Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 1997 / Proposed Rules 68011

Between zone cal- Between Line No. Between zone Long positions Short positions culation zone charge

2 ...... Carry Forward From Zone 2 ...... 141,250 .

3 ...... Total Zone Positions ...... 144,150 $0×50%= ...... $0 4 ...... Less Offsetting Zone Positions ...... 0 ...... 5 ...... Between Zone 2 Carry Forward Amount ...... 141,250

6 ...... Zone 1 Residual Amount ...... 2,900 ...... Note: The Zone 1 Carry Forward Amount becomes a Between Zone Carry Forward Amount because it does not offset with Zone 2 as they are both short positions. The Between Zone 1 Carry Forward Amount is not offset against Zone 3 because the Zone 3 Carry Forward Amount is eliminated through its offset with Zone 2 as calculated below. Consequently, the Between Zone 1 Carry Forward Amount becomes a Residual Charge. 7 ...... Between Zone 2 Carry Forward Amount ...... 141,250 ...... 8 ...... Carry Forward From Zone 3 ...... $122,500 ......

9 ...... Total Zone Positions ...... 122,500 141,250 $122,500×60%= ...... 73,500 10 ...... Less Offsetting Zone Positions ...... 122,500

11 ...... Between Zone 2 Carry Forward Amount ...... 18,750 ...... 12 ...... Between Zone 2 Carry Forward ...... 18,750 ...... 13 ...... Between Zone 4 Carry Forward ...... 30,000 ...... 14 ...... Total Between Zone Positions ...... 30,000 18,750 18,750×90%= ...... 16,875 15 ...... Less Offsetting ...... 18,750 ...... 16 ...... Zone 4 Residual Amount ...... 11,250 ......

Note: The Zone 4 Carry Forward Amount became a Between Zone Carry Forward Amount when the Zone 3 Carry Forward Amount was eliminated. The Between Zone 4 Carry Forward Amount is partially offset by the Between Zone 2 Carry Forward Amount. Because there are no other Between Zone Carry Forward Amounts to offset against the Between Zone 4 Carry Forward Amount, it becomes a Residual Charge. Total Be- ...... 90,375 tween Zone Charge.

Risk charge Applicable rule section

Total Haircut

Specific Market Charge ...... 15c3±1(c)(2)(vi)(A)(2) ...... $89,500 Sub-Zone Charge ...... 15c3±1(c)(2)(vi)(A)(3)(ii) ...... 21,195 Zone Charge ...... 15c3±1(c)(2)(vi)(A)(3)(iii) ...... 12,750 Between Zone Charge ...... 15c3±1(c)(2)(vi)(A)(3)(iv) ...... 90,375 Zone 1 Residual Charge ...... 15c3±1(c)(2)(vi)(A)(3)(v) ...... 2,900 Zone 4 Residual Charge ...... 15c3±1(c)(2)(vi)(A)(3)(v) ...... 11,250

Total Haircut ...... 227,970

Total Value of Portfolio ...... 54,200,000

[FR Doc. 97–33401 Filed 12–29–97; 8:45 am] SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange data, views, and opinions to Jonathan G. BILLING CODE 8010±01±P Commission is continuing its study of Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange its approach to determining net capital Commission, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., requirements for broker-dealers. As part Washington, D.C. 20549. Comments also SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE of its study, the Commission is may be submitted electronically at the COMMISSION considering the extent to which following E-mail address: rule- statistical models should be used in [email protected]. Comment letters 17 CFR Part 240 setting the capital requirements for a should refer to File No. S7–32–97; this broker-dealer’s proprietary positions. [Release No. 34±39456; File No. S7±32±97] file number should be included on the Accordingly, the Commission is posing subject line if E-mail is used. All RIN 3235±AH29 a number of questions on this subject as submissions will be available for public well as soliciting views on other inspection and copying at the Net Capital Rule possible alternatives for establishing net Commission’s Public Reference Room, capital requirements. AGENCY: Securities and Exchange 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. DATES: Comments must be received on Commission. 20549. Electronically submitted or before March 30, 1998. comment letters will be posted on the ACTION: Concept release; request for ADDRESSES: Interested persons should Commission’s Internet web site (http:// comments. submit three copies of their written www.sec.gov). 68012 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 1997 / Proposed Rules

