DOCSLIB.ORG

Revised Standards for Minimum Capital Requirements for Market Risk by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (“The Committee”)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Revised Standards for Minimum Capital Requirements for Market Risk by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (“The Committee”) A revised version of this standard was published in January 2019. https://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d457.pdf Basel Committee on Banking Supervision STANDARDS Minimum capital requirements for market risk January 2016 A revised version of this standard was published in January 2019. https://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d457.pdf This publication is available on the BIS website (www.bis.org). © Bank for International Settlements 2015. All rights reserved. Brief excerpts may be reproduced or translated provided the source is stated. ISBN 978-92-9197-399-6 (print) ISBN 978-92-9197-416-0 (online) A revised version of this standard was published in January 2019. https://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d457.pdf Minimum capital requirements for Market Risk Contents Preamble ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Minimum capital requirements for market risk ..................................................................................................................... 5 A. The boundary between the trading book and banking book and the scope of application of the minimum capital requirements for market risk ........................................................................................................... 5 1. Scope of application and methods of measuring market risk ...................................................................... 5 2. Definition of the trading book ................................................................................................................................... 6 3. Risk management policies for trading book instruments ............................................................................... 7 4. Definition of the trading desk .................................................................................................................................... 9 5. Restrictions on moving instruments between the regulatory books ....................................................... 10 6. Treatment of internal risk transfers ....................................................................................................................... 11 7. Treatment of counterparty credit risk in the trading book .......................................................................... 13 8. Transitional arrangements ......................................................................................................................................... 13 B. Market Risk – The Standardised Approach ................................................................................................................. 13 1. General provisions ........................................................................................................................................................ 13 2. Structure of the standardised approach .............................................................................................................. 14 (i) Overview of the structure of the standardised approach .................................................................... 14 (ii) Sensitivities-based Method: main definitions .......................................................................................... 14 (iii) Sensitivities-based Method: instruments subject to delta, vega and curvature risks .............. 15 (iv) Sensitivities-based Method: delta and vega ............................................................................................. 15 (v) Sensitivities-based Method: curvature ........................................................................................................ 16 (vi) Sensitivities-based Method: correlation scenarios and aggregation of risk charges ............... 18 (vii) The Default Risk Charge .................................................................................................................................... 18 (viii) The Residual Risk Add-On ................................................................................................................................ 19 3. Sensitivities-based Method: risk factor and sensitivity definitions ........................................................... 20 (i) Risk factor definitions......................................................................................................................................... 20 (ii) Sensitivity definitions ......................................................................................................................................... 25 (iii) Treatment of index instruments and multi-underlying options ....................................................... 27 (iv) Requirements on sensitivity computations ............................................................................................... 28 4. Sensitivities-based Method: delta risk weights and correlations............................................................... 28 (i) Delta GIRR ............................................................................................................................................................... 28 (ii) Delta CSR non-Securitisations ........................................................................................................................ 30 A revised version of this standard was published in January 2019. https://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d457.pdf (iii) Delta CSR Securitisations (correlation trading portfolio) ..................................................................... 32 (iv) Delta CSR Securitisations (non-correlation trading portfolio) ........................................................... 33 (v) Equity risk ................................................................................................................................................................ 35 (vi) Commodity risk ..................................................................................................................................................... 37 (vii) Foreign exchange risk ........................................................................................................................................ 40 5. Sensitivities-based Method: vega risk weights and correlations ............................................................... 40 6. Sensitivities-based Method: curvature risk weights and correlations ...................................................... 