counterparties.(2) The FCA considers that the 'limited number of material counterparties' test is unlikely to be met if for the UK group total outstandings to 'higher risk' sovereigns and institutions exceed either
The FCA expects a firm to ensure that all documentation relating to its rating systems (including any documentation referenced in this chapter or required by the EU CRR that relate to the IRB approach) is stored, arranged and indexed in such a way that it could make them all, or any subset thereof, available to the FCA immediately on demand or within a short time thereafter.
The FCA expects that if a firm ordinarily assigns exposures in the corporate, institution or central government and central bank exposure classes to a member of a group, substantially on the basis of membership of that group and a common group rating, and the firm does so in the case of a particular obligor group, the firm should consider whether members of that group should be treated as a single obligor for the purpose of the definition of default in article 178(1) of the EU
The FCA would not expect a firm to treat an obligor as part of a single obligor under IFPRU 4.5.1 G if the firm rates its exposures on a standalone basis or if its rating is notched. (For these purposes, a rating is notched if it takes into account individual risk factors or otherwise reflects risk factors that are not applied on a common group basis.) Accordingly, if a group has two members which are separately rated, the FCA will not expect that the default of one will necessarily
(1) The appropriate regulator will only grant an IRB permission if it is satisfied that the firm's systems for the management and rating of credit risk exposures are sound and implemented with integrity and, in particular, that they meet the standards in BIPRU 4.2.2 R in accordance with the minimum IRB standards.(2) Under BIPRU 4.2.11 R, a firm applying for an IRB permission is required to demonstrate that it has been using for the IRB exposure classes in question rating systems
An IRB permission will set out firm-specific material. This will generally include:(1) details about the firm's methodology for carrying out the IRB approach, including the models and rating systems that a firm should use;(2) reporting requirements; and(3) requirements about internal control structure.
The FCA expects that a firm will be compliant with the validation requirements only where1it can demonstrate, in respect of discriminatory power, that:11(1) appropriate minimum standards that the rating system is expected to reach are defined, together with reasoning behind the adoption of such standards and that the factors considered when determining the tests are clearly documented;(2) an objective rank-ordering metric, measured using an appropriate time horizon (eg, using
The FCA expects that a firm will be compliant with the validation requirements only where1it can demonstrate in respect of the calibration that:11(1) observed default rate versus PD is considered at grade level and across a range of economic environments (ie, as long as period as possible);(2) where the PD does not relate to a pure point-in-time estimate, either the PD or the observed default rate is transformed such that comparison between the two is meaningful. This transformation
In addition to complying with BIPRU 4.3.54 R (Data maintenance) a firm must collect and store:(1) data used in the process of allocating exposures to grades or pools;(2) data on the estimated PDs, LGDs and conversion factors associated with grades or pools of exposures;(3) the identity of obligors and exposures that defaulted;(4) for defaultedexposures, data on the grades or pools to which the exposure was assigned over the year prior to default and the realised outcomes on LGD
The price/spread change model used to capture the profit and loss impact of migration should calibrate spread changes to long-term averages of differences between spreads for relevant ratings. These should either be conditioned on actual rating events, or using the entire history of spreads regardless of migration. Point-in-time estimates are not considered acceptable, unless they can be shown to be as conservative as using long-term averages.
A firm calculating risk weighted exposure amounts in accordance with the IRB approach must disclose the following information:(1) the scope of the firm'sIRB permission;(2) an explanation and review of:(a) the structure of internal rating systems and relation between internal and external ratings;(b) the use of internal estimates other than for calculating risk weighted exposure amounts in accordance with the IRB approach;(c) the process for managing and recognising credit risk
If the availability of a facility is subject to a further credit assessment by the firm, an EAD/CF may not be required. However, the FCA expects this to be the case only if the subsequent credit assessment was of substantially equivalent rigour to that of the initial credit approval and if this includes a re-rating or a confirmation of the rating of the borrower.
(1) If a firm applies for an IRB permission or for a variation of an IRB permission that permits the treatment in BIPRU 4.5.10 R it should demonstrate that its standards exceed those of the slotting criteria provided for in BIPRU 4.5 and result in ratings that are stronger than the benchmarks referred to in (3).(2) If a firm has an IRB permission that permits the treatment in BIPRU 4.5.10 R it should continue to be able to demonstrate the matters in (1) to the appropriate regulator
Notification under IFPRU 4.12.1 G should include sufficient information to enable the FCA to assess whether the possible reduction in RWEA which would be achieved by the securitisation is justified by a commensurate transfer of credit risk to third parties. The FCA expects this to include the following:(1) details of the securitisation positions, including rating, exposure value and RWEA broken down by securitisation positions sold and retained;(2) key transaction documentation
The governance arrangements that apply to the governing body, the senior management and any designated committee of a firm in relation to the IRB approach also apply to the body or persons with equivalent powers with respect to the UK consolidation group or non-EEA sub-group. Where the parent undertaking and its subsidiary undertakings use rating systems on a unified basis, the approval and reporting process described in BIPRU 4.3.12 G (Approval and reporting arrangements for
For recognised guarantors the same requirements as for obligors as set out in BIPRU 4.3.43 R - BIPRU 4.3.48 R (Assignment to grades and pools), BIPRU 4.4.11 R - BIPRU 4.4.18 R and BIPRU 4.4.51 R (Assignment of exposures and rating systems), BIPRU 4.5.6 R (Assignment of exposures) and BIPRU 4.6.11 R and BIPRU 4.6.14 R (Assignment of exposures and rating systems) apply.[Note: BCD Annex VII Part 4 point 99]