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: value of the broker-dealer’s positions Reserve System, the Office of the Michael A. Macchiaroli, Associate decline. Comptroller of the Currency, and the Director, at 202/942–0132; Peter R. The Rule requires a broker-dealer to Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Geraghty, Assistant Director, at 202/ compute its haircuts by multiplying the (collectively, the ‘‘U.S. Banking 942–0177; Thomas K. McGowan, market value of its securities positions Agencies’’). Special Counsel, at 202/942–4886; Marc by prescribed percentages. For example, 1. 1993 Concept Release J. Hertzberg, Attorney, at 202/942–0146; a broker-dealer’s haircut for equity or Gary Gregson, Statistician, at 202/ securities is equal to 15 percent of the In May 1993, the Commission began 942–4156, Division of Market market value of the greater of the long a comprehensive review of the Rule by Regulation, Securities and Exchange or short equity position plus 15 percent issuing a concept release soliciting Commission, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., of the market value of the lesser comment on alternative methods for Mail Stop 2–2, Washington, D.C. 20549. position, but only to the extent this computing haircuts on derivative position exceeds 25 percent of the financial instruments (‘‘Concept SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: greater position. 1 In contrast to the Release’’). 2 Although the Concept I. Introduction uniform haircut for equity securities, the Release’s focus was on derivative haircuts for several types of interest rate instruments, the Commission intended As part of a comprehensive review of sensitive securities, such as government to commence a dialogue with the the net capital rule, Rule 15c3–1 (17 securities, are directly related to the securities industry regarding how the CFR 240.15c3–1) (the ‘‘net capital rule’’ time remaining until the particular Rule could better reflect the market and or the ‘‘Rule’’), the Securities and security matures. The Rule uses a credit risks inherent in a broker-dealer’s Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’) sliding scale of haircut percentages with proprietary securities portfolio. At that is publishing this release to solicit these securities because changes in time, the Commission envisioned a comment on how the net capital rule interest rates will usually have a greater multi-step revision of the net capital could be modified to incorporate impact on the price of securities with rule that would substantially change modern risk management techniques as longer remaining maturities compared how broker-dealers calculate the market to a broker-dealer’s proprietary to those securities with shorter and credit risk haircuts arising from positions and to reflect the continuing remaining maturities. For example, their proprietary positions. evolution of the securities markets. there is no haircut on government More specifically, the Commission seeks securities with less than three months 2. Derivatives Policy Group comment on how the existing haircut remaining maturity, but there is a six The Derivatives Policy Group structure could be modified and percent haircut on government (‘‘DPG’’), consisting of the six U.S. whether the net capital rule should be securities with 25 years or more firms 3 most active in the over-the- amended to allow firms to use statistical remaining maturity. counter (‘‘OTC’’) derivatives market, models to calculate net capital The Commission believes the Rule was formed at the Commission’s request requirements. has worked well over the years. The to address the public policy issues A. The Current Net Capital Rule Commission and the self-regulatory arising from the activities of organizations (‘‘SROs’’) have generally unregistered affiliates of registered The Commission adopted the net been able to identify at early stages broker-dealers and registered futures capital rule in substantially its current broker-dealers that are experiencing commission merchants. In March 1995, form in 1975. The Rule requires every financial problems and to supervise self- after discussions with the Commission, broker-dealer to maintain specified liquidations of failing securities firms. the DPG published its Framework for minimum levels of liquid assets, or net This early regulatory intervention has Voluntary Oversight (‘‘Framework’’) capital. The Rule requires broker-dealers helped to avoid customer losses and the under which the members of the DPG to maintain sufficient liquid assets in need for formal proceedings under the agreed to report voluntarily to the order to enable those firms that fall Securities Investor Protection Act of Commission on their activities in the below the minimum net capital 1970. OTC derivatives market. 4 The requirements to liquidate in an orderly B. Prior Relevant Actions Framework provides for the use of fashion. The Rule is designed to protect proprietary statistical models to the customers of a broker-dealer from Since 1993, the Commission has measure capital at risk due to the firms’ losses upon the broker-dealer’s failure. undertaken a number of initiatives to OTC derivatives activities; however, the The Rule requires different minimum better understand how securities firms Framework was not intended to be used levels of capital based upon the nature manage market and credit risk and to as a method for calculating minimum of the firm’s business and whether a evaluate whether the firms’ risk capital standards for the DPG firms. broker-dealer handles customer funds or management techniques could be For purposes of using models to securities. incorporated into the net capital rule. measure capital at risk, the DPG defines This section reviews four of the In calculating the capital requirement, risk of loss, or ‘‘capital at risk,’’ to be Commission’s initiatives as well as ‘‘the maximum loss expected to be the Rule requires a broker-dealer to recent rules addressing capital deduct from its net worth certain exceeded with a probability of one requirements for banks adopted by the percent over a two-week holding percentages, known as haircuts, of the Board of Governors of the Federal value of the securities and commodities 2 Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 32256 (May 4, positions in the firm’s portfolio. The 1 For example, in the case where a firm has a long 1993), 58 FR 27486 (May 10, 1993). applicable percentage haircut is position of $100,000 in equity securities and a short 3 The six firms in the DPG are CS First Boston, designed to provide protection from the position of $50,000 in equity securities, that firm’s , , Lynch, market risk, credit risk, and other risks haircut for equity securities would be: Salomon Brothers, and . inherent in particular positions. 1. Long Position: $100,000 x 15% = $15,000 4 Framework For Voluntary Oversight, A 2. Short Position: $50,000—$25,000 (25% of long Framework For Voluntary Oversight Of The OTC Discounting the value of a broker- position) x 15% = $3,750 Derivatives Activities Of Securities Firm Affiliates dealer’s proprietary positions provides a 3. Total haircut for equity securities: $15,000 + To Promote Confidence And Stability In Financial capital cushion in case the portfolio $3,750 = $18,750. Markets, Derivatives Policy Group (March 1995). Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 1997 / Proposed Rules 68013 period.’’ 