42 7. The Default Risk Charge ............................................................................................................................................. 42 (i) Default Risk Charge for non-securitisations .............................................................................................. 43 (ii) Default Risk Charge for securitisations (non-correlation trading portfolio) ................................. 46 (iii) Default Risk Charge for securitisations (correlation trading portfolio) .......................................... 47 C. Market risk – The Internal Models Approach ............................................................................................................. 50 1. General criteria ............................................................................................................................................................... 50 2. Qualitative standards ................................................................................................................................................... 50 3. Quantitative standards ................................................................................................................................................ 52 4. Model validation standards ...................................................................................................................................... 55 5. Determining the eligibility of trading activities ................................................................................................. 56 6. Interaction with the standardised approach methodology ......................................................................... 58 7. Specification of market risk factors ........................................................................................................................ 59 8. Default risk ....................................................................................................................................................................... 60 9. Capitalisation of risk factors ...................................................................................................................................... 63 10. Stress testing ................................................................................................................................................................... 65 11. External validation ......................................................................................................................................................... 66 Appendix A: Trading desk definitions ..................................................................................................................................... 68 Appendix B: Supervisory framework for the use of backtesting and profit and loss attribution in conjunction with the internal models approach to market risk capital requirements ......................................... 70 D. Treatment for illiquid positions .......................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Basel III: Post-Crisis Reforms
    Basel III: Post-Crisis Reforms Implementation Timeline Focus: Capital Definitions, Capital Focus: Capital Requirements Buffers and Liquidity Requirements Basel lll 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 1 January 2022 Full implementation of: 1. Revised standardised approach for credit risk; 2. Revised IRB framework; 1 January 3. Revised CVA framework; 1 January 1 January 1 January 1 January 1 January 2018 4. Revised operational risk framework; 2027 5. Revised market risk framework (Fundamental Review of 2023 2024 2025 2026 Full implementation of Leverage Trading Book); and Output 6. Leverage Ratio (revised exposure definition). Output Output Output Output Ratio (Existing exposure floor: Transitional implementation floor: 55% floor: 60% floor: 65% floor: 70% definition) Output floor: 50% 72.5% Capital Ratios 0% - 2.5% 0% - 2.5% Countercyclical 0% - 2.5% 2.5% Buffer 2.5% Conservation 2.5% Buffer 8% 6% Minimum Capital 4.5% Requirement Core Equity Tier 1 (CET 1) Tier 1 (T1) Total Capital (Tier 1 + Tier 2) Standardised Approach for Credit Risk New Categories of Revisions to the Existing Standardised Approach Exposures • Exposures to Banks • Exposure to Covered Bonds Bank exposures will be risk-weighted based on either the External Credit Risk Assessment Approach (ECRA) or Standardised Credit Risk Rated covered bonds will be risk Assessment Approach (SCRA). Banks are to apply ECRA where regulators do allow the use of external ratings for regulatory purposes and weighted based on issue SCRA for regulators that don’t. specific rating while risk weights for unrated covered bonds will • Exposures to Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) be inferred from the issuer’s For exposures that do not fulfil the eligibility criteria, risk weights are to be determined by either SCRA or ECRA.
    [Show full text]
  • Impact of Basel I, Basel II, and Basel III on Letters of Credit and Trade Finance
    Impact of Basel I, Basel II, and Basel III on Letters of Credit and Trade Finance Requirement Basel I Basel II Basel III 2013 2015 2019 Common Equity 2.0% of 3.5% of RWA 4.5% of RWA 4.5% of RWA RWA Tier 1 Capital 4.0% of 4.0% of 4.5% of RWA 6.0% of RWA 6.0% of RWA RWA RWA Total Capital 8.0% of 8.0% of 8.0% of RWA 8.0% of RWA 8.0% of RWA RWA RWA Capital Conversion -0- -0- +2.5% of RWA Buffer Leverage Ratio Observation Observation (4% of direct assets) (based on Total Capital) 3% of total direct and contingent assets Counter Cyclical Buffer +Up to 2.5% of RWA Liquidity Coverage Observation 30 days 30 days Net Stable Funding Observation Observation 1 year Additional Loss +1% to 2.5% of RWA Absorbency Color Code Key (US Applicability): (Applies only in the US) In the US, applies only to “Large, Internationally-Active Banks” Not yet implemented in the US Depending on the bank and the point in the economic cycle, under Basel III, the total capital requirement for a bank in 2019 may be as much as 15.5% of Risk-Weighted Assets (“RWA”), compared with 8% under Basel I and Basel II. The amount of Risk-Weighted Assets (“RWA”) is computed by multiplying the amount of each asset and contingent asset by a risk weighting and a Credit Conversion Factor (“CCF”) Under Basel I, risk weightings are set: 0% for sovereign obligors, 20% for banks where tenors ≤ one year, 50% for municipalities and residential mortgages, 100% for all corporate obligors Under Basel II, risk weightings are based on internal or external (rating agency) risk ratings with no special distinction for banks; capital requirements for exposures to banks are increased by as much as 650% (from 20% to as much as 150%) The Credit Conversion Factor for Letters of Credit varies under Basel I vs.
