RBI circular on large exposures framework communicates the central bank's decision that non-centrally cleared derivatives exposures will be outside the purview of exposure limits until April 01, 2021. The circular also provides clarification with respect to the guidelines on credit risk mitigation instruments under the large exposures framework. The circular is applicable to all scheduled commercial banks, excluding regional rural banks.
According to the large exposures framework circular dated June 03, 2019, any credit risk mitigation instrument from which credit risk mitigation benefits, such as shifting of exposure or risk-weights, are not derived may not be counted as an exposure on the credit risk mitigation provider. Banks had sought clarity on whether this specific guideline will apply to exposures to a person resident outside India. In this context, RBI has clarified that this clause will also apply to non-fund-based credit facilities provided to a person resident outside India. The exposure can be reckoned on the person resident outside India, instead of treating it as an exposure on the Head Office or other overseas branch, provided the transaction is otherwise compliant with the Foreign Exchange Management (Guarantees) Regulations, 2000. The exposures, thus, shifted to a person resident outside India will attract a minimum risk-weight of 150%.
Keywords: Asia Pacific, India, Banking, Large Exposures, Basel III, Non-Centrally Cleared Derivatives, Credit Risk, Derivatives, Regulatory Capital, RBI
Previous ArticleDNB Proposes to Reduce Systemic Risk Buffer Requirement for Banks
APRA issued a letter on the loss-absorbing capacity (LAC) requirements for domestic systemically important banks (D-SIBs) and published a discussion paper, along with the proposed the prudential standards on financial contingency planning (CPS 190) and resolution planning (CPS 900).
The European Commission (EC) launched a call for evidence, until March 18, 2022, as part of a comprehensive review of the macro-prudential rules for the banking sector under the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) and Directive (CRD IV).
The Financial Stability Board (FSB) published a report that sets out good practices for crisis management groups.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) found that Heritage Bank Limited had incorrectly reported capital because of weaknesses in operational risk and compliance frameworks, although the bank did not breach minimum prudential capital ratios at any point and remains well-capitalized.
The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) released the annual report for 2020-2021.
Through a letter addressed to the banking sector entities, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) announced deferral of the domestic implementation of the final Basel III reforms from the first to the second quarter of 2023.
EIOPA recently published a letter in which EC is informing the European Parliament and Council that it could not adopt the set of draft regulatory technical standards for disclosures under the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) within the stipulated three-month period, given their length and technical detail.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published the third in a series of policy statements that set out rules to introduce the UK Investment Firm Prudential Regime (IFPR), which will take effect on January 01, 2022.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) published, along with a summary of its response to the consultation feedback, an information paper that summarizes the finalized capital framework that is in line with the internationally agreed Basel III requirements for banks.
The Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI) and the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) issued a consultative report focusing on access to central counterparty (CCP) clearing and client-position portability.