DOCSLIB.ORG

Download Pdf File of RBS Group Pillar 3 Document 2011

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Download Pdf File of RBS Group Pillar 3 Document 2011 Pillar 3 Disclosure 2011 Pillar 3 Disclosure 4 Forward-looking statements 4 Basis of disclosure 5 Background 7 Scope of application 8 Governance 9 Capital 15 Credit risk Organisation 15 Credit approval 15 Risk appetite 15 Credit risk measurement 16 Credit risk mitigation 16 Basel II credit risk-weighted assets measurements 18 Credit risk by advanced IRB approach 19 Credit risk by standardised approach 36 45 Counterparty credit risk 48 Securitisation 57 Market risk 60 Operational risk 62 Additional disclosures Significant subsidiaries 62 Past due and impaired assets 70 Non-trading book equity risk 73 Interest rate risk 74 Sensitivity of net interest income 75 Appendix 1 Glossary of acronyms and key terms RBS Group Pillar 3 Disclosure 2011 1 Pillar 3 Disclosure continued Charts Chart 1: Minimum capital requirement structure 5 Chart 2: Governance structure for model review and approval 17 Chart 3: Regulatory Group hierarchy 62 Tables Table 1: Group RWAs and minimum capital requirement by risk type 9 Table 2: Composition of regulatory capital 10 Table 3: Capital instruments 11 Table 4: Incorporation of credit risk mitigants within IRB risk parameters 17 Table 5: Credit RWAs and minimum capital requirement 18 Table 6: Credit RWAs and minimum capital requirement by advanced IRB exposure class 19 Table 7: Advanced IRB gross average exposure at default 20 Table 8: Advanced IRB gross exposure at default by geographic area 21 Table 9: Advanced IRB gross exposure at default by industry sector 22 Table 10: Advanced IRB gross exposure at default by residual maturity 23 Table 11: Master grading scale mapping to asset quality bands 24 Table 12: Central governments and central banks by asset quality band 25 Table 13: Institutions by asset quality band 26 Table 14: Corporates by asset quality band 27 Table 15: Retail SMEs by asset quality band 28 Table 16: Retail secured by real estate collateral by asset quality band 29 Table 17: Qualifying revolving retail exposures by asset quality band 30 Table 18: Other retail exposures by asset quality band 31 Table 19: Equities by asset quality band 32 Table 20: Advanced IRB exposure covered by guarantees and credit derivatives 33 Table 21: Expected loss and impairment charge 34 Table 22: Predicted probability of default, actual default rates and EAD outcomes versus predictions 34 Table 23: Loss outcomes versus predictions 35 Table 24: RWAs and capital requirement by standardised exposure class 36 Table 25: Standardised gross exposure by exposure class 37 Table 26: Standardised gross exposure by geographic area 38 Table 27: Standardised gross exposure by industry sector 39 Table 28: Standardised gross exposure by residual maturity 41 Table 29: Credit quality steps mapping to external credit gradings 41 Table 30: Standardised portfolio exposure for customer credit risk and counterparty credit risk by credit quality steps 42 Table 31: Standardised exposures covered by eligible financial collateral 44 Table 32: Standardised exposures covered by guarantees and credit derivatives 44 Table 33: Counterparty credit risk capital requirement 45 Table 34: Counterparty credit risk exposure 45 Table 35: Counterparty credit risk exposure at default by method 45 Table 36: Netting and collateralisation impact on counterparty credit risk 46 Table 37: Credit derivative transactions 47 Table 38: Exposures securitised, by transaction and exposure type 52 Table 39: New securitisation activity during the year 53 Table 40: Impaired and past due exposures securitised, by exposure type and losses 53 Table 41: Securitisation positions, retained or purchased, by exposure type on and off-balance sheet 54 Table 42: Securitisation positions, retained or purchased, by risk-weightings 54 Table 43: Re-securitisation positions, retained or purchased, by risk-weightings 56 Table 44: Exposures to securitisations of revolving assets 56 Table 45: Total trading book outstanding exposures securitised and subject to a market risk capital requirement 56 Table 46: Market risk minimum capital requirement 58 Table 47: Operational risk minimum capital requirement 61 Table 48: Significant subsidiaries minimum capital requirement 62 Table 49: Significant subsidiaries RWAs 63 Table 50: Significant subsidiaries credit risk minimum capital requirement 63 Table 51: Significant subsidiaries credit risk advanced IRB minimum capital requirement 64 RBS Group Pillar 3 Disclosure 2011 2 Pillar 3 Disclosure continued Tables continued Table 52: Significant subsidiaries credit risk standardised minimum capital requirement 65 Table 53: Significant subsidiaries counterparty credit risk and concentration requirement 65 Table 54: Significant subsidiaries market risk trading book and other business 66 Table 55: Significant subsidiaries capital resources 67 Table 56: Past due exposures, impaired exposures and provisions by industry sector 71 Table 57: Past due exposures, impaired exposures and provisions by geographic area 72 Table 