DOCSLIB.ORG

The Internal Ratings-Based Approach

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Internal Ratings-Based Approach Superseded document Basel Committee on Banking Supervision Consultative Document The Internal Ratings-Based Approach Supporting Document to the New Basel Capital Accord Issued for comment by 31 May 2001 January 2001 Superseded document Table of Contents CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW AND ORIENTATION OF IRB APPROACH.................................................1 I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1 II. ORIENTATION OF THE IRB APPROACH................................................................................ 3 III. SIMPLE SCHEMATIC OF IRB APPROACH ............................................................................. 4 A. CATEGORISATION OF EXPOSURES .................................................................................................. 5 B. RISK COMPONENTS ....................................................................................................................... 5 (i) Probability of Default .............................................................................................................. 6 (ii) Loss Given Default ................................................................................................................. 6 (iii) Exposure at Default (EAD) ..................................................................................................... 6 (iv) Maturity................................................................................................................................... 7 C. RISK WEIGHTS .............................................................................................................................. 7 D. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS .............................................................................................................. 7 (i) Adherence to minimum requirements .................................................................................... 7 CHAPTER 2: IRB FRAMEWORK FOR CORPORATE EXPOSURES...................................................9 I. DEFINITION OF CORPORATE EXPOSURES.......................................................................... 9 II. RANGE OF PRACTICE.............................................................................................................. 9 A. THE NUMBER OF GRADES BOTH FOR PERFORMING AND NON-PERFORMING LOANS............................. 9 B. THE DECISION WHETHER TO FOCUS THE RATING ON THE BORROWER OR THE FACILITY .................... 10 C. THE MEANS BY WHICH RATINGS ARE ASSIGNED ............................................................................. 10 D. THE RISK FACTORS CONSIDERED IN THE RATING ASSIGNMENT PROCESS ........................................ 11 E. THE TIME HORIZON OVER WHICH THE RATING IS CONSIDERED A VALID RISK INDICATOR .................... 12 F. USE OF INTERNAL RATINGS .......................................................................................................... 12 III. RISK COMPONENTS............................................................................................................... 13 A. OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................. 13 B. PROBABILITY OF DEFAULT (PD) ................................................................................................... 15 (i) Average PD per grade.......................................................................................................... 15 (ii) One year PD......................................................................................................................... 16 (iii) Methods for quantifying PD .................................................................................................. 16 (iv) Impact of credit derivatives and guarantees on estimation of PD........................................ 16 C. LOSS GIVEN DEFAULT (LGD) ...................................................................................................... 18 (i) Foundation approach............................................................................................................ 19 (ii) LGD under the advanced approach ..................................................................................... 21 D. EXPOSURE AT DEFAULT .............................................................................................................. 22 (i) Transactions with uncertain future drawdown...................................................................... 23 (ii) OTC derivatives.................................................................................................................... 24 E. MATURITY................................................................................................................................... 25 (i) Introduction........................................................................................................................... 25 (ii) Treatment of maturity under the foundation IRB approach .................................................. 26 (iii) Treatment of maturity under the advanced IRB approach ................................................... 27 (iv) Definition of ‘effective maturity’............................................................................................. 27 (v) Information required by banks.............................................................................................. 28 F. DISCUSSION ON DEFINITION OF DEFAULT ......................................................................................... 29 (i) Current practice for corporate exposures............................................................................. 29 (ii) Reference definition of default.............................................................................................. 30 (iii) Prospects of a “mapping” for estimates based on other definitions ..................................... 31 IV. RISK WEIGHTS FOR CORPORATE EXPOSURES ............................................................... 31 A. DETERMINATION OF RISK WEIGHTED ASSETS ................................................................................ 31 Superseded document B. FORMULA FOR RWA FOR CORPORATE EXPOSURES ...................................................................... 32 C. CALIBRATION OF BENCHMARK RISK WEIGHTS FOR CORPORATE EXPOSURES ................................... 33 (i) Introduction........................................................................................................................... 