Unser PwC Basel IV Poster zeigt alle Basel IV Anforderungen und CRR II Umsetzungen auf einen Blick. Damit haben Sie eine kompakte und übersichtliche Zusammenfassung der aktuellen Regelungen an Ihrer Wand. So haben Sie alles im Blick und können sich schon jetzt auf die für diesen Herbst erwarteten neuen Entwürfe der CRR III vorbereiten.
Unser informatives und natürlich auch sehr dekoratives Poster für den richtigen Aus- und Überblick im Büro oder im Homeoffice am heimischen Schreibtisch gibt es im Format DIN A2 oder DIN A0.
Unser Regulatory Blog ist seit über 10 Jahren als aktuelle und zuverlässige Informationsquelle am Start. Die vielen Zugriffe und Ansichten auf jeden unserer Beiträge zeigen uns Monat für Monat, wie groß das Interesse der Leser:innen und der Bedarf an schnellen und gut aufbereiteten Informationen sind – für unsere tägliche Arbeit ist das Ansporn und Verpflichtung zugleich.
Wer uns wie Sie auf dem Weg von den Anfängen des Regulatory Blogs seit 2009 begleitet hat, hat sich mit uns zusammen durch große Umwälzungen und Reformen des Finanzsektors gearbeitet. Die Schlagzahl des regulatorischen „outputs“ hat sich in dieser Zeit deutlich erhöht – neue Regulatoren, neue Aufsichtsprozesse und viele ganz neue Themen tragen dazu bei.
In our recent webinar “The Aftermath of TRIM”, PwC experts Kaan Aksel, Iosif Izrailov and Luis Felipe Barbosa explained the outcome of the TRIM Report (April 2021) and its implications for the future ECB review work in the contexts of the Internal Model Reviews that banks are using for the internal capital measurements.
A growing number of financial institutional investors are looking to incorporate environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors into their lending processes, alongside the traditional financial factors for risk assessment. Others aspire to implement basic ranking mechanisms for simple internal or external reporting purposes. Some are planning to develop a more sophisticated future model that requires a large, comprehensive data base. However, there are still a significant number of differences to note compared with the classical PD or LGD models, starting with the one-year horizon for the latter predictions versus a more than forty-year horizon for climate events to transpire.
Due to the continuing interest in our IRB 2.0 Homeschooling webinar training series, we want to offer you a spring training session.
To shorten the waiting time until our regulatory IRB-Homeschooling starts, we would like to give you some insights into our experiences around validation exercise, we gained with various national and international credit institutions.
As institutions are developing models for an increasing scope of risk management and decision making, concurrently, the number of models has been rising dramatically (i.e. models for capital provisioning and stress testing, pricing, strategic planning as well as asset liquidity purposes). More complex models are being developed with even more advanced analytics techniques (i.e. machine learning) to achieve higher performance. Big data and advanced analytics are opening new opportunities for more sophisticated models.
There are several reasons for this phenomenon; banks have started using more data sources about the retail lending activities, and new regulatory changes such as IFRS9 have introduced the use of new models what has not been in the bank’s agenda some ten years ago.
Due to the great success of our new webinar homeschooling format, we are now offering a new IRB Homeschooling webinar series!
In the recent years a number of new regulatory requirements brought significant challenges to the IRB risk parameter model development. In parallel to the changing of the regulatory setting, the ECB conducted a large number of on-site inspections (under the TRIM program) – where banks’ IRB models and parameters were subject to an intensive and rigorous scrutiny -, during which a relevant number of findings were identified across the euro zone.
The concept of an economic downturn was designed to address potential adverse macroeconomic conditions within estimations of the Internal Ratings-Based (IRB) risk parameter models. The regulatory definition of a downturn was first introduced in the earliest Basel II regulation, however, there were no strict rules and no detailed guidance on how the downturn period should be identified, and how a downturn adjustment should be estimated. The whole regulatory and risk management community within the European Central Bank (ECB) regulated single market spent significant time developing and updating the downturn methodology of their respective financial institutions. In this blog article we will talk about the latest regulatory requirements on this topic and will discuss the impact of a downturn period on the main components of the LGD Model.
A well-functioning Loss Given Default (LGD) model is expected to be present with all Advanced IRB banks as required by the Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, later referred to as CRR and subsequently by a set of regulatory papers released by the EBA and ECB.
EBA Guidelines on the PD estimation, the LGD estimation and the treatment of defaulted exposures (EBA/GL/2017/16) further referred as “GL on PD&LGD estimation” distinguishes two steps in the development of the LGD framework:
- Model development in LGD estimation as per section 6.2 (which is commonly known as the Risk Differentiation Function)
- LGD calibration as per section 6.3
In this article, we will be focusing solemnly on the first step; thus, it will be mainly concerned with how to differentiate obligors/facilities in terms of their relative risk, measured in LGD. The second step (LGD calibration), we will address as a topic with a separate blog post.
For many banks, the TRIM reports of the inspection ECB teams revealed many findings in the last two years. And the banks have received in return time to prepare their remediation plans. These plans usually have accommodated several remediation actions so that banks might be able to keep their IRB status going forward. The plans were in length discussed with the JST and in most cases were tied up to some deadlines; i.e. for several banks there were need for the redevelopment of the LGD models, where new components had to be incorporated. In most cases, banks were held to keep higher capital for their IRB portfolios under the remediation programme as their IRB risk parameters were not necessarily fully in compliance due to the TRIM findings, and expectedly this capital add-ons were only to be lifted once the full remediation took place. Such model redevelopments naturally require extensive new data collection, where the data should be tempered and aligned with the New Default Definition requirements. Such actions take significant time and require several internal sources in the bank work closely in coordination. Under the current circumstances as many bank risk resources will be working remotely from home and will not have the chance to meet frequently with their team members as during the normal times. Due to this it would be not possible for the bank to achieve a certain level of efficiency to be prepared to fulfill the tasks for the committed deadlines along the remediation plans that had been already agreed with the JSTs of the respective banks regulated directly with the ECB.