Risk Components for Corporate, Sovereign and Bank Exposures

Banks which meet the minimum requirements for use of their own estimates of EAD (see paragraphs 16.88 to 16.97 ) will be allowed for exposures for which A-IRB is permitted (see paragraph 10.31 ) to use their own internal estimates of EAD for undrawn revolving commitments 58 to extend credit, purchase assets or issue credit substitutes provided the exposure is not subject to a CCF of 100% in the foundation approach (see paragraph 12.33). Standardized approach CCFs must be used for all other off-balance sheet items (for example, undrawn nonrevolving commitments), and must be used where the minimum requirements for own estimates of EAD are not met. The EAD for each exposure that is not in the sovereign asset class that is used as input into the risk weight formula and the calculation of expected loss is subject to a floor that is the sum of: (i) the on balance sheet amount; and (ii) 50% of the off balance sheet exposure using the applicable CCF in the standardized approach. Exposures that give rise to counterparty credit risk 12.37 For exposures that give rise to counterparty credit risk according to The Counterparty Credit Risk (CCR) Framework (i.e. OTC derivatives, exchange- traded derivatives, long settlement transactions and securities financing transactions (SFTs)), the EAD is to be calculated under the rules set in chapters 3 to 8 of the Counterparty Credit Risk (CCR) framework . 12.38 For SFTs, banks may recognize a reduction in the counterparty credit risk requirement arising from the effect of a master netting agreement providing that it satisfy the criteria set out in paragraphs 9.61 and 9.62 of the standardized approach. The bank must calculate E*, which is the exposure to be used for the counterparty credit risk requirement taking account of the risk mitigation of collateral received, using the formula set out in paragraph 9.64 of the standardized approach. In calculating risk-weighted assets and expected loss (EL) amounts for the counterparty credit risk arising from the set of transactions covered by the master netting agreement, E* must be used as the EAD of the counterparty. 12.39 As an alternative to the use of standard haircuts for the calculation of the counterparty credit risk requirement for SFTs set out in paragraph 12.38, banks may be permitted to use a value-at-risk (VaR) models approach to reflect price volatility of the exposures and the financial collateral. This approach can take into account the correlation effects between security positions. This approach applies to single SFTs and SFTs covered by netting agreements on a counter party-by-counterparty basis, both under the condition that the collateral is revalued on a daily basis. This holds for the underlying securities being different and unrelated to securitizations. The master netting agreement must satisfy the criteria set out in paragraphs 9.61 and 9.62 of the standardized approach. The VaR models approach is available to banks that have received supervisory recognition for an internal market risk model according to paragraph 10.2 in The Market Risk Framework . Banks which have not received market risk model recognition can separately apply for supervisory recognition to use their internal VaR models for the calculation of potential price volatility for SFTs, provided the model meets the requirements of paragraph 10.2 in The Market Risk Framework . Although the market risk standards have changed from a 99% VaR to a 97.5% expected shortfall, the VaR models approach to SFTs retains the use of a 99% VaR to calculate the counterparty credit risk for SFTs. The VaR model needs to capture risk sufficient to pass the back testing and profit and loss attribution tests of paragraph 10.4 in The Market Risk Framework . The default risk charge of paragraphs 13.18 to 13.39 in The Market Risk Framework is not required in the VaR model for SFTs.