BCBS published the revised standard for regulatory capital treatment of credit valuation adjustment (CVA) risk for derivatives and securities financing transactions. The revisions to the regulatory capital treatment of CVA risk include re-calibrated risk-weights, different treatment of certain client cleared derivatives, and an overall re-calibration of the standardized and basic approach. These changes bring the revised CVA risk framework into alignment with the market risk framework. The revised standard comes into effect on January 01, 2023.
The credit valuation adjustment (CVA) risk framework replaces an earlier version of the standard that was published in December 2017. This final standard incorporates changes proposed in the November 2019 consultative document and has been informed by a quantitative impact assessment based on data as of the end of June 2019. The following are the key highlights of the targeted revisions to the CVA framework:
- Reduced risk-weights. BCBS has agreed to adjust certain risk-weights in the CVA standardized approach (SA-CVA). All delta risk-weights in the interest rate risk class will be reduced by 30%, all delta risk-weights in the foreign-exchange risk class will be reduced by 50%, and the delta risk-weight in the counterparty credit spread and reference credit spread risk classes for high yield and non-rated sovereigns will be reduced from 3% to 2%. Moreover, the vega risk-weights in the SA-CVA will be capped at 100%. These amendments will align the CVA risk framework with the revised market risk framework. In addition, BCBS has also agreed that the risk-weight in the CVA basic approach (BA-CVA) for high-yield and non-rated sovereigns, including exposures to central banks and multilateral development banks, will be reduced from 3% to 2%.
- Introduction of new index buckets and revised aggregation of CVA capital requirements. The revised market risk framework introduced new "index buckets," where banks could, under certain conditions, calculate capital requirements using credit and equity indices directly instead of looking through to the underlying constituents. BCBS has agreed to introduce the same new buckets in the counterparty credit spread risk class, reference credit spread risk class, and equity risk class of the SA-CVA. For credit and equity indices that satisfy the same liquidity and diversification conditions set out in the market risk framework, banks would have the option of calculating CVA risk capital requirements based on the index buckets rather than by looking through to the underlying constituents. BCBS has also agreed to revise the formula for aggregating capital requirements across buckets in the CVA risk framework to better align it to the market risk framework.
- Alterations to the scope of CVA risk capital requirements. BCBS has agreed to adjust the scope of portfolios subject to CVA risk capital requirements by excluding some securities financing transactions where the CVA risks stemming from such positions are not material and exempting certain client-cleared derivatives. Moreover, the floor for the margin period of risk for some centrally-cleared client derivatives has been reduced. This brings the CVA requirement more in line with the counterparty credit risk framework and further incentivizes banks to centrally clear over-the-counter derivatives.
- A revised overall calibration of the CVA risk framework. The revised CVA risk framework also includes a reduced value of the aggregate multiplier 𝑚CVA from 1.25 to 1 for banks using the SA-CVA. To have an appropriate relative calibration between the SA-CVA and the BA-CVA, BCBS has also agreed to introduce a similar scalar 𝐷𝑆BA-CVA = 0.65 for banks using the BA-CVA. This will result in a re-calibration of the capital requirements for CVA risk for banks using these approaches.
Effective Date: January 01, 2023
Keywords: International, Banking, Basel, Regulatory Capital, CVA Risk, Market Risk, BA-CVA, SA-CVA, OTC Derivatives, Securities Financing Transactions, BCBS
The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) published an update on the discussion paper that intended to engage federally regulated financial institutions and other interested stakeholders in a dialog with OSFI, to proactively enhance and align assurance expectations over key regulatory returns.
The European Commission (EC) published a report summarizing responses to the targeted consultation on the supervisory convergence and the single rulebook in the European Union (EU).
The European Central Bank (ECB) published its opinion on a proposal for a regulation on European green bonds, following a request from the European Parliament.
The Advisory Scientific Committee (ASC) of the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) published a report that explores the expected impact of digitalization on provision of financial and banking services, and proposes policy measures to address the risks stemming from digitalization.
The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) is consulting on the draft Financial Institutions (Resolution) Ordinance (Cap. 628), or FIRO, Code of Practice chapter on liquidity and funding in resolution, until March 14, 2022.
The Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority (FI) announced that the capital adequacy reporting as at December 31, 2021 must be done by February 11, 2022.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) announced that the guidelines on the reporting and disclosure of exposures subject to measures COVID-relief measures shall continue to apply until further notice.
The Central Bank of the Philippines (BSP) issued communications covering developments related to online lending platforms, open finance framework and roadmap, and on the expected regulations in the area sustainable finance.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FED) published the final rule that amends Regulation I to reduce the quarterly reporting burden for member banks by automating the application process for adjusting their subscriptions to the Federal Reserve Bank capital stock, except in the context of mergers.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published its assessment of risks through the quarterly Risk Dashboard and the results of the Autumn edition of the Risk Assessment Questionnaire (RAQ).