The European Banking Authority (EBA) published the final draft regulatory technical standards on gross jump-to-default amounts and on residual risk add-on under the Capital Requirements Regulation or CRR. One set of regulatory standards specifies how gross jump-to-default amounts are to be determined for calculating the default risk charge for non-securitization instruments while the other set specifies how to identify instruments exposed to residual risks for the residual risk add-on. These standards provide technical specifications for the implementation of the aforementioned two elements of the alternative standardized approach for market risk. The draft regulatory standards are a part of the phase 3 deliverables of the EBA roadmap for the new market and counterparty credit risk approaches.
Institutions using the alternative standardized approach for market risk are required to compute three separate own funds requirements for market risk—namely, the sensitivities-based method (SbM) requirements, the residual risk add-on, and the default risk charge. To determine the default risk charge under the alternative standardized approach for market risk under the CRR, the gross jump-to-default amount of exposures are to be calculated. The final draft regulatory technical standards on gross jump-to-default amounts specify how gross jump-to-default amounts are to be determined for institutions’ exposures in the trading book under the alternative standardized approach for market risk, in scope of the default risk charge for non-securitizations. These standards are intended to address the following three mandates set out in CRR:
- How the components P&Llong, P&Lshort, Adjustmentlong, and Adjustmentshort are to be determined to calculate gross jump-to-default amounts of exposures to debt and equity instruments with the formulae in Article 325w(1), (2), and (5) of CRR
- Which alternative methodologies institutions are to use for estimating gross jump-to-default amounts of exposures referred to in Article 325w(7) of CRR
- How to determine the notional amount of instruments other than the ones referred to in Article 325w(4) of CRR
The regulatory technical standards on residual risk add-on clarify the scope of residual risk add-on instruments for which the own funds capital requirements for residual risks should be determined. The standards specify a non-exhaustive list of instruments bearing residual risks and a list of risks that do not constitute residual risks. The standards also clarify that longevity risk, weather, natural disasters, and future realized volatility should all be considered as exotic underlyings. The residual risk add-on is intended to provide a simple and conservative capital treatment for any other risks not covered by the sensitivities-based method or the default risk charge. Therefore, instruments exposed to residual risks—that is, instruments referencing an exotic underlying or instruments bearing other residual risks—are subject to the residual risk add-on treatment. The residual risk add-on amounts to 1% or 0.1% of the gross notional amount of the instrument, depending on whether the instrument is an instrument referencing an exotic underlying or an instrument bearing other residual risks, respectively.
Keywords: International, Asia Pacific, Banking, Securities, Central Banks, Asian Development Bank, Green Bond Fund, ESG, Sustainable Finance, BIS
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.