5 The Framework covers several procedures of the technical and hedge these options.7 The amendment products, including: interest rate, performance characteristics of the permits broker-dealers to use a model currency, equity, and commodity swaps; models. Under the Framework, the firms (other than a proprietary model) OTC options (including caps, floors, and are responsible for making all maintained and operated by a third- collars); and currency forwards (i.e., computations necessary for purposes of party source (‘‘Third-Party Source’’) and currency transactions of more than a assessing risk in relation to capital on a approved by a designated examining two-day duration, except that firms may regular basis and to provide such authority (‘‘DEA’’).8 The Third-Party elect to include only currency computations on a current basis upon Source is required to collect certain transactions of 14 days or more of request. Under the Framework, the information on a daily basis concerning duration). The Framework provides that inventory pricing and modelling different options series.9 Using this each firm’s model must capture all procedures of firms are to be reviewed information, the Third-Party Source material sources of market risk that at least annually by independent measures the implied volatility for each might impact the value of the firm’s auditors or consultants. The option series and inputs to the model positions, including nine specific independent auditors or consultants the resulting implied volatility for each material sources of risk, or core risk provide reports summarizing the results option series. For each option series, the factors, based on interest rate shocks, of their reviews, and the firms provide model calculates theoretical prices at 10 changes in equity values, and changes the audit reports to the Commission. equidistant valuation points using in exchange rates.6 specified increases and decreases in the Each DPG firm agreed to calculate Under the Framework, the DPG firms underlying instrument. capital at risk under two scenarios. have enhanced reporting requirements After the model calculates the Under the first scenario, each firm regarding their exposure to credit risk. theoretical gain or loss valuations, the would independently determine the size The information reported to the Third-Party Source provides the of the shocks used to calculate its Commission falls primarily into two valuations to broker-dealers. Broker- capital at risk. Under the second principal categories: credit dealers download this information into scenario, each firm would calculate its concentration and portfolio credit a spreadsheet from which the broker- capital at risk due to certain quality. Credit concentration in the dealer calculates the profit or loss for Commission specified, hypothetical portfolio is reported by separately each of its proprietary and market- large shocks to the core risk factors. The identifying the top 20 net exposures on maker options positions. The greatest purposes of preparing a second set of a counterparty-by-counterparty basis. loss at any one valuation point is the capital at risk data are to assist the The credit quality of the portfolio is haircut. This amendment to the Rule Commission in comparing volatility reported by aggregating for each was a milestone because it was the first among the firms’ portfolios and to counterparty the gross and net time the Commission allowed modelling evaluate the usefulness of the firms’ replacement value and net exposure of techniques for regulatory capital models in measuring market risk during the firm. Credit information also is purposes. times of unusual market stress. categorized by credit rating, industry, The Framework does not specify and geographic location. 4. OTC Derivatives Dealers minimum correlations between The Framework established risk Simultaneously with this release, the securities that are to be used in the management guidelines that provide a Commission is proposing a new limited models. The Framework states that there comprehensive framework for the DPG regulatory regime for OTC derivatives 10 are many generally accepted methods firms to implement their business dealers. Under this regime, OTC for estimating historical or market- judgments as to the appropriate scope derivatives dealers could register with implied volatilities and correlations and level of their OTC derivatives the Commission and be subject to and, instead of utilizing predetermined activities. The Framework provides that specialized net capital requirements. correlation factors, the Framework each firm’s board of directors should The Commission is considering provides that hedging would be adopt written guidelines addressing the requiring OTC derivatives dealers permitted where contracts and scope of permitted activities, the registered under this framework to instruments within the category exhibit acceptable levels of credit and market maintain tentative net capital of not less an ‘‘appropriately high degree of risk, and the structure and than $100 million and net capital of not positive price correlation.’’ Thus, the independence of the risk monitoring less than $20 million. As part of this degree to which firms would recognize and risk management processes and proposal, the Commission is positions as hedges was left to the related organizational checks and contemplating giving OTC derivatives individual discretion of each firm. The balances from the firm’s trading dealers the option of taking either the existing securities haircuts or haircuts Framework notes, however, that operations. Senior management should based on statistical models. OTC estimates of volatility and correlation also implement independent risk derivatives dealers electing to use may not be accurate during times of measuring and risk monitoring market stress. processes to manage risk within the 7 Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 38248 The Framework also sets forth guidelines established by the board of common audit and verification (February 6, 1997), 62 FR 6474 (February 12, 1997). directors. 8 Currently, the model maintained and operated by The Options Clearing Corporation (‘‘OCC’’) is the 5 Id. at 28. 3. Theoretical Options Pricing Models only approved model. OCC’s model has been 6 Specifically, the core risk factors include: (1) temporarily approved until September 1, 1999. Parallel yield curve shifts, (2) changes in steepness In February 1997, the Commission 9 Under the rule amendment, the Third-Party of yield curves, (3) parallel yield curve shifts completed an important step in its Source will collect the following information: (1) combined with changes in steepness of yield the dividend streams for the underlying securities, curves, (4) changes in yield volatilities, (5) changes review of the net capital rule by (2) interest rates (either the current call rate or the in the value of equity indices, (6) changes in equity amending the Rule to allow broker- Eurodollar rate for the maturity date which index volatilities, (7) changes in the value of key dealers to use theoretical option pricing approximates the expiration date of the option), (3) currencies (relative to the U.S. dollar), (8) changes models to determine capital charges for days to expiration, and (4) closing underlying in foreign exchange rate volatilities, and (9) changes listed equity, index, and currency security and option prices from various vendors. in swap spreads in at least the G–7 countries plus 10 Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 39454 Switzerland. options, and related positions that (December 17, 1997). 