58: Loan impairment provisions movement 72 Table 59: Non-trading book equity at balance sheet value 73 Table 60: Net realised and unrealised gains from non-trading book equity 73 Table 61: IRRBB VaR for retail and commercial banking activities at a 99% confidence level 75 Table 62: IRRBB VaR by currency 75 Table 63: Sensitivity of net interest income 75 Table 64: Sensitivity of net interest income by currency 75 RBS Group Pillar 3 Disclosure 2011 3 Forward-looking statements This document contains certain forward-looking statements could be materially different from actual results, are within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform dependent on key model characteristics and assumptions Act of 1995 with respect to the financial condition, results of and are subject to various limitations. For further risks and operations and business of The Royal Bank of Scotland uncertainties faced by the Group that may impact the Group plc (‘the Group’). Generally, words such as ‘may’, statements set out in this document, refer to the Group’s ‘could’, ‘will’, ‘expect’, ‘intend’, ‘estimate’, ‘anticipate’, Annual Report and Accounts for the year ended 31 ‘believe’, ‘plan’, ‘seek’, ‘continue’, ‘project’, ‘should’, December 2011 and any other interim or update information ‘probability’, ‘risk’, ‘value-at-risk’, ‘target’, ‘goal’, ‘objective’, published by the Group, including information furnished to the ‘endeavour’, ‘outlook’, ‘optimistic’ and ‘prospects’ or similar Securities and Exchange Commission on Form 6-K. expressions or variations on such expressions identify forward-looking statements. Any forward-looking statements set out herein speak only as at the date of this document. Except as required by the Any forward-looking statements set out herein represent the Financial Services Authority (FSA), the London Stock Group’s expectations or beliefs concerning future events and Exchange or other applicable law or regulation, the Group involve known and unknown risks and uncertainty that could does not have any obligation to update or revise publicly any cause actual results, performance or events to differ forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new materially from those expressed or implied in such information, further events or circumstances or otherwise, statements. For example, certain of the market risk and expressly disclaims any obligation to do so. disclosures, some of which are only estimates and, therefore, Basis of disclosure The Pillar 3 disclosures being made by the Group are • It is not always possible to aggregate the disclosures designed to comply with the FSA Handbook (BIPRU 11). across the different Basel II approaches to obtain a They should be read in conjunction with the Group’s 2011 Group view. This is particularly important for the credit Annual Report and Accounts, approved on 22 February risk disclosures. 2012. The information is not required to be and therefore has not There are important differences between the accounting and been subject to external audit. Capital Requirements Directives (CRD) disclosures, which can be summarised as follows: Whilst the Group has participated in discussions at the British Bankers’ Association and other trade bodies, it is possible • The Basel II disclosures represent a regulatory, rather that disclosures made by other banks, especially outside the than an accounting basis of consolidation. Various UK, are not directly comparable. businesses (for example insurance) are included in the latter, but not in the former. Therefore, these disclosures The Group has not omitted disclosures on the grounds that may not be comparable to other external disclosures the information may be proprietary or confidential. made by the Group. Disclosures in relation to remuneration are included on pages • The definition of exposure differs between Basel II and 272 to 295 of the Group’s 2011 Annual Report and Accounts. accounting. The Basel II definition used in the Pillar 3 disclosures is exposure at default rather than the balance sheet or drawn balance plus mark-to-market, as used in the Group’s financial reporting. RBS Group Pillar 3 Disclosure 2011 4 Background The Basel II framework was implemented in the European Banks are required to disclose all their material risks as part Union (EU) through the CRD. of the Pillar 3 framework. Some of these requirements have already been satisfied within the Group’s 2011 Annual Report The framework is based on three Pillars: and Accounts, available on the Group's website. The 2011 Annual Report and Accounts include a range of risk factors • Pillar
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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Risk-Based Capital Rules
