BackText onlyPrint

You need the Flash plugin.

Download Macromedia Flash Player



Location: Central Bank of Bahrain Volume 1—Conventional Banks > Part A > Business Standards > CA Capital Adequacy > PART 2: Credit Risk
  • PART 2: Credit Risk

    • CA-3 Credit Risk — The Standardized Approach

      • CA-3.1 Overview

        • CA-3.1.1

          This Chapter sets out the rules relating to the standardized approach to credit riskG . The securitisation framework is presented in Chapter CA-6. The standardized approach makes use of external credit assessments9 as a means of calculating the risk weight for exposures to certain categories of counterparty.


          9 The notations follow the methodology used by one institution, Standard & Poor's. The use of Standard & Poor's credit ratings is an example only; those of some other external credit assessment institutions could equally well be used. The ratings used throughout this document, therefore, do not express any preferences or determinations on external assessment institutions by CBB.

          January 2015

        • CA-3.1.2

          The credit equivalent amount (CEA) of Securities Financing TransactionsG (SFT)10 and OTC derivatives that expose a conventional bank licenseeG to counterparty credit riskG 11 is calculated under the rules set out in Appendix CA-2.


          10 Securities Financing Transactions (SFT) are transactions such as repurchase agreements, reverse repurchase agreements, security lending and borrowing, and margin lending transactions, where the value of the transactions depends on the market valuations and the transactions are often subject to margin agreements.

          11 The counterparty credit risk is defined as the risk that the counterparty to a transaction could default before the final settlement of the transaction's cash flows. An economic loss would occur if the transactions or portfolio of transactions with the counterparty has a positive economic value at the time of default. Unlike a firm's exposure to credit risk through a loan, where the exposure to credit risk is unilateral and only the lending bank faces the risk of loss, the counterparty credit risk creates a bilateral risk of loss: the market value of the transaction can be positive or negative to either counterparty to the transaction. The market value is uncertain and can vary over time with the movement of underlying market factors.

          January 2015

        • CA-3.1.3

          In determining the risk weights in the standardised approach, conventional bank licenseesG must use assessments by only those external credit assessment institutions which are recognised as eligible for capital purposes by CBB in accordance with the criteria defined in Section CA-3.4.

          January 2015

        • CA-3.1.4

          Exposures must be measured at the book value as shown in the financial statements of the conventional bank licenseeG (normally at amortised cost or fair value after applying specific provisions or fair value adjustments as applicable) and risk-weighted taking into account eligible financial collateral as applicable (see Chapter CA-4 concerning credit riskG mitigation).

          January 2015

      • CA-3.2 Segregation of Claims

        • Claims on Sovereigns

          • CA-3.2.1

            Claims on governments of GCC member states (hereinafter referred to as GCC) and their central banks can be risk weighted at 0%. Claims on other sovereigns and their central banks are given a preferential risk weighting of 0% where such claims are denominated and funded in the relevant domestic currency of that sovereign/central bank (e.g. if a Bahraini bank has a claim on government of Australia and the loan is denominated and funded in Australian dollar, it will be risk weighted at 0%). Such preferential risk weight for claims on GCC/other sovereigns and their central banks will be allowed only if the relevant supervisor also allows 0% risk weighting to claims on its sovereign and central bank.

            January 2015

          • CA-3.2.2

            Claims on sovereigns other than those referred to in the Paragraph CA-3.2.1 must be assigned risk weights as follows:

            Credit Assessment AAA to AA- A+ to A- BBB+ to BBB- BB+ to B- Below B- Unrated
            Risk Weight 0% 20% 50% 100% 150% 100%
            January 2015

        • Claims on International Organisations

          • CA-3.2.3

            Claims on the Bank for International Settlements, the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank receive a 0% risk weight.