68014 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 1997 / Proposed Rules models would have to calculate II. Alternatives to the Current Financial To eliminate weaknesses in the potential losses and specific capital Responsibility Regime current haircut structure, the charges for both market and credit risk. Commission could modernize the Rule These OTC derivatives dealers also The Commission is soliciting by maintaining the current methodology would have to maintain models that comment on possible alternative but changing the haircut percentages methods for calculating credit and meet certain minimum qualitative and and recognizing additional offsetting market risk capital requirements for quantitative requirements that are positions. For example, the proposing broker-dealers. This release will help substantially similar to the requirements release issued simultaneously with this the Commission evaluate different ways set forth in the U.S. Banking Agencies’ concept release proposes amendments the net capital rule could be modified to rules. to the Rule that would treat haircuts on accommodate changes in the securities certain interest rate products as being 5. U.S. Banking Agencies business since the current uniform net part of a single portfolio, similar to the capital rule was adopted in 1975, with standard approach in the Basle In August 1996, the U.S. Banking a particular emphasis on incorporating Committee’s Capital Accord.13 As Agencies adopted rules incorporating modern risk management techniques. In proposed, the net capital rule would into their bank capital requirements this regard, the Commission believes it recognize hedges among government risk-based capital standards for market can modernize the Rule by either securities, investment grade risk that cover debt and equity positions amending the current haircut nonconvertible debt securities (or in the trading accounts of certain banks percentages or by allowing certain corporate debt securities), pass-through and bank holding companies and broker-dealers to use a model-based mortgage backed securities, repurchase foreign exchange and commodity system to calculate appropriate capital and reverse repurchase agreements, positions wherever held by the charges for market risk. This section money market instruments, and futures institutions. The U.S. Banking Agencies’ discusses each of the alternative and forward contracts on these debt rules were designed to implement the structures and lists relevant questions. instruments. As a next step, the Basle Committee on Banking A. Modify Current Haircut Approach Commission could revise the current Supervision’s (‘‘Basle Committee’’) 11 haircut percentages and develop agreement on a model based approach As discussed above, the Rule requires methodology to account for more to cover market risk. These rules apply a broker-dealer to deduct from its net correlations and hedges among other to any bank or bank holding company worth certain fixed percentages, or types of securities. whose trading activity equals ten haircuts, of the value of its securities The Commission solicits comment on percent or more of its total assets, or positions. The present prescriptive the following topics. It is not necessary, whose trading activity equals $1 billion haircut methodology has several however, that comments be limited to or more. The U.S. Banking Agencies’ advantages. It requires an amount of the specific issues raised in this release. final rules became effective January 1, capital which will be sufficient as a Commenters are encouraged to submit 1997 and compliance will be mandatory provision against losses, even for statements with respect to any aspect of by January 1, 1998. Institutions that do unusual events. It is an objective, the current net capital rule that may be not meet these minimum securities although conservative, measurement of useful to the Commission. trading thresholds will not be subject to risk in positions that can act as a tool Question 1: Should the Commission retain market risk capital requirements. to compare firms against one another. the current haircut approach but revise the Moreover, the current methodology current percentages? If so, which haircut The U.S. Banking Agencies’ rule enables examiners to determine readily percentages should be modified? How should amendments require affected banks or whether a firm is properly calculating these percentages be modified? What should bank holding companies to adjust their haircuts. The examiner can review be the objective basis for modified haircut risk-based capital ratio to reflect market either the entire net capital calculation percentages? Please provide relevant data to risk by taking into account the general or just material portions of the firm’s support your response. market risk and specific risk of debt and proprietary positions. Question 2: Do the current haircut percentages adequately account for the equity positions in their trading However, there are some weaknesses 12 market risk, credit risk, and other risks accounts. These institutions also must associated with determining capital inherent in a particular position? take into account the general market risk charges based on fixed percentage Question 3: Do the current haircut associated with their foreign exchange haircuts. For example, the current percentages enable firms to reserve sufficient and commodity positions, wherever method of calculating net capital by capital for times of market stress, including located. The capital charge for market deducting fixed percentages from the one day movements and movements over a period of time? Please provide relevant data risk must be calculated by using the market value of securities can allow institution’s own internal model. to support your response. only limited types of hedges without Question 4: How can haircut percentages becoming unreasonably complicated. be further adjusted to account for correlations 11 The Governors of the G–10 countries Accordingly, the net capital rule between and within asset classes? Please established the Basle Committee on Banking recognizes only certain specified provide relevant data to support your Supervision in 1974 to provide a forum for ongoing response. cooperation among member countries on banking hedging activities, and the Rule does not supervisory matters. account for historical correlations Question 5: How can the current haircut 12 The Banking Agencies defined general market between foreign securities and U.S. approach be modified to improve the risk as changes in the market value of on-balance securities or between equity securities treatment for specific types of securities, including foreign securities, collateralized sheet assets and liabilities and off-balance sheet and debt securities. By failing to items resulting from broad market movements, such mortgage obligations (‘‘CMOs’’), and over- as changes in the general level of interest rates, recognize offsets from these correlations the-counter options on interest-rate equity prices, foreign exchange rates, and between and within asset classes, the securities? Please provide relevant data to commodity prices. Specific risk is defined by the fixed percentage haircut method may support your response. Banking Agencies as changes in the market value of individual positions due to factors other than cause firms with large, diverse broad market movements and includes such risks portfolios to reserve capital that actually 13 Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 39455 as the credit risk of an issuer. overcompensates for market risk. (December 17, 1997). Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 1997 / Proposed Rules 68015