    Financial Institution Letter FIL-69-2008 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation July 29, 2008 550 17th Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20429-9990 RISK-BASED CAPITAL RULES Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Risk-Based Capital Standards: Standardized Framework Summary: The federal bank and thrift regulatory agencies have jointly issued the attached Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) and are seeking comment on the domestic application of the Basel II standardized framework for all domestic banks, bank holding companies, and savings associations that are not subject to the Basel II advanced approaches rule. The FDIC will accept comments on the NPR through October 27, 2008. Distribution: FDIC-Supervised Banks (Commercial and Savings) Highlights: Suggested Routing: Chief Executive Officer In the attached NPR, the agencies propose to Chief Financial Officer implement a new optional framework for calculating Chief Accounting Officer risk-based capital based on the Basel II Standardized Related Topics: Approach to credit risk and the Basel II Basic Risk-Based Capital Rules Indicator Approach to operational risk. The proposal 12 CFR Part 325 would: Basel II Attachment: • Expand the use of credit ratings for • “Key Aspects of the Proposed Rule on Risk- determining risk weights, Based Capital Guidelines: Capital Adequacy Guidelines; Standardized Framework” • Base risk weights for residential mortgages • Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Risk-Based on loan-to-value ratios, Capital Guidelines; Capital Adequacy Guidelines; Standardized Framework • Expand the types of financial collateral and guarantees available to banks to offset credit Contact: risk, Nancy Hunt, Senior Policy Analyst, at [email protected] or (202) 898-6643 • Offer more risk-sensitive approaches for Ryan D.
    [Show full text]
  • What Do One Million Credit Line Observations Tell Us About Exposure at Default? a Study of Credit Line Usage by Spanish Firms
    What Do One Million Credit Line Observations Tell Us about Exposure at Default? A Study of Credit Line Usage by Spanish Firms Gabriel Jiménez Banco de España [email protected] Jose A. Lopez Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco [email protected] Jesús Saurina Banco de España [email protected] DRAFT…….Please do not cite without authors’ permission Draft date: June 16, 2006 ABSTRACT Bank credit lines are a major source of funding and liquidity for firms and a key source of credit risk for the underwriting banks. In fact, credit line usage is addressed directly in the current Basel II capital framework through the exposure at default (EAD) calculation, one of the three key components of regulatory capital calculations. Using a large database of Spanish credit lines across banks and years, we model the determinants of credit line usage by firms. We find that the risk profile of the borrowing firm, the risk profile of the lender, and the business cycle have a significant impact on credit line use. During recessions, credit line usage increases, particularly among the more fragile borrowers. More importantly, we provide robust evidence of more intensive use of credit lines by borrowers that later default on those lines. Our data set allows us to enter the policy debate on the EAD components of the Basel II capital requirements through the calculation of credit conversion factors (CCF) and loan equivalent exposures (LEQ). We find that EAD exhibits procyclical characteristics and is affected by credit line characteristics, such as commitment size, maturity, and collateral requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Risk Section 2070.1
    Legal Risk Section 2070.1 An institution’s trading and capital-markets will prove unenforceable. Many trading activi- activities can lead to significant legal risks. ties, such as securities trading, commonly take Failure to correctly document transactions can place without a signed agreement, as each indi- result in legal disputes with counterparties over vidual transaction generally settles within a very the terms of the agreement. Even if adequately short time after the trade. The trade confirma- documented, agreements may prove to be unen- tions generally provide sufficient documentation forceable if the counterparty does not have the for these transactions, which settle in accor- authority to enter into the transaction or if the dance with market conventions. Other trading terms of the agreement are not in accordance activities involving longer-term, more complex with applicable law. Alternatively, the agree- transactions may necessitate more comprehen- ment may be challenged on the grounds that the sive and detailed documentation. Such documen- transaction is not suitable for the counterparty, tation ensures that the institution and its coun- given its level of financial sophistication, finan- terparty agree on the terms applicable to the cial condition, or investment objectives, or on transaction. In addition, documentation satisfies the grounds that the risks of the transaction were other legal requirements, such as the ‘‘statutes of not accurately and completely disclosed to the frauds’’ that may apply in many jurisdictions. investor. Statutes of frauds generally require signed, writ- As part of sound risk management, institu- ten agreements for certain classes of contracts, tions should take steps to guard themselves such as agreements with a duration of more than against legal risk.