            January 2015

        • Claims on Non-Central Government Public Sectors Entities (PSEs)

          • CA-3.2.4

            Any claims on the Bahraini PSEs listed in Appendix CA-18 are treated as claims on the government of Bahrain and are eligible for 0% risk weighting:

            Amended: April 2016
            Added: January 2015

          • CA-3.2.4A

            In addition to the Bahraini PSEs listed in Appendix CA-18, existing exposures to the following entities which have been removed from the list of PSEs as of 1st March 2016, will be grandfathered and will remain eligible until the final maturity or sale of such exposure:

            (a) Durrat Khaleej Al Bahrain Company;
            (b) Hawar Island Development Company;
            (c) Lulu Tourism Company; and
            (d) Al Awali Real estate Company.
            Added: April 2016

          • CA-3.2.4B

            Any new claims to the entities listed under Paragraph CA-3.2.4A are subject to the normal risk weights as outlined in this Section.

            Added: April 2016

          • CA-3.2.5

            Where other supervisors also treat claims on named PSEs as claims on their sovereigns, claims to those PSEs are treated as claims on the respective sovereigns as outlined in Paragraphs CA-3.2.1 and CA-3.2.2. These PSEs must be shown on a list maintained by the concerned central bank or financial regulator. Where PSEs are not on such a list, they must be subject to the treatment outlined in Paragraph CA-3.2.6.

            January 2015

          • CA-3.2.6

            Claims on all other (foreign) PSEs (i.e. not having sovereign treatment) denominated and funded in the home currency of the sovereign must be risk weighted as allowed by their home country supervisors, provided the sovereign carries rating BBB- or above. Claims on PSEs with no explicit home country weighting or to PSEs in countries of BB+ sovereign rating and below are subject to ECAI ratings as per the following table:

            Credit Assessment AAA to AA- A+ to A- BBB+ to BBB- BB+ to B- Below B- Unrated
            Risk Weight 20% 50% 100% 100% 150% 100%
            January 2015

          • CA-3.2.7

            Claims on commercial companies owned by governments must be risk weighted as normal commercial entities unless they are in the domestic currency and covered by a government guarantee in the domestic currency that satisfies the conditions in CA-4.2 and CA-4.5 in which case they may take the risk weight of the concerned government.

            January 2015

        • Claims on Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs)

          • CA-3.2.8

            MDBs currently eligible for a 0% risk weight are: the World Bank Group comprised of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the African Development Bank (AfDB), the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), the European Investment Bank (EIB), the European Investment Fund (EIF), the Nordic Investment Bank (NIB), the Caribbean Development Bank (CDB), the Islamic Development Bank (IDB), Arab Monetary Fund (AMF), the Council of Europe Development Bank (CEDB), the Arab Bank for Economic Development in Africa (ABEDA), Council of European Resettlement Fund (CERF) and the Kuwait Fund for Arab Economic Development (KFAED).

            January 2015

          • CA-3.2.9

            The claims on MDB's, which do not qualify for the 0% risk weighting, are assigned risk weights as follows:

            Banks Credit Quality Grades AAA to AA- A+ to A- BBB+ to BBB- BB+ to B- Below B- Unrated
            Risk weights 20% 50% 50% 100% 150% 50%
            January 2015

        • Claims on Banks

          • CA-3.2.10

            Claims on banks must be risk weighted as given in the following table. No claim on an unrated bank may receive a risk weight lower than that applied to claims on its sovereign of incorporation (see Guidance in Paragraph CA-3.2.11A for self-liquidating letters of credit).

            Banks Credit Quality Grades AAA to AA- A+ to A- BBB+ to BBB- BB+ to B- Below B- Unrated
            Standard risk weights 20% 50% 50% 100% 150% 50%
            Preferential risk weight 20% 20% 20% 50% 150% 20%
            January 2015

          • CA-3.2.11

            Short-term claims on locally incorporated banks may be assigned a risk weighting of 20% where such claims on the banks are of an original maturity of 3 months or less denominated and funded in either BD or US$. A preferential risk weight that is one category more favourable than the standard risk weighting may be assigned to claims on foreign banks licensed in Bahrain of an original maturity of 3 months or less denominated and funded in the relevant domestic currency (other than claims on banks that are rated below B-). Such preferential risk weight for short-term claims on banks licensed in other jurisdictions will be allowed only if the relevant supervisor also allows this preferential risk weighting to short-term claims on its banks.