Question 6: Should the Commission $150,000 during a ten-day period only percentile. In addition, the most include security-specific models, other than once every 100 ten-day periods. common VAR approaches may pose a the option pricing models, in the Rule? If so, In practice, VAR models aggregate problem for those portfolios that utilize what forms should these models take and several components of price risk into a options or other products with non- what types of minimum requirements should single quantitative measure of the 15 apply to the use of such models? linear payoffs. Question 7: If the Commission includes potential for loss. In addition, VAR is The purpose of the Commission’s net other security-specific models in the Rule, based on a number of underlying capital rule is to protect markets from what types of securities should be covered by mathematical assumptions and firm broker-dealer failures and to enable such models (i.e., CMOs, over-the-counter specific inputs. For example, VAR those firms that fall below the minimum options, or treasury securities)? models typically assume normality and net capital requirements to liquidate in that future return distributions and B. Model Based Approach an orderly fashion without the need for correlations can be predicted by past a formal proceeding or financial 14 1. Generally returns. assistance from the Securities Investor Given the increased use and Protection Corporation. The A number of broker-dealers, primarily acceptance of VAR as a risk Commission believes that market risk those with large proprietary securities management tool, the Commission charges must adequately protect a portfolios, have indicated to the believes that it warrants consideration broker-dealer during severe market Commission that they may be willing to as a method of computing net capital stress, whether that stress occurs on incur the expenses associated with requirements for broker-dealers. only one day or over a period of several developing and using statistical models However, while VAR can be used to days, such as the drop in equity prices to calculate haircuts on their securities manage market risk, broker-dealers that during the October 1987 market break or portfolios. Under a model based net rely solely on VAR for risk management the Mexican debt crisis in 1994. Because capital rule, in lieu of taking fixed may not have a comprehensive risk VAR models do not typically reserve percentage haircuts, a broker-dealer management program. VAR models, capital for severe market declines, it would use either an external or internal unlike haircuts, do not typically account may be necessary to impose additional model as the basis for a market risk for those risks other than market risk, safeguards to account for possible losses charge and take a separate charge, or such as credit risk, liquidity risk, and or decreases in liquidity during times of charges, for other types of risk, such as operational risk. Broker-dealers that stress. This may include the use of a credit risk and liquidity risk. utilize VAR models should therefore use additional techniques to manage those multiplier or the use of stress tests that The Commission could allow firms to firms could apply to their portfolios. A calculate market risk capital charges risks. Further, while VAR may be useful in multiplier could be used to account for according to external models for specific the other risks in a firm’s portfolio that types of securities that are similar to the helping broker-dealers project possible daily trading losses under ‘‘normal’’ are not captured by VAR models, such options pricing models allowed under as operational, settlement, or legal risk. Appendix A to the Rule. The benefit of market conditions, VAR may not help firms measure the losses that fall On the other hand, stress testing could an external model is that all firms outside of normal conditions during provide a more complete picture of the would be utilizing the same model. times of market stress. For example, portfolio’s sensitivity to changing However, the Commission could have VAR models may not capture possible market conditions and a more accurate difficulty finding a third party steep market declines because these representation of capital needs than a (comparable to the Options Clearing models typically measure exposure at simple multiplier. Corporation for listed options) that the first percentile (or the fifth The primary advantage of would have access to all the data percentile) and steep market declines incorporating models into the net necessary to facilitate external security- are, by definition, below the first capital rule is that a firm would be able specific models for securities other than to recognize, to a greater extent, the options. 14 The Commission recognizes that there is a wide correlations and hedges in its securities With respect to internal models, the variety of secondary source information discussing portfolio and have a comparatively Commission would need to prescribe both the positive and negative aspects of VAR. See Philippe Jorion, Value at Risk: The New Benchmark smaller capital charge for market risk. certain minimum quantitative and for Controlling Market Risk (1996) (explaining how Accordingly, if the Rule is amended to qualitative standards that a firm’s model to use VAR to manage market risk); JP Morgan, permit models to be used to calculate would have to meet prior to that firm RiskMetrics—Technical Document (1994) market risk in lieu of taking the haircuts using its internal model for regulatory (providing a detailed description of RiskMetrics, which is JP Morgan’s proprietary statistical model currently imposed by the rule, the capital purposes. Currently, several for quantifying market risk in fixed income and Commission solicits comment on how large firms use value at risk (‘‘VAR’’) equity portfolios); Tanya Styblo Beder, VAR: the Rule may be modified to include models as part of their risk management Seductive but Dangerous, Financial Analysts separate capital requirements to cover Journal, September–October 1995, at 12 (giving an system. These firms typically utilize extensive analysis of the different results from sources of risk other than market risk. VAR modelling to analyze, control, and applying three common VAR methods to three Other issues associated with report the level of market risk from their model portfolios); Darrell Duffie and Jun Pan, An incorporating models into the Rule are trading activities. Generally, VAR is an Overview of Value at Risk, The Journal of the need for management controls Derivatives, Spring 1997, at 7 (giving a broad estimate of the maximum potential loss overview of VAR models); Darryll Hendricks, necessary to ensure that the firm is expected over a fixed time period at a Evaluation of Value-at-Risk Models Using Historical collecting accurate and comprehensive certain probability level. For example, a Data, Federal Reserve Bank of New York Economic information on its proprietary positions firm may use a VAR model with a ten- Policy Review, April 1996, at 39 (examining twelve approaches to value-at-risk modelling on portfolios day holding period and a 99 percentile that do not include options or other securities with 15 See Autoro Estrella et al., Options Positions: criteria to calculate that its $100 million non-linear pricing); and Robert Litterman, Hot Risk Measurement and Capital Requirements, portfolio has a potential loss of Spots and Hedges, Goldman Sachs Risk Federal Reserve Bank of New York Research Paper $150,000. In other words, the firm’s Management Series (1996) (giving a detailed number 9415, September 1994 (evaluating different analysis on portfolio risk management, including methods of measuring the market risk of options VAR model has forecasted that with this how to identify the primary sources of risk and how and analyzing the capital treatment of the market portfolio the firm may lose more than to reduce these risks). and credit risk of options). 