34 (ii) Survey-based evidence........................................................................................................ 35 (iii) Direct estimates of risk weights............................................................................................ 35 D. MATURITY-ADJUSTMENTS TO CORPORATE RISK WEIGHTS .............................................................. 36 (i) Maturity-adjustments based on MTM approach................................................................... 37 (ii) Maturity-adjustments based on adjusted DM approach....................................................... 38 E. EXPECTED LOSS AND THE DETERMINATION OF CORPORATE RISK WEIGHTS ..................................... 40 V. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR CORPORATE EXPOSURES UNDER THE FOUNDATION APPROACH ................................................................................................................... 41 A. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................ 41 B. CRITERIA TO ENSURE MEANINGFUL DIFFERENTIATION OF RISK ....................................................... 42 (i) Overall rating system structure.............................................................................................42 (ii) Rating grade structure.......................................................................................................... 43 C. COMPLETENESS AND INTEGRITY OF RATING ASSIGNMENTS ............................................................ 43 (i) Introduction........................................................................................................................... 43 (ii) Coverage of ratings .............................................................................................................. 43 (iii) Independent assignment or review ...................................................................................... 44 D. OVERSIGHT OVER THE RATING SYSTEM AND PROCESSES............................................................... 44 (i) Introduction........................................................................................................................... 44 E. CRITERIA AND ORIENTATION OF RATING SYSTEM ........................................................................... 45 (i) Introduction........................................................................................................................... 45 (ii) Assessment horizon ............................................................................................................. 45 F. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR ESTIMATION OF PD ........................................................................ 46 G. DATA COLLECTION AND IT SYSTEMS............................................................................................. 48 H. USE OF INTERNAL RATINGS .........................................................................................................
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]
  • Predicting the Probability of Corporate Default Using Logistic Regression
    UGC Approval No:40934 CASS-ISSN:2581-6403 Predicting the Probability of Corporate HEB CASS Default using Logistic Regression *Deepika Verma *Research Scholar, School of Management Science, Department of Commerce, IGNOU Address for Correspondence: [email protected] ABSTRACT This paper studies the probability of default of Indian Listed companies. Study aims to develop a model by using Logistic regression to predict the probability of default of corporate. Study has undertaken 90 Indian Companies listed in BSE; financial data is collected for the financial year 2010- 2014. Financial ratios have been considered as the independent predictors of the defaulting companies. The empirical result demonstrates that the model is best fit and well capable to predict the default on loan with 92% of accuracy. Access this Article Online http://heb-nic.in/cass-studies Quick Response Code: Received on 25/03/2019 Accepted on 11/04/2019@HEB All rights reserved April 2019 – Vol. 3, Issue- 1, Addendum 7 (Special Issue) Page-161 UGC Approval No:40934 CASS-ISSN:2581-6403 INTRODUCTION Credit risk is eternal for the banking and financial institutions, there is always an uncertainty in receiving the repayments of the loans granted to the corporate (Sirirattanaphonkun&Pattarathammas, 2012). Many models have been developed for predicting the corporate failures in advance. To run the economy on the right pace the banking system of that economy must be strong enough to gauge the failure of the corporate in the repayment of loan. Financial crisis has been witnessed across the world from Latin America, to Asia, from Nordic Countries to East and Central European countries (CIMPOERU, 2015).
    [Show full text]
  • Contagion in the Interbank Market with Stochastic Loss Given Default∗
    Contagion in the Interbank Market with Stochastic Loss Given Default∗ Christoph Memmel,a Angelika Sachs,b and Ingrid Steina aDeutsche Bundesbank bLMU Munich This paper investigates contagion in the German inter- bank market under the assumption of a stochastic loss given default (LGD). We combine a unique data set about the LGD of interbank loans with detailed data about interbank expo- sures. We find that the frequency distribution of the LGD is markedly U-shaped. Our simulations show that contagion in the German interbank market may happen. For the point in time under consideration, the assumption of a stochastic LGD leads on average to a more fragile banking system than under the assumption of a constant LGD. JEL Codes: D53, E47, G21. 1. Introduction The collapse of Lehman Brothers turned the 2007/2008 turmoil into a deep global financial crisis. But even before the Lehman default, interbank markets ceased to function properly. In particular, the ∗The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not nec- essarily reflect the opinions of the Deutsche Bundesbank. We thank Gabriel Frahm, Gerhard Illing, Ulrich Kr¨uger, Peter Raupach, Sebastian Watzka, two anonymous referees, and the participants at the Annual Meeting of the Euro- pean Economic Association 2011, the Annual Meeting of the German Finance Association 2011, the 1st Conference of the MaRs Network of the ESCB, the FSC workshop on stress testing and network analysis, as well as the research seminars of the Deutsche Bundesbank and the University of Munich for valu- able comments. Author contact: Memmel and Stein: Deutsche Bundesbank, Wilhelm-Epstein-Strasse 14, D-60431 Frankfurt, Germany; Tel: +49 (0) 69 9566 8531 (Memmel), +49 (0) 69 9566 8348 (Stein).