            January 2015

          • CA-3.2.11A

            Self-liquidating letters of credit issued or confirmed by an unrated bank are allowed a risk weighting of 20% without reference to the risk weight of the sovereign of incorporation. All other claims will be subject to the 'sovereign floor' of the country of incorporation of the concerned issuing or confirming bank.

            January 2015

          • CA-3.2.12

            Claims with a contractual original maturity under 3 months that are expected to be rolled over (i.e. where the effective maturity is longer than 3 months) do not qualify for a preferential treatment for capital adequacy purposes.

            January 2015

        • Claims on Investment Firms

          • CA-3.2.13

            Claims on category one and category two investment firms which are licensed by the CBB are treated as claims on banks for risk weighting purposes but without the use of preferential risk weight for short-term claims. Claims on category three investment firms licensed by the CBB must be treated as claims on corporates for risk weighting purposes. Claims on investment firms in other jurisdictions will be treated as claims on corporates for risk weighting purposes. However, if the bank can demonstrate that the concerned investment firm is subject to an equivalent capital adequacy regime to this Module and is treated as a bank for risk weighting purposes by its home regulator, then claims on such investment firms may be treated as claims on banks.

            January 2015

        • Claims on Corporates, including Insurance Companies

          • CA-3.2.14

            Risk weighting for corporates including insurance companies is as follows:

            Credit assessment AAA to AA- A+ to A- BBB+ to BB- Below BB- Unrated
            Risk weight 20% 50% 100% 150% 100%
            January 2015

          • CA-3.2.15

            Risk weighting for unrated (corporate) claims will not be given a preferential RW to the concerned sovereign. Credit facilities to small/medium enterprises (SMEs) may be placed in the regulatory retail portfolio in limited cases below.

            January 2015

        • Claims included in the Regulatory Retail Portfolios

          • CA-3.2.16

            No claim on any unrated corporate, where said corporate originates from a foreign jurisdiction, may be given a risk weight lower than that assigned to a corporate within its own jurisdiction, and in no case will it be below 100%.

            January 2015

          • CA-3.2.17

            Claims included in the regulatory retail portfolio must be risk weighted at 75%, except as provided in CA-3.2.23 for past due loans.

            January 2015

          • CA-3.2.18

            To be included in the regulatory retail portfolio, claims must meet the following criteria:

            (a) Orientation — the exposure is to an individual person or persons or to a small business. A small business is a Bahrain-based business with annual turnover below BD 2mn;
            (b) Product — The exposure takes the form of any of the following: revolving credits and lines of credit (including credit cards and overdrafts), personal term loans and leases (e.g. auto leases, student loans) and small business facilities. Securities (such as bonds and equities), whether listed or not, are specifically excluded from this category. Mortgage loans will be excluded if they qualify for treatment as claims secured by residential property (see below). Loans for purchase of shares are also excluded from the regulatory retail portfolios;
            (c) Granularity — The regulatory retail portfolio is sufficiently diversified to a degree that reduces the risks in the portfolio, warranting a 75% risk weight. No aggregate exposure to one counterpart12 can exceed 0.2% of the regulatory retail portfolio; and
            (d) The maximum aggregated retail exposure to one counterpart must not exceed an absolute limit of BD 250,000.

            12 Aggregated exposure means gross amount (i.e. not taking any credit risk mitigation into account) of all forms of debt exposures (e.g. loans or commitments) that individually satisfy the three other criteria. In addition, "to one counterpart" means one or several entities that may be considered as a single beneficiary (e.g. in the case of a small business that is affiliated to another small business, the limit would apply to the bank's aggregated exposure on both businesses).