68016 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 1997 / Proposed Rules and the effectiveness of those controls to same time possibly address the forecasts, and still ensure that firms monitor the risk assumed by the firm. weaknesses of each. The Base Approach reserve sufficient amounts of net capital. would include three primary 2. Two Tiered Approach 4. Comments on the Potential Use of components. First, broker-dealers could Models One way that the Commission could be required to maintain a certain incorporate models into the net capital minimum base level of net capital for The Commission solicits comment on rule would be to have different net each of their business activities, similar the following specific topics, including capital requirements based on certain to the minimum requirements under the the appropriateness of using proprietary standards (‘‘Two Tiered Approach’’). current rule. For example, higher capital models generally and the recent Under the Two Tiered Approach, levels could apply to broker-dealers that initiatives of both the DPG and the U.S. broker-dealers meeting certain hold customer funds and securities as Banking Agencies. minimum threshold levels would be opposed to those firms that only a. Models as a means to determine required to use models to determine introduce customer accounts to clearing broker-dealer regulatory capital. capital compliance. For example, firms. Second, broker-dealers could take Question 8: Should the Commission permit broker-dealers with net capital a fixed percentage haircut for each the use of models to calculate regulatory exceeding a certain amount and security in their portfolio. This haircut capital for registered broker-dealers? If yes, currently using models for in-house risk would be similar to the haircut please explain whether the Commission management purposes could use models requirements under the current net should allow firms to utilize internal models to determine their market risk capital capital rule; however, the size of the or whether the Commission should establish charge under prescribed circumstances. haircut would be lower due to the an external model approach similar to the Firms with less than the prescribed treatment of options under Appendix A to additional charge for market risk the Rule. level of net capital and those firms with obtained from the third component. net capital greater than the prescribed Question 9: If the Commission permits the The third component of the Base level but not using models for risk use of internal models, should the models Approach could consist of a capital conform to certain objective criteria, or management could be required to charge based on the firm’s model and should they be subjective? When could the continue to follow the current Rule’s include a pre-commitment feature that assumptions upon which models rest be haircut methodology. These haircut could require a broker-dealer to take challenged? Should internal or external percentages could either be the same as capital charges based on the realized auditors periodically review and approve the the current percentages or modified models and their applications? If so, how performance of its models (‘‘pre- versions. much should regulators rely on auditors’ A Two Tiered Approach potentially commitment feature’’). The pre- application of models? Could the self- has two primary benefits. First, the commitment feature could have two regulatory organizations adequately surveil Commission could structure a Two steps. First, at the start of a pre- and examine for net capital compliance Tiered Approach to limit the use of determined time period (i.e., one month utilizing models? Question 10: Should the Commission models to those firms that currently use or one quarter), a broker-dealer could be required to represent that its losses, as impose limits on the types of firms that can sophisticated models such as VAR, use models? Should there be certain thereby not requiring other firms to computed by its model, would be within certain parameters over the fixed additional minimum criteria a firm must incur the cost of implementing such satisfy in order to use a proprietary model? models. Second, the Commission could time period. Second, at the conclusion Should firms that meet the minimum criteria design a Two Tiered Approach that of each fixed time period, the firm’s for using models have the option of using an establishes appropriate limits on which minimum net capital level could alternate standard approach (i.e., not using firms can utilize models to determine increase by an amount equal to the models) to calculate regulatory capital? If so, capital compliance. difference between the actual portfolio what should that approach be? A potential weakness of a Two Tiered gains and losses and those projected Question 11: Is VAR an appropriate based on its model. These additional method of using models as the basis for Approach is that it could inhibit calculating capital requirements for broker- competition between large and small capital contributions would be required because differences between the actual dealers? The Commission understands there firms because models may give large are several approaches to calculating VAR firms more flexibility in determining results and those projected by the model that are currently used by firms (e.g., Monte their net capital requirements. However, could indicate that the firm’s models Carlo, variance/covariance, and historical this advantage could be small if smaller may not be accurately assessing the risk simulation approaches). Given the various firms did not have to incur the start-up of the firm’s portfolio. methods, the Commission seeks comment on and maintenance costs associated with By incorporating haircuts and models whether minimum criteria should be models and the risk management into the Base Approach, the inherent established for models used for regulatory capital purposes. If not, how can the infrastructure to support their use. strengths and weaknesses of each could potentially offset each other. Commission provide for the ability to Additionally, a Two Tiered Approach compare levels of risks among firms or could still allow firms with simple Additionally, the Base Approach may be understand the significance of levels of risk portfolios to easily calculate the a viable capital standard for firms with reported by firms when determining their net applicable haircuts on their portfolios. diverse portfolios and those that use capital requirements? more sophisticated methods of risk Question 12: The Commission believes that 3. Base Approach With Pre- management. The pre-commitment any approach that uses models for setting Commitment Feature feature would create additional regulatory capital requirements should result Another option for incorporating incentives for broker-dealers to manage in broadly consistent results for firms with models into the Rule could be to risk effectively. On the other hand, a similar portfolios. Can consistent results for combine the current haircut Base Approach may be too complicated similar portfolios be obtained without the Commission requiring firms to use a standard methodology using fixed percentage for firms to apply. In balance, however, model? How else can consistency of capital haircuts with a model-based approach the Base Approach could potentially standards among firms with similar (the ‘‘Base Approach’’). The Base provide firms with flexibility in portfolios be achieved? Approach could combine the strengths developing models and control systems, Question 13: Some firms use different of both haircuts and models and at the encourage the development of accurate types of statistical models to measure risk Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 1997 / Proposed Rules 68017 from different types of businesses, such as fluctuations if stress testing were required? regulators assure themselves that the fixed income securities and foreign equities. Should the Commission specify what stress proprietary models used by the firms are Should the Commission permit firms to use tests should be used by the firms? Please adequate for capital purposes? more than one model to calculate regulatory provide relevant data to support your Question 31: Should the Commission capital? If yes, would the inefficiencies in response. require that broker-dealers utilizing models each model get accentuated or mitigated Question 21: If stress testing were required, manage these models from a risk when the results of the