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5 Credit Risk
    Chapter 5 Credit risk 5.1 Basic definitions Credit risk is a risk of a loss resulting from the fact that a borrower or counterparty fails to fulfill its obligations under the agreed terms (because he or she either cannot or does not want to pay). Besides this definition, the credit risk also includes the following risks: Sovereign risk is the risk of a government or central bank being unwilling or • unable to meet its contractual obligations. Concentration risk is the risk resulting from the concentration of transactions with • regard to a person, a group of economically associated persons, a government, a geographic region or an economic sector. It is the risk associated with any single exposure or group of exposures with the potential to produce large enough losses to threaten a bank's core operations, mainly due to a low level of diversification of the portfolio. Settlement risk is the risk resulting from a situation when a transaction settlement • does not take place according to the agreed conditions. For example, when trading bonds, it is common that the securities are delivered two days after the trade has been agreed and the payment has been made. The risk that this delivery does not occur is called settlement risk. Counterparty risk is the credit risk resulting from the position in a trading in- • strument. As an example, this includes the case when the counterparty does not honour its obligation resulting from an in-the-money option at the time of its ma- turity. It also important to note that the credit risk is related to almost all types of financial instruments.
    [Show full text]
  • Estimating Value at Risk
    Estimating Value at Risk Eric Marsden <[email protected]> Do you know how risky your bank is? Learning objectives 1 Understand measures of financial risk, including Value at Risk 2 Understand the impact of correlated risks 3 Know how to use copulas to sample from a multivariate probability distribution, including correlation The information presented here is pedagogical in nature and does not constitute investment advice! Methods used here can also be applied to model natural hazards 2 / 41 Warmup. Before reading this material, we suggest you consult the following associated slides: ▷ Modelling correlations using Python ▷ Statistical modelling with Python Available from risk-engineering.org 3 / 41 Risk in finance There are 1011 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it’s only a hundred billion. It’s less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. ‘‘ Now we should call them economical numbers. — Richard Feynman 4 / 41 Terminology in finance Names of some instruments used in finance: ▷ A bond issued by a company or a government is just a loan • bond buyer lends money to bond issuer • issuer will return money plus some interest when the bond matures ▷ A stock gives you (a small fraction of) ownership in a “listed company” • a stock has a price, and can be bought and sold on the stock market ▷ A future is a promise to do a transaction at a later date • refers to some “underlying” product which will be bought or sold at a later time • example: farmer can sell her crop before harvest,
    [Show full text]
  • The History and Ideas Behind Var
    Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect Procedia Economics and Finance 24 ( 2015 ) 18 – 24 International Conference on Applied Economics, ICOAE 2015, 2-4 July 2015, Kazan, Russia The history and ideas behind VaR Peter Adamkoa,*, Erika Spuchľákováb, Katarína Valáškováb aDepartment of Quantitative Methods and Economic Informatics, Faculty of Operations and Economic of Transport and Communications, University of Žilina, Univerzitná 1, 010 26 Žilina, Slovakia b,cDepartment of Economics, Faculty of Operations and Economic of Transport and Communications, University of Žilina, Univerzitná 1, 010 26 Žilina, Slovakia Abstract The value at risk is one of the most essential risk measures used in the financial industry. Even though from time to time criticized, the VaR is a valuable method for many investors. This paper describes how the VaR is computed in practice, and gives a short overview of value at risk history. Finally, paper describes the basic types of methods and compares their similarities and differences. © 20152015 The The Authors. Authors. Published Published by Elsevier by Elsevier B.V. This B.V. is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Selection and/or and/or peer peer-review-review under under responsibility responsibility of the Organizing of the Organizing Committee Committee of ICOAE 2015. of ICOAE 2015. Keywords: Value at risk; VaR; risk modeling; volatility; 1. Introduction The risk management defines risk as deviation from the expected result (as negative as well as positive). Typical indicators of risk are therefore statistical concepts called variance or standard deviation. These concepts are the cornerstone of the amount of financial theories, Cisko and Kliestik (2013).