            January 2015

        • Claims Secured by Residential Property

          • CA-3.2.19

            Lending fully secured by first mortgages on residential property that is or will be occupied by the borrower, or that is leased, must carry a risk weighting of 75%.

            January 2015

          • CA-3.2.19A

            The RW for residential property may be reduced to 35% subject to meeting all of the criteria below:

            (a) The residential property is to be utilised for residential purposes only;
            (b) The residential property must be pledged as collateral to the conventional bank licenseeG ;
            (c) There exists a legal infrastructure in the jurisdiction whereby the conventional bank licenseeG can enforce the repossession and liquidation of the residential property; and
            (d) The conventional bank licenseeG must obtain a satisfactory legal opinion that foreclosure or repossession as mentioned in (c) above is possible without any impediment.
            Amended: April 2015
            January 2015

          • CA-3.2.19B

            The RW for residential mortgage exposure granted under the Social Housing Schemes of the Kingdom of Bahrain may be reduced to 35% subject to meeting conditions, (a) and (b) in CA-3.2.19A.

            July 2019

        • Claims Secured by Commercial Real Estate

          • CA-3.2.20

            Claims secured by mortgages on commercial real estate are subject to a minimum of 100% risk weight. If the borrower is rated below BB-, the risk-weight corresponding to the rating of the borrower must be applied.

            January 2015

        • Past Due Loans

          • CA-3.2.21

            The unsecured portion of any loan (other than a qualifying residential mortgage loan) that is past due for 90 days or more, net of specific provisions (including partial write-offs), must be risk-weighted as follows:

            (a) 150% risk weight when specific provisions are less than 20% of the outstanding amount of the loan; and
            (b) 100% risk weight when specific provisions are greater than 20% of the outstanding amount of the loan.
            January 2015

          • CA-3.2.22

            For the purposes of defining the secured portion of a past due loan, eligible collateral and guarantees is the same as for credit riskG mitigation purposes.

            January 2015

          • CA-3.2.23

            Past due retail loans must be excluded from the overall regulatory retail portfolio when assessing the granularity criterion, for risk-weighting purposes.

            January 2015

          • CA-3.2.24

            In the case of residential mortgage loans that qualify for lower risk weight in CA-3.2.19A, when such loans are past due for more than 90 days, they must be risk weighted at a minimum of 100% net of specific provisions.

            January 2015

        • Securitisation Tranches

          • CA-3.2.25

            Holdings of securitisation tranches are weighted according to the weightings in CA-6.4.8 from 20% to 1,250%. Please refer to Chapter CA-6 for full details.

            January 2015

        • Investments in Equities, MSRs and DTAs

          • CA-3.2.26

            Investments in listed equities must be risk weighted at 100% while equities other than listed must be risk weighted at 150% unless subject to the following treatments. The amount of any significant investments in commercial entities above the 15% and 60% Total Capital materiality thresholds (see CA-2.4.25) must be weighted at 800%. Significant investments in the common shares of unconsolidated financial entities and Mortgage Servicing Rights and Deferred Tax Assets arising from temporary differences must be risk weighted at 250% if they have not already been deducted from CET1 as required by Paragraphs CA-2.4.15 to CA-2.4.24.

            January 2015

        • Investments in Funds

          • CA-3.2.27

            Investments in funds (e.g. mutual funds, Collective Investment Undertakings etc.) must be risk weighted as follows:

            (a) If the instrument (e.g. units) is rated, it should be risk-weighted according to its external rating (for risk-weighting, it must be treated as a "claim on corporate");
            (b) If not rated, such investment should be treated as an equity investment and risk weighted accordingly (i.e. 100% for listed and 150% for unlisted);
            (c) The conventional bank licenseeG can apply to CBB for using the look-through approach for such investments if it can demonstrate that the look-through approach is more appropriate to the circumstances of the conventional bank licenseeG ;
            (d) If there are no voting rights attached to investment in funds, the investment will not be subjected to consolidation, deduction or additional risk weighting requirements (in respect of large exposures or significant investments); and
            (e) For the purpose of determining the "large exposure limit" for investment in funds, the look-through approach must be used (even if the look-through approach is not used to risk weight the investment).
            January 2015

        • Large Exposures over the Limits in Module CM

          • CA-3.2.28

            The amount of any large exposures exceeding the limits set in Chapter CM-5 must be weighted at 800%.