different models are should a firm be required to use the same management division that is separate from aggregated? parameters when conducting stress testing on the firm’s business divisions? Question 14: Should the Commission allow each of its business units (i.e., apply the same Question 32: Should the Commission the use of models gradually (i.e., first allow levels and stress the same movements in the require that broker-dealers utilizing models models for debt securities, then allow models relevant securities, markets, and indexes)? use the same model for both computing net for equity securities and other securities)? Question 22: If stress testing were required, capital and internal risk management Question 15: What will be the costs of should a firm be required to test its models purposes? implementing models? How do the costs of based on a predetermined number of volatile Question 33: Currently, firms utilize a wide implementing models compare to the current days of market movements (i.e., models variety of risk management techniques. costs of computing net capital? At what level would have to be stress tested based on the Should the Commission mandate specific would it be economical for firms to try to use 100 most volatile days of market movements minimum risk management standards for models? How do the start-up costs of during the last ten years)? firms that wish to use models? implementing models compare to the Question 23: Should the results of stress Question 34: Should the Commission ongoing costs of managing models incurred testing impact the calculation of a firm’s require that firms using models manage risk by firms that currently use models? How capital requirements (i.e., through the use of on either a firm-wide, legal entity, or does the availability (or anticipated future some type of multiplication factor)? Please business basis? development) of software packages and provide relevant data to support your databases impact cost estimates? Will the response. d. Additional Risks. costs of implementing models be a barrier to Question 24: Does the use of a minimum Question 35: Usually, VAR models do not firms not currently using models? Please multiplier, as endorsed in the Basle Standard handle options products well because the provide relevant data to support your and by the U.S. Banking Agencies, returns on an options portfolio are not response. adequately address risks arising from severe typically normally distributed. How should Question 16: Will firms not currently using market movements? Please provide relevant the non-linear nature of options be models be at a competitive disadvantage to data to support your response. adequately addressed? For firms with those firms that currently use models? Please Question 25: Should back-testing (i.e., ex substantial options positions, is a standard provide relevant data to support your post comparisons between model results and approach (similar to the Commission’s response. actual performance) be required and, if so, to amendments to Appendix A of the net capital Question 17: If the Commission permits the what extent? Should back-testing results be rule) more appropriate? Is the approach set use of models, what additional reporting or used to determine a multiplier for minimum forth in the Commission’s recent recordkeeping requirements would the capital amounts? Could back-testing results amendments to Appendix A a viable Commission need to impose on broker- be used to raise minimum capital levels for alternative? dealers using models? Should firms using the firms? Question 36: Models typically measure models have to file additional reports with losses by assuming that assets can be sold at the Commission or their DEA? Should the c. Qualitative and Quantitative current market prices. However, if a firm has Commission amend its books and records Criteria for Models. a portfolio which includes illiquid assets, rules to require firms using models to Question 26: Will setting minimum highly customized structured products maintain certain books and records that they are currently not required to maintain? How qualitative and quantitative criteria prevent a (including, for example, some CMOs), or can the Commission ensure that it has access firm from adjusting its model to encompass aged items, the Commission is particularly to information regarding a firm’s models that changing market conditions, the firm’s concerned that models may underestimate is not maintained by the broker-dealer (i.e., structure, or the firm’s business lines? the true losses since these assets may have information maintained at an unregistered Question 27: Two important components to be sold at a discount. Given the entity)? What measure could the Commission of models are the length of time over which importance of liquidity risk, the Commission require to ensure broker-dealers would not be market risk is to be measured and the solicits specific comment with respect to able to modify the model (or data inputs) to confidence level at which market risk is how this risk should be addressed if models avoid falling out of net capital compliance? measured. The definition of ‘‘capital at risk’’ are permitted for regulatory purposes. Should the Commission require models to be as used in the DPG Framework is the Question 37: Is it possible to include a stored with third-parties subject to escrow maximum loss expected to be exceeded with credit risk analysis in a model based arrangements? a probability of one percent over a two-week methodology? Please provide relevant data to Question 18: If the Commission permits the period. Is this definition appropriate for support your response. use of models, should firms using models be regulatory capital purposes? Question 38: As mentioned above, models subject to modified forms of Commission and Question 28: What should be the minimum may not properly account for additional DEA inspections? Should the models criteria for models, including pricing risks, including credit risk, liquidity risk, themselves be subject to review and approval accuracy, correlations, netting factors, and operational risk, settlement risk, and legal by the Commission or DEA? observation periods? Please provide relevant risk. How should these additional risks be data to support your response. treated? Can the Rule be modified to include b. Abnormal Market Conditions. Question 29: Are the minimum standards separate capital requirements to cover these Question 19: Because the purpose of VAR for the use of models, the separate sources of risk? Please provide relevant data is to provide an estimate of losses over a calculation of capital at risk due to shocks to to support your response. short period under normal conditions, is it the core risk factors, and the audit Question 39: Is there an alternative to using possible for VAR models to ensure an requirements used in the DPG Framework a multiplier to account for operational risk, adequate capital cushion during unusual appropriate? Please provide relevant data to legal risk, and other risks that are difficult to market stress or structural shifts in the support your response. quantify? Is the use of insurance to cover economy given the nature, size, and liquidity Question 30: VAR models typically assume these risks a viable option? Please provide of a broker-dealer’s portfolio? Given the normality and that future return distributions relevant data to support your response. complexity of models, could an accurate and and correlations will behave similar to the Question 40: In order for a firm to calculate rapid assessment be made of a firm’s true way they behaved in the past. For these VAR effectively, data must be aggregated financial condition? Please provide relevant reasons, the Commission needs to ensure that from all its departments worldwide. Also, data to support your response. VAR models can withstand steep market there is often incompatibility of trading and Question 20: Would models be more declines. Other than by specifying minimum back-office accounting computer systems that effective during times of severe market qualitative and quantitative criteria, how can operate from different regions of the world. 68018 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 1997 / Proposed Rules