    [Show full text]
  • Reducing Procyclicality Arising from the Bank Capital Framework
    Joint FSF-BCBS Working Group on Bank Capital Issues Reducing procyclicality arising from the bank capital framework March 2009 Financial Stability Forum Joint FSF-BCBS Working Group on Bank Capital Issues Reducing procyclicality arising from the bank capital framework This note sets out recommendations to address the potential procyclicality of the regulatory capital framework for internationally active banks. Some of these recommendations are focused on mitigating the cyclicality of the minimum capital requirement, while maintaining an appropriate degree of risk sensitivity. Other measures are intended to introduce countercyclical elements into the framework. The recommendations on procyclicality form a critical part of a comprehensive strategy to address the lessons of the crisis as they relate to the regulation, supervision and risk management of internationally active banks. This strategy covers the following four areas: Enhancing the risk coverage of the Basel II framework; Strengthening over time the level, quality, consistency and transparency of the regulatory capital base; Mitigating the procyclicality of regulatory capital requirements and promoting the build up of capital buffers above the minimum in good economic conditions that can be drawn upon in stress; and Supplementing the capital framework with a simple, non-risk based measure to contain the build up of leverage in the banking system. The objective of these measures is to ensure that the Basel II capital framework promotes prudent capital buffers over the credit cycle and to mitigate the risk that the regulatory capital framework amplifies shocks between the financial and real sectors. As regulatory capital requirements are just one driver of bank lending behaviour, the proposals set out should be considered in the wider context of other measures to address procyclicality and reduce systemic risk.
    [Show full text]
  • Basel II, Sovereign Ratings and Transfer Risk External Versus Internal Ratings
    Basel II, Sovereign Ratings and Transfer Risk External versus Internal Ratings by Stijn Claessens and Geert Embrechts* 07 May 2002 Abstract Basel II puts great emphasis on external ratings, including from rating agencies, to quantify credit risks, but it also allows financial institutions to use their internal risk ratings. This is also the case for international lending, but following recent emerging markets’ crises, the quality of sovereign ratings has received much criticism. At the same time, little is known about the quality of internal ratings of country risk. Using data from a major international bank, we assess the relative performance of internal and external country ratings. We find that internal and external ratings are driven by similar factors and both underestimate “event risks”, but that external ratings are somewhat slower in adjusting to a financial crisis. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ University of Amsterdam and Rabobank International, the Netherlands respectively. For presentation at the conference Basel II: An Economic Assessment, Bank for International Settlements, Basel, 17-18 May 2002, organized by the Centre for Economic Policy Research, Journal of Financial Intermediation, and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. The opinions do not necessarily express those of the Rabobank. The authors would like to thank Peter Boswijk and Martijn Krijger for help with the statistical analysis and Michiel van Voorst, Leendert Colijn, Adriaan Kukler, Frank Ligtenberg and Leonhardt van Efferink for comments on an earlier version. 1 Introduction In January 2001 the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision issued a consultative document on a new Basel Capital Accord (the ‘Basel II’ proposal). Under the standardized approach, Basel II puts greater emphasis on the role of external ratings, including from rating agencies, to assess credit risks.
