BCBS issued consultation on a set of limited, targeted, and final adjustments to the credit valuation adjustment (CVA) risk framework. The revisions aim to align relevant parts of the revised CVA risk framework with the minimum capital requirements for market risk published in January 2019 as well as capital requirements for bank exposures to central counterparties. BCBS is seeking feedback on a possible adjustment to the overall calibration of capital requirements calculated under the CVA standardized and basic approaches. The annex to the paper includes the proposed specific amendments to the standards. The required implementation date of the revised CVA risk framework continues to be January 01, 2022. The comment period on the consultation ends on February 25, 2020.
The proposed adjustments comprise two types of revisions. The finalization of the market risk framework in January 2019 included changes to some of the market risk standardized approach risk-weights, which in turn impact the CVA framework. Given that the risk-weights of the CVA risk framework are largely based on the January 2016 market risk standard, BCBS is proposing to reflect the corresponding market risk revisions in the CVA risk framework. BCBS is proposing adjustments to the risk-weights in the CVA standardized approach (SA-CVA) for interest rate risk, foreign exchange risk, and certain exposures subject to counterparty credit spread risk and reference credit spread risk. In addition, BCBS is proposing to introduce a new approach to calculate capital requirements for instruments with market values, depending on credit and equity indices, as well as a new formula for aggregating the CVA capital requirement, in line with the revisions to the market risk framework.
BCBS is also considering additional targeted revisions to the CVA risk framework. These revisions include adjusting the scope of portfolios subject to CVA risk capital requirements by excluding some securities financing transactions (SFTs) where the CVA risks stemming from such positions are not material and exempting certain client-cleared derivatives. Moreover, BCBS is considering reducing the margin period of risk for some centrally cleared client derivatives in the SA-CVA, which would bring the CVA requirement more in line with the counterparty credit risk (CCR) framework and further incentivize banks to centrally clear over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives. Finally, BCBS is seeking feedback on whether a possible calibration adjustment of the SA-CVA is warranted. This would be achieved by changing the existing multiplier mCVA from its current value of 1.25 to [1 to 1.25]. BCBS is considering revising the calibration of the basic approach (BA-CVA) to have an appropriate relative calibration between the SA-CVA and the BA-CVA. Any such adjustments would have to be based on sound empirical evidence.
Comment Due Date: February 25, 2020
Effective Date: January 01, 2022
Keywords: International, Banking, CVA, CVA Risk, Minimum Capital Requirements, Basel III, Market Risk, CCP, SA-CVA, OTC Derivatives, Credit Risk, BA-CVA, Securities Financing Transactions, BCBS
Previous ArticleMAS Publishes Explanatory Brief on Banking (Amendment) Bill 2019
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.