|
Conservatism in the application of risk parameters While the MoC described in Chapter 4 addresses any weaknesses in data or methods in the process of model development and risk quantification, additional conservatism referred to in Chapter 8 is meant to address any weaknesses in the implementation of the models and application of the risk estimates to the currently existing exposures. These weaknesses may include, in particular, missing or outdated information necessary for the rating assignment in accordance with the model (for example missing update of the financial statement of the obligor), missing rating or update of the rating of the obligor. Institutions should be able to detect and monitor these situations to make sure that the risk is reflected correctly, including additional conservatism where necessary. Human judgement in the application of risk parameters The proposed rules for the use of human judgement in the application of risk parameters are based on Article 172(3) of the CRR, which allows the overriding of both inputs to and outputs from the process of assignment of obligors or exposures to grades or pools. The requirements for overrides apply equally to PD and LGD models, including EL BE and LGD in-default. In any case, where institutions want to apply the overrides, this should be based on an appropriate internal framework to make sure that the weaknesses of the assignment are identified consistently, that the overrides are applied within certain limits and that they are appropriately justified, approved and monitored. As a large number of overrides may indicate certain weaknesses of the model, institutions should analyse these situations carefully, taking into account the reasons for overrides. Where necessary, such analysis should result in the improvement of the model, for instance by including additional risk drivers, increasing granularity of categorisation or changing the weights of risk drivers, or in the improvement of data collection or data quality management processes. Use of internal ratings and default and loss estimates The concept of use test was introduced in the IRB Approach to ensure high quality of risk parameters, under the assumption that institutions would not use the estimates of risk parameters for internal risk management if they did not believe that these estimates appropriately reflect the actual level of risk. However, for the purpose of own funds requirements it is important not only to accurately assess the obligors and exposures, and to rank them according to the level of risk, but also to ensure certain level of conservatism. These additional prudential requirements may lead to the parameters less accurately reflecting the actual level of risk under certain economic circumstances. It is therefore specified in the GL that, for internal purposes, institutions may decide, where this is justified, to use the estimates of the risk parameters without MoC, without regulatory floors or, in the case of LGD, without downturn adjustment. Furthermore, where this is justified for a specific area of use, it may be necessary to use a different calibration method for internal purposes. This different method may in particular involve specifying a different calibration target (for instance, the use of lifetime horizon instead of a one-year time horizon on PD estimates, where this is required by the applicable accounting standards), or may aim to have the parameters more accurately reflect the current economic circumstances. The calibration method may also include additional risk drivers applied at the stage of calibration. In any case, however, the rank ordering of obligors or exposures should remain the same as used for the purpose of own funds requirements, apart from possibly different grouping of exposures into grades. The change in rank ordering would mean that not only different estimates but also different internal ratings are used internally, so the use test requirement would not be met. The requirements for use test specified in these GL should be read together with the RTS on IRB assessment methodology, which in Articles 18 to 21 specify obligatory and optional areas of use test. While the GL provide an exhaustive list of possible deviations from the parameters used for own funds requirements calculation, the use of parameters in both obligatory and optional areas of use test does not preclude taking into account the information from other sources as well. The combination of the information on internal ratings or risk parameters and any other relevant information should lead to an appropriate management decision in accordance with the institution’s policy. Calculation of IRB shortfall or excess Apart from the calculation of risk-weighted exposure amounts the risk parameters are also used for regulatory purposes in the calculation of the expected loss and so-called IRB shortfall or IRB excess, which is then used to correct the value of own funds used in the calculation of capital adequacy ratios. Article 159 of the CRR requires institutions to calculate the difference between, on one hand, credit risk adjustments, additional value adjustments, and, on the other hand, own funds reductions and expected loss amounts. The GL refer to IRB excess where this calculation results in a positive amount, i.e. where provisions are in excess of expected loss, and to IRB shortfall where it results in a negative amount, i.e. there is a shortfall of provisions given the expected loss. It has been clarified in Article 73(h) of the RTS on assessment methodology that this difference should be calculated at an aggregate level separately for the portfolio of defaulted exposures and the portfolio of exposures that are not in default. This separation is necessary to ensure that the IRB excess resulting from the calculation performed for the defaulted portfolio is not used to offset IRB shortfall resulting from the calculation performed for the portfolio of exposures that are not in default, as prescribed in Article 159 of the CRR. However, the IRB excess from the overall non-defaulted portfolio may be used to cover any IRB shortfall from the overall defaulted portfolio. It is furthermore clarified that, if the calculation required by Article 159 of the CRR results in an IRB excess for both the defaulted and the non-defaulted portfolio, the limit for adding the overall IRB excess to Tier 2 capital set out in Article 62(d) of the CRR, i.e. up to 0.06% of risk-weighted exposure amounts, should be applied to the sum of the two IRB excesses. Furthermore, the treatment of partial write-offs has been clarified in accordance with the interpretation provided earlier in the Q&A Question ID 2014_1064. In accordance with Annex V, Part 2, paragraphs 49 and 50 of Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 (Implementing Technical Standards (ITS) on supervisory reporting), write-off should be understood as the amount of principal and past due interest of any debt instrument that an institution no longer recognises because it is considered uncollectible. These ITS also clarify that write-offs can be caused both by reductions of the carrying amount of financial assets recognised directly in profit or loss, and by reductions in the amounts of the allowance accounts for credit losses taken against the carrying amount of financial assets. Such partial write-offs do not constitute impairment, irrespective of the method (specific loan loss provision or direct reduction of the carrying amount) chosen to book impairment in the financial statements of the asset, because any amounts written-off following a derecognition will not affect the carrying amount of the financial asset (unlike a reversal of impairment losses). For that reason, a partial write-off would not be included in the calculation of general and specific credit risk adjustments.
|