    [Show full text]
  • Financial Risk&Regulation
    Financial Risk&Regulation Sustainability in finances – opportunities and regulatory challenges Newsletter – March 2021 In addition to the COVID-19 pandemic, last year has been characterized by a green turnaround that involved the financial sector as well. Sustainability factors are increasingly integrated into the regulatory expectations on credit institutions and investment service providing firms, as well as new opportunities provided by capital requirement reductions. In addition to a number of green capital requirement reductions, the Hungarian National Bank (MNB) recently issued a management circular on the adequacy of the Sustainable Financial Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) applicable from March 10. In our newsletter, we cover these two topics. I. Green Capital Requirement Discount construction the real estate should have an energy for Housing rating of “BB” or better. In course of modernization the project should include at least one modernization In line with the EU directive and in addition to the measure specified by the MNB (e.g. installation of “green finance” program of several other central solar panels or solar collectors, thermal insulation, banks, MNB also announced its Green Program facade door and window replacement). In the in 2019, which aimed to launch products for the case of a discounted loan disbursed this way, the Hungarian financial sector that support sustainability, central bank imposes lower capital requirement on and to mobilize the commercial banks and disbursing institutions, if the interest rate or the APR investment funds. All this is not only of ecological (THM) on the “green” loan is at least 0.3 percentage significance: under the program, banks can move points more favourable (compared to other similar towards the “green” goals by reducing their credit products).
    [Show full text]
  • The Market Risk Premium: Expectational Estimates Using Analysts' Forecasts
    The Market Risk Premium: Expectational Estimates Using Analysts' Forecasts Robert S. Harris and Felicia C. Marston Us ing expectatwnal data from f711a11cial a 11 a~r.11s. we e~ t ima t e a market risk premium for US stocks. Using the S&P 500 a.1 a pro1·1•.fin· the market portfolio. the Lll'erage market risk premium i.lfound to be 7. 14% abo1·e yields on /o11g-ter111 US go1·ern 111 e11t honds m·er the period I 982-l 99X. This ri~k premium 1•aries over time; much oft his 1·aria1io11 can he explained by either I he /e1 1el ofi11teres1 mies or readily availahle fonrard-looking proxies for ri.~k . Th e marke1 ri.1k p remium appears to 111 onz inversely with gol'ern111 e11 t interes1 ra/es .rngges1i11g Iha/ required rerurns 011 .~locks are more stable than interest rates themse!Pes. {JEL: GJI. G l 2] Sfhc notion of a market ri sk premium (th e spread choice has some appealing chara cteri sti cs but is between in vestor required returns on safe and average subject to many arb itrary assumptions such as the ri sk assets) has long played a central rol e in finance. 11 releva nt period for tak in g an average. Compound ing is a key factor in asset allocation decisions to determine the difficulty or usi ng historical returns is the we ll the portfolio mi x of debt and equity instruments. noted fa ct that stand ard model s or consum er choice Moreover, the market ri sk premium plays a critica l ro le would predi ct much lower spreads between equity and in th e Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM ), the most debt returns than have occurred in US markets- the widely used means of estimating equity hurdle rates by so ca lled equity risk premium puzzle (sec Welch, 2000 practitioners.