How can this problem of integration be Should the current minimum levels be proposing for comment amendments to adequately addressed? retained? Rule 15c3–1 under the Securities e. OTC Derivatives Dealer. Question 50: What modifications should Exchange Act of 1934. The proposed the Commission make to the current haircut amendments would define the term Question 41: Should the Commission percentages? Please provide relevant data to ‘‘nationally recognized statistical rating amend the Rule so that all broker-dealers are support your response. eligible to use the methodology for Question 51: What should be the organization’’ (‘‘NRSRO’’). The calculating market and credit risk as in parameters for the pre-commitment feature? proposed definition sets forth a list of proposed Appendix F to the Rule? Should firms be penalized for differences attributes to be considered by the Question 42: What minimum capital between actual results and the results as Commission in designating rating requirements should the Commission require projected by VAR models? If so, what criteria organizations as NRSROs and the a broker-dealer to meet to be eligible to use should be used to determine the additional process for applying for NRSRO proposed Appendix F? Should the criteria be capital requirements for these differences? designation. based on tentative net capital, net capital, or both? Are the $100 million tentative net III. Summary of Requests for Comment DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 2, 1998. capital and $20 million net capital Following receipt and review of ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to submit requirements appropriate? comments, the Commission will Question 43: Assuming that the written comments should file three determine whether rulemaking or other Commission were to allow all broker-dealers copies with Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, action is appropriate. Commenters are to utilize Proposed Appendix F, what Securities and Exchange Commission, invited to discuss the broad range of sections in Proposed Appendix F need to be 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Stop 6–9, concepts and approaches described in modified for all broker-dealers? Are the Washington, D.C. 20549. Comments also market risk and credit risk sections in this release concerning the may be submitted electronically at the Proposed Appendix F appropriate for all Commission’s regulation of broker- following E-mail address: rule- broker-dealers? Are the qualitative and dealers’ net capital requirements. In quantitative requirements for VAR models in [email protected]. All comment letters addition to responding to the specific should refer to File No. S7–33–97. This Proposed Appendix F appropriate to VAR questions presented in this release, the models used by non-OTC derivatives dealers? file number should be included on the Commission encourages commenters to f. Two Tiered Approach. subject line if E-mail is used. All provide any information to supplement comments received will be available for Question 44: Is a Two Tiered Approach a the information and assumptions public inspection and copying in the viable alternative to the current net capital contained herein regarding the current Commission’s Public Reference Room, rule? If so, what standards should the net capital rule, VAR models, and the 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, Commission utilize to determine which other suggested alternatives. The broker-dealers are required to utilize D.C., 20549. Electronically submitted Commission also invites commenters to comment letters will be posted on the statistical models? Should the tier limits be provide views and data as to the costs based on capital, amount of customer Commission’s Internet web site (http:// business, level of , or and benefits associated with the www.sec.gov). possible changes discussed above in some other factor(s)? Should these minimum FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: comparison to the costs and benefits of net capital amounts be fixed dollar amounts Michael A. Macchiaroli, Associate or be based on financial ratios such as the current net capital rule. In order for Director, 202/942–0131, Peter R. aggregate indebtedness or aggregate debit the Commission to assess the impact of Geraghty, Assistant Director, 202/942– items as in the current rule? Please provide changes to the Rule, comment is 0177, Louis A. Randazzo, Special relevant data to support your response. solicited, without limitation, from Question 45: Should the current haircut Counsel, 202/942–0191, or Michael E. investors, broker-dealers, SROs, and Greene, Staff Attorney, 202/942–4169, percentages be maintained? If not, what other persons involved in the securities modifications should be made to the current Division of Market Regulation, haircut percentages? Please provide relevant markets. Securities and Exchange Commission, data to support your response. Dated: December 17, 1997. 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. Question 46: What will be the impact on By the Commission. 20549. competition among firms in different tiers? In Margaret H. McFarland, this regard, the Commission seeks comment SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Deputy Secretary. on the effects of creating a two-tiered system I. Introduction from broker-dealers that do not currently use [FR Doc. 97–33400 Filed 12–29–97; 8:45 am] models in their risk management system and BILLING CODE 8010±01±P A. The Commission’s Concept Release from broker-dealers that currently use models In August 1994, the Commission for risk management purposes but either lack issued a concept release soliciting sufficient capital or sufficiently diverse SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE public comment on the Commission’s securities portfolios to use models for net COMMISSION capital purposes. role in using the ratings of NRSROs.1 In the Concept Release, the Commission g. Base Approach with Pre- 17 CFR Part 240 specifically solicited comments on: (1) Commitment Feature. [Release No. 34±39457; File No. S7±33±97] Whether it should continue to use the Question 47: Is the Base Approach a viable RIN 3235±AH28 NRSRO concept, and, if so, whether it alternative to the current net capital rule? should define the term ‘‘NRSRO’’; and Question 48: Should the Base Approach Capital Requirements for Brokers or (2) whether the current no-action letter only apply to firms that meet certain standards? If so, what are the appropriate Dealers Under the Securities Exchange process for designating a rating standards? Act of 1934 organization an NRSRO is satisfactory, Question 49: What minimum capital and, if not, whether the Commission AGENCY: requirements should the Commission Securities and Exchange should establish an alternative establish for certain broker-dealer activities? Commission. procedure. The Commission is now Should these minimum net capital amounts ACTION: Proposed rule. be fixed dollar amounts or based on financial 1 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34616 ratios such as aggregate indebtedness or SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange (August 31 1994), 59 FR 46314 (September 7, 1994) aggregate debit items as in the current rule? Commission (‘‘Commission’’) is (‘‘Concept Release’’).