    [Show full text]
  • US Implementation of Basel II
    U.S. Implementation of Basel II: An Overview May 2003 Objectives of the Revisions to the Basel Accord • Advance a “three-pillar” approach – Pillar 1 -- minimum capital requirement – Pillar 2 -- supervisory oversight – Pillar 3 -- heightened market discipline • Develop a measure of capital that is: – more risk sensitive than the current approach – better suited to the complex activities of internationally- active banks – capable of adapting to market and product evolution 2 Objectives of the Revisions to the Basel Accord (cont’d) • Encourage improvements in risk management and enhance internal assessments of capital adequacy • Incorporate an operational risk component into the capital charge (to correspond with the unbundling of credit risk) • Heighten market discipline through enhanced disclosure 3 Revised Basel Accord • Two approaches developed for calculating capital minimums for credit risk: – Standardized Approach (essentially a slightly modified version of the current Accord) – Internal Ratings-Based Approach (IRB) • foundation IRB - supervisors provide some inputs • advanced IRB (A-IRB) - institution provides inputs • underlying assumption is a broadly diversified portfolio -- by both product and geography • qualifying standards will be rigorous 4 Revised Basel Accord (cont’d) • Three methodologies for calculating capital minimums for operational risk – Basic Indicator Approach – Standardized Approach – Advanced Measurement Approach (AMA) • use of AMA subject to supervisory approval – rigorous quantitative and qualitative standards
    [Show full text]
  • Defaulted Exposures
    Defaulted Exposures Summary 1. The Standardised Approach definition of past-due loans is broadened to match the IRB definition of default. 2. The new definition now includes: a) Exposures, rather than just loans, that are past due for more than 90 days. b) Exposures to a “defaulted borrower” who is, in the opinion of the bank, “unlikely to pay” its credit obligation in full. 3. By mistake or by design the Standardised Approach floor of 72.25% adds a significant capital charge to the losses already covered by the Expected Losses calculated in the IRB Approaches. Review A. Current treatment- a refresher The Standardised Approach does not actually deal with the concepts of defaulted exposures or default as such. There are therefore no definitions beyond the fact that this asset class consists of loans that are more than 90 days past due. These loans are risk-weighted as follows: • 150% risk weight when specific provisions are less than 20% of the outstanding amount of the loan. • 100% risk weight when specific provisions are no less than 20% of the outstanding amount of the loan. Note that: 1. The risk weight is applied to the loan after deducting specific provisions or write-offs, if any. ©2020 BankT&D Consulting Limited www.banktandd.com 2. If a portion is covered by a guarantee or collateral, the risk weight only applies to the unsecured portion. B. Basel IV revisions 1. Scope and concepts The major change is the broadening of the definition. Basel IV introduces the concept of “defaulted exposure”, which is: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Redalyc.Country Risk in Foreign Direct Investment
    Nómadas ISSN: 1578-6730 [email protected] Universidad Complutense de Madrid España Rodríguez, Noemi Dans Country risk in foreign direct investment: similarities and differences with country risk in exports Nómadas, vol. 49, 2016 Universidad Complutense de Madrid Madrid, España Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=18153282005 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative Nómadas. Revista Crítica de Ciencias Sociales y Jurídicas Volumen Especial: Mediterranean Perspectives | 49 (2016) COUNTRY RISK IN FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT: SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES WITH COUNTRY RISK IN EXPORTS Noemi Dans Rodríguez Departamento de Economía Aplicada V. Universidad Complutense de Madrid http://dx.doi.org/10.5209/NOMA.53538 Abstract.- Country Risk in exports is derived from the capacity of payment and the losses that insolvency can cause to the creditors. Instead, the country risk in foreign direct investment is related to breach of contract, deprivation of property rights, damage to assets or cessation of activities. The operations of foreign direct investment (FDI) are different in nature to exports. Therefore, regarding country risks some questions arise: is country risk different also?, which are the common risks and which are specific risks to exports and FDI? Both share five types of country risk: the transfer risk, the impossibility of converting currencies, the exchange rate risk, the risk of war or political violence and sovereign risk. The risk of expropriation is specific to foreign direct investment and does not affect trade.