    [Show full text]
  • Capital Adequacy Requirements (CAR)
    Guideline Subject: Capital Adequacy Requirements (CAR) Chapter 3 – Credit Risk – Standardized Approach Effective Date: November 2017 / January 20181 The Capital Adequacy Requirements (CAR) for banks (including federal credit unions), bank holding companies, federally regulated trust companies, federally regulated loan companies and cooperative retail associations are set out in nine chapters, each of which has been issued as a separate document. This document, Chapter 3 – Credit Risk – Standardized Approach, should be read in conjunction with the other CAR chapters which include: Chapter 1 Overview Chapter 2 Definition of Capital Chapter 3 Credit Risk – Standardized Approach Chapter 4 Settlement and Counterparty Risk Chapter 5 Credit Risk Mitigation Chapter 6 Credit Risk- Internal Ratings Based Approach Chapter 7 Structured Credit Products Chapter 8 Operational Risk Chapter 9 Market Risk 1 For institutions with a fiscal year ending October 31 or December 31, respectively Banks/BHC/T&L/CRA Credit Risk-Standardized Approach November 2017 Chapter 3 - Page 1 Table of Contents 3.1. Risk Weight Categories ............................................................................................. 4 3.1.1. Claims on sovereigns ............................................................................... 4 3.1.2. Claims on unrated sovereigns ................................................................. 5 3.1.3. Claims on non-central government public sector entities (PSEs) ........... 5 3.1.4. Claims on multilateral development banks (MDBs)
    [Show full text]
  • Perspectives on the Equity Risk Premium – Siegel
    CFA Institute Perspectives on the Equity Risk Premium Author(s): Jeremy J. Siegel Source: Financial Analysts Journal, Vol. 61, No. 6 (Nov. - Dec., 2005), pp. 61-73 Published by: CFA Institute Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4480715 Accessed: 04/03/2010 18:01 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cfa. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. CFA Institute is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Financial Analysts Journal. http://www.jstor.org FINANCIAL ANALYSTS JOURNAL v R ge Perspectives on the Equity Risk Premium JeremyJ.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cross Section of Foreign Currency Risk Premia and Consumption Growth Risk
    The Cross Section of Foreign Currency Risk Premia and Consumption Growth Risk By HANNO LUSTIG AND ADRIEN VERDELHAN* Aggregate consumption growth risk explains why low interest rate currencies do not appreciate as much as the interest rate differential and why high interest rate currencies do not depreciate as much as the interest rate differential. Domestic investors earn negative excess returns on low interest rate currency portfolios and positive excess returns on high interest rate currency portfolios. Because high interest rate currencies depreciate on average when domestic consumption growth is low and low interest rate currencies appreciate under the same conditions, low interest rate currencies provide domestic investors with a hedge against domestic aggregate consumption growth risk. (JEL E21, E43, F31, G11) When the foreign interest rate is higher than rate currencies, on average, depreciate against the US interest rate, risk-neutral and rational US the dollar when US consumption growth is low, investors should expect the foreign currency to while low foreign interest rate currencies do depreciate against the dollar by the difference not. The textbook logic we use for any other between the two interest rates. This way, bor- asset can be applied to exchange rates, and it rowing at home and lending abroad, or vice works. If an asset offers low returns when the versa, produces a zero return in excess of the investor’s consumption growth is low, it is US short-term interest rate. This is known as the risky, and the investor wants to be compensated uncovered interest rate parity (UIP) condition, through a positive excess return.