    [Show full text]
  • Internal Rating Based Approach- Regulatory Expectations
    1 Internal Rating Based Approach- Regulatory Expectations Ajay Kumar Choudhary General Manager Department of Banking Operation and Development Reserve Bank of India What was Basel 2 designed to achieve? • Risk sensitive minimum bank capital requirements • A framework for formal dialogue with your regulator • Disclosures to enhance market discipline 3 Basel II • Implemented in two stages. • Foreign banks operating in India and the Indian banks having operational presence outside India migrated to Basel II from March 31, 2008. • All other scheduled commercial banks migrated to these approaches from March 31, 2009. • Followed Standardized Approach for Credit Risk and Basic Indicator Approach for Operational Risk. • As regards market risk, banks continued to follow SMM, adopted under Basel I framework, under Basel II also. • All the scheduled commercial banks in India have been Basel II compliant as per the standardised approach with effect from April 1, 2009. 4 Journey towards Basel II Advanced Approaches • In July 2009, the time table for the phased adoption of advanced approaches had also been put in public domain. • Banks desirous of moving to advanced approaches under Basel II have been advised that they can apply for migrating to advanced approaches of Basel II for capital calculation on a voluntary basis based on their preparedness and subject to RBI approval. • The appropriate guidelines for advanced approaches of market risk (IMA), operational risk (AMA) and credit risk (IRB) were issued in April 2010, April 2011 and December 2011 respectively. 5 Status of Indian banks towards implementation of Basel II advanced approaches • Credit Risk • Initially 14 banks had applied to RBI for adoption of Internal Rating Based (IRB) Approaches of credit risk capital calculation under Basel II framework.
    [Show full text]
  • Management of Legal Risk by Financial Institutions
    RSM Draft Discussion Paper THE MANAGEMENT OF LEGAL RISK BY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS Introduction “Banks that have already started risk management programs view Basel II as a change agent. They use the new accord to focus bankwide attention on efforts to achieve risk-management leadership. Basel II is also good news for banks whose risk-management efforts, begun with the best of intentions, have languished through inattention. CEOs should recognize that moving so many parts of a bank – most business units as well as the treasury and other corporate-center functions-to best practice involves a huge effort. We know from long experience that it will fail if top management doesn’t take the lead and ensure that benefits from a well-developed business case are captured.” McKinsey “Ultimately, the key question is not whether the operational risk charge is calibrated at this or that percentage, nor even whether it is dealt with in Pillar 1 or Pillar 2, but rather whether banks see the management of operational risk as an additional regulatory intrusion or as an opportunity to assess and price their business in a new, more coherent fashion. We must hope it is the latter.” Ralph Nash (member of BCBS Secretariat) As is now well known, the new proposals for the regulation of banks put forward by the Basle Committee on Banking Supervision (“BCBS”) known generally as “Basle II”, place much greater emphasis on operational risk as an issue for banks in the context of regulation than any previous regulatory regime. This has been stimulated by a number of things, including the alarming number of major frauds which have been suffered by banks in recent years, giving rise to very significant losses and in at least one case, the financial ruin of the institution itself.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Risk: the Operational Risk Problem in Microcosm
    Legal Risk: The Operational Risk Problem in Microcosm • The Nature of Legal Risk • The Insurability of Legal Risk • The Securitization of Legal Risk The Nature of Legal Risk • Difficult to define: losses that depend on how the law allocates risk between financial institutions and other transactors or the government • Difficult to predict but determines whether bank actually bears the losses of an operational failure • Wide ranges of frequency and impact for different kinds of legal risk A Sampling of Court Cases • Sample of decided cases in federal district courts and three state appellate courts, October 1, 2000 - October 1, 2001 • Not a reliable sample: only includes litigated cases that were not settled, and only deals with a short period of time • Purpose: show the variety of different cases in federal court and the difference in legal environment among states Federal District Court Cases October 1, 2000 - October 1, 2001 Type of Case Number Banks as Trustee 4 Antitrust 2 Checks 9 Consumer Protection 54 --Truth in Lending 21 --Fair Debt Collection 9 Contracts 31 Discrimination 24 --Customer 6 --Employees 18 Fraud 15 Holocaust Compensation 1 Indian Land Claims 2 Mortgage or Foreclosure Dispute 8 Patent Infringement 2 RICO 10 Securities Fraud 17 --Fraud 8 --Disclosure 9 Third Party 32 --Deposit Holder or Trustee 18 --Finance Provider or Debt Holder 4 --Mortgage or Lien Holder 10 Torts 4 Trademark 2 Other 7 TOTAL 224 State Court Appellate Cases October 1, 2000 - October 1, 2001 Type of Case California New York Texas Banks as Trustee