    [Show full text]
  • Value-At-Risk Under Systematic Risks: a Simulation Approach
    International Research Journal of Finance and Economics ISSN 1450-2887 Issue 162 July, 2017 http://www.internationalresearchjournaloffinanceandeconomics.com Value-at-Risk Under Systematic Risks: A Simulation Approach Arthur L. Dryver Graduate School of Business Administration National Institute of Development Administration, Thailand E-mail: [email protected] Quan N. Tran Graduate School of Business Administration National Institute of Development Administration, Thailand Vesarach Aumeboonsuke International College National Institute of Development Administration, Thailand Abstract Daily Value-at-Risk (VaR) is frequently reported by banks and financial institutions as a result of regulatory requirements, competitive pressures, and risk management standards. However, recent events of economic crises, such as the US subprime mortgage crisis, the European Debt Crisis, and the downfall of the China Stock Market, haveprovided strong evidence that bad days come in streaks and also that the reported daily VaR may be misleading in order to prevent losses. This paper compares VaR measures of an S&P 500 index portfolio under systematic risks to ones under normal market conditions using a historical simulation method. Analysis indicates that the reported VaR under normal conditions seriously masks and understates the true losses of the portfolio when systematic risks are present. For highly leveraged positions, this means only one VaR hit during a single day or a single week can wipe the firms out of business. Keywords: Value-at-Risks, Simulation methods, Systematic Risks, Market Risks JEL Classification: D81, G32 1. Introduction Definition Value at risk (VaR) is a common statistical technique that is used to measure the dollar amount of the potential downside in value of a risky asset or a portfolio from adverse market moves given a specific time frame and a specific confident interval (Jorion, 2007).
    [Show full text]
  • (RCAP) Assessment of Basel III Regulations –
    Basel Committee on Banking Supervision Regulatory Consistency Assessment Programme (RCAP) Assessment of Basel III regulations – United States of America December 2014 This publication is available on the BIS website (www.bis.org). © Bank for International Settlements 2014. All rights reserved. Brief excerpts may be reproduced or translated provided the source is stated. ISBN 978-92-9197-012-4 (print) ISBN 978-92-9197-011-7 (online) Contents Glossary ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Preface ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Executive summary ........................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Response from United States ....................................................................................................................................................... 7 1 Context, scope and main assessment findings ................................................................................................... 8 1.1 Context ...............................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • An Explanatory Note on the Basel II IRB Risk Weight Functions
    Basel Committee on Banking Supervision An Explanatory Note on the Basel II IRB Risk Weight Functions July 2005 Requests for copies of publications, or for additions/changes to the mailing list, should be sent to: Bank for International Settlements Press & Communications CH-4002 Basel, Switzerland E-mail: [email protected] Fax: +41 61 280 9100 and +41 61 280 8100 © Bank for International Settlements 20054. All rights reserved. Brief excerpts may be reproduced or translated provided the source is stated. ISBN print: 92-9131-673-3 Table of Contents 1. Introduction......................................................................................................................1 2. Economic foundations of the risk weight formulas ..........................................................1 3. Regulatory requirements to the Basel credit risk model..................................................4 4. Model specification..........................................................................................................4 4.1. The ASRF framework.............................................................................................4 4.2. Average and conditional PDs.................................................................................5 4.3. Loss Given Default.................................................................................................6 4.4. Expected versus Unexpected Losses ....................................................................7 4.5. Asset correlations...................................................................................................8
    [Show full text]