    [Show full text]
  • A Theory of Speculative Bubbles, the Fed Model, and Self-Fulfilling
    Monetary Exchange in Over-the-Counter Markets: A Theory of Speculative Bubbles, the Fed Model, and Self-fulfilling Liquidity Crises Ricardo Lagos∗ Shengxing Zhangy New York University London School of Economics September 2014 Abstract We develop a model of monetary exchange in over-the-counter markets to study the ef- fects of monetary policy on asset prices and standard measures of financial liquidity, such as bid-ask spreads, trade volume, and the incentives of dealers to supply immediacy, both by participating in the market-making activity and by holding asset inventories on their own account. The theory predicts that asset prices carry a speculative premium that reflects the asset's marketability and depends on monetary policy as well as the microstructure of the market where it is traded. These liquidity considerations imply a positive correlation between the real yield on stocks and the nominal yield on Treasury bonds|an empirical observation long regarded anomalous. The theory also exhibits rational expectations equi- libria with recurring belief driven events that resemble liquidity crises, i.e., times of sharp persistent declines in asset prices, trade volume, and dealer participation in market-making activity, accompanied by large increases in spreads and abnormally long trading delays. Keywords: Money; Liquidity; OTC markets; Asset prices; Fed model; Financial crises JEL classification: D83, E31, E52, G12 ∗Lagos thanks the support from the C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics at NYU. yZhang thanks the support from the Centre
    [Show full text]
  • Commercial Bank Examination Manual, Section 3000
    3000—CAPITAL, EARNINGS, LIQUIDITY, AND SENSITIVITY TO MARKET RISK The 3000 series of sections address the super- asset quality (see the 2000 series major head- visory assessment of a state member bank’s ing), the CELS components represent the key Capital, Earnings, Liquidity, and Sensitivity to areas that examiners review in assessing the market risk (CELS). In addition to the review of overall financial condition of the bank. Commercial Bank Examination Manual May 2021 Page 1 Assessment of Capital Adequacy Effective date November 2020 Section 3000.1 PURPOSE OF CAPITAL financial crisis by helping to ensure that the banking system is better able to absorb losses Although both bankers and bank regulators look and continue to lend in future periods of eco- carefully at the quality of bank assets and nomic stress. In addition, Regulation Q imple- management and at the ability of the bank to ments certain federal laws related to capital control costs, evaluate risks, and maintain proper requirements and international regulatory capi- liquidity, capital adequacy is the area that trig- tal standards adopted by the Basel Committee gers the most supervisory action, especially in on Banking Supervision (BCBS). view of the prompt-corrective-action (PCA) pro- vision of section 38 of the Federal Deposit Applicability of Regulation Q Insurance Act (FDIA), 12 U.S.C. 1831o. The primary function of capital is to fund the bank’s Regulation Q applies on a consolidated basis to operations, act as a cushion to absorb unantici- every Board-regulated institution (referred to as pated losses and declines in asset values that a “banking organization” in this section) that is may otherwise lead to material bank distress or failure, and provide protection to uninsured • a state member bank; depositors and debt holders if the bank were to • a bank holding company (BHC) domiciled in be placed in receivership.
    [Show full text]
  • Basel Ii/Iii Implementation Roadmap for the Eastern Caribbean Currency Union
    BASEL II/III IMPLEMENTATION ROADMAP FOR THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN CURRENCY UNION Bank Supervision Department EASTERN CARIBBEAN CENTRAL BANK ST KITTS BASEL II/III IMPLEMENTATION ROADMAP FOR THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN CURRENCY UNION 1.0 PURPOSE This Roadmap provides an overview of the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank’s (ECCB/the Central Bank) Basel II/III implementation programme for the Eastern Caribbean Currency Union (ECCU). The document outlines the Central Bank’s approach towards implementation, the implementation options selected and key deliverables/activities. The Roadmap is intended to guide the expectations and actions of all stakeholders associated with the Basel II/III implementation process. 2.0 INTRODUCTION The ECCB is committed to implementing certain aspects of Basel II/III in the ECCU for computing the capital adequacy of institutions licenced under the Banking Act 2015 (the Act), in accordance with Sections 46 and 47 of the Act1. Towards this end, the ECCB established a dedicated team (Basel Implementation Group) for spearheading the implementation effort and a Basel II/III Working Committee comprising of representatives from the ECCB, ECCU Bankers Association and commercial banks, for collaborating with the banking industry on an ongoing basis. The Central Bank sought comments on some draft standards2 in 2018 and plans to continue to deepen its interaction with licensees via a number of consultations and training sessions. Basel II/III constitutes a more comprehensive measure of capital adequacy than the existing Basel I. Basel II/III seeks to align regulatory capital requirements more closely with the underlying risks that banks face. The framework requires banks to assess the riskiness of their assets with respect to credit, market and operational risks and seeks to ensure that banks’ minimum capital requirements better reflect inherent risks in their portfolios, risk management practices and accompanying disclosures to the public.
    [Show full text]