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Q1 Results
    Glossary of terms ‘A-IRB’ / ‘Advanced-Internal Ratings Based’ See ‘Internal Ratings Based (IRB)’. ‘ABS CDO Super Senior’ Super senior tranches of debt linked to collateralised debt obligations of asset backed securities (defined below). Payment of super senior tranches takes priority over other obligations. ‘Acceptances and endorsements’ An acceptance is an undertaking by a bank to pay a bill of exchange drawn on a customer. The Barclays Group expects most acceptances to be presented, but reimbursement by the customer is normally immediate. Endorsements are residual liabilities of the Barclays Group in respect of bills of exchange which have been paid and subsequently rediscounted. ‘Additional Tier 1 (AT1) capital’ AT1 capital largely comprises eligible non-common equity capital securities and any related share premium. ‘Additional Tier 1 (AT1) securities’ Non-common equity securities that are eligible as AT1 capital. ‘Advanced Measurement Approach (AMA)’ Under the AMA, banks are allowed to develop their own empirical model to quantify required capital for operational risk. Banks can only use this approach subject to approval from their local regulators. ‘Agencies’ Bonds issued by state and / or government agencies or government-sponsored entities. ‘Agency Mortgage-Backed Securities’ Mortgage-Backed Securities issued by government-sponsored entities. ‘All price risk (APR)’ An estimate of all the material market risks, including rating migration and default for the correlation trading portfolio. ‘American Depository Receipts (ADR)’ A negotiable certificate that represents the ownership of shares in a non-US company (for example Barclays) trading in US financial markets. ‘Americas’ Geographic segment comprising the USA, Canada and countries where Barclays operates within Latin America.
    [Show full text]
  • Practical Application Examples from the IAA Banking Webinar
    INTERNATIONAL ACTUARIAL ASSOCIATION Practical Application Examples for the Banking Webinar 29 March 2017 16:00 SAST, 15:00 BST 1. Practical Application: Expected Credit Loss Modelling where actuarial and statistical principles are heavily applied. Expected Loss = PD x LGD x EAD Estimating Probability of Default (“PD”) • One common methodology for estimating the PD is to develop a rating scorecard, which aims to assign scores to borrowers based on a list of factors. These scorecards can be “application” or “behavioural” in nature, and hence the factors captured will reflect different characteristics. Application scorecards are used at the point of origination, and therefore look to capture the default risk on new loans, while behavioural scorecards look to capture risks on loans that have been on the book for at least 6 months. • Scorecard models are usually based on regression equations with a logit link, so as to restrict the PD between 0 and 1. Alternatively, a linear or non-linear equation can be used to derive the score, which is then mapped to the Bank’s estimate of PD using a matrix. For example, a score of 700 may refer to a PD of 2%. • Another common methodology is to use a roll-rate or transition matrix approach. Under this approach, the Bank will measure the migrations (between credit ratings, or delinquency indicators) over a fixed observation window. The same group of loans is therefore monitored from the start of the period to the end to obtain the proportions moving from one state to the next. The Bank is then able to estimate the likelihood of a loan in any state moving to another state, in this case default.
    [Show full text]
  • The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act July 2010 the DODD-FRANK WALL STREET REFORM and CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
    Understanding the New Financial Reform Legislation: The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act July 2010 THE DODD-FRANK WALL STREET REFORM AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT For more information about the matters raised in this Legal Update, please contact your regular Mayer Brown contact or one of the following: Scott A. Anenberg Charles M. Horn +1 202 263 3303 +1 202 263 3219 [email protected] [email protected] Michael R. Butowsky Jerome J. Roche +1 212 506 2512 +1 202 263 3773 [email protected] [email protected] Joshua Cohn David R. Sahr +1 212 506 2539 +1 212 506 2540 [email protected] [email protected] Thomas J. Delaney Jeffrey P. Taft +1 202 263 3216 +1 202 263 3293 [email protected] [email protected] Table of Contents Index of Acronyms / Abbreviations .................................................................................................xv The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act ................................................ 1 A. Summary ................................................................................................................... 1 B. A Very Brief History of the Legislation ...................................................................... 1 C. Overview of the Legislation ...................................................................................... 2 1. Framework for Financial Stability ................................................................. 2 2. Orderly Liquidation Regimen .......................................................................
    [Show full text]