            January 2015

        • Holdings of Real Estate

          • CA-3.2.29

            All holdings of real estate by conventional bank licenseesG (i.e. owned directly or by way of investments in Real Estate Companies, subsidiaries or associate companies or other arrangements such as trusts, funds or REITs) must be risk-weighted at 200%. Premises occupied by the conventional bank licenseeG may be weighted at 100%. Investments in Real Estate Companies are subject to the materiality thresholds for commercial companies described in Section CA-2.4 and Chapter CM-5 and therefore any holdings which amount to 15% or more of Total Capital will be subject to 800% risk weight. The holdings below the 15% threshold will be weighted at 200%.

            January 2015

        • Other Assets

          • CA-3.2.30

            Gold bullion held in own vaults or on an allocated basis to the extent backed by bullion liabilities may be treated as cash and therefore risk-weighted at 0%. In addition, cash items in the process of collection must be risk-weighted at 20%. The standard risk weight for all other assets will be 100%. Investments in regulatory capital instruments issued by banks or financial entities must be risk weighted at a minimum of 100%, unless they are deducted from regulatory capital according to the corresponding deduction approach outlined in Section CA-2.4 of this Module.

            January 2015

        • Underwriting of Non-trading Book Items

          • CA-3.2.31

            Underwritings of capital instruments issued by other banking, financial or insurance entities are covered in Subparagraphs CA-2.4.16(c) and CA-2.4.20(c). The large exposures limits of Chapter CM-5 apply for underwritings. This means the 800% risk weights will apply for underwriting exposures in excess of the limits set in Chapter CM-5. The risk weights below apply for exposures within the limits of Module CM-5. Where a conventional bank licenseeG has acquired assets on its balance sheet in the banking book which it is intending to place with third parties under a formal arrangement, the following risk weightings apply for no more than 90 days. Once the 90-day period has expired, the usual risk weights apply:

            (a) For holdings of private equity (non-bank), a risk weighting of 100% applies instead of the usual 150% (see CA-3.2.26); and
            (b) For holdings of Real Estate, a risk weight of 100% applies instead of the usual 200% risk weight (see CA-3.2.29).
            January 2015

      • CA-3.3 Off-balance Sheet Items

        • CA-3.3.1

          Off-balance-sheet items must be converted into credit exposure equivalents applying credit conversion factors (CCFs). Counterparty risk weightings for OTC derivative transactions will not be subject to any specific ceiling.

          January 2015

        • CA-3.3.2

          Commitments with an original maturity of up to one year and commitments with an original maturity of over one year will receive a CCF of 20% and 50%, respectively.

          January 2015

        • CA-3.3.3

          Any commitments that are unconditionally cancellable at any time by the conventional bank licenseeG without prior notice, or that are subject to automatic cancellation due to deterioration in a borrowers' creditworthiness, will receive a 0% CCF.

          January 2015

        • CA-3.3.4

          Direct credit substitutes, e.g. general guarantees of indebtedness (including standby letters of credit serving as financial guarantees for loans and securities) and acceptances (including endorsements with the character of acceptances) must receive a CCF of 100%.

          January 2015

        • CA-3.3.5

          Sale and repurchase agreements and asset sales with recourse, where the credit riskG remains with the conventional bank licenseeG , must receive a CCF of 100%.

          January 2015

        • CA-3.3.6

          A CCF of 100% must be applied to the lending of other banks' securities or the posting of securities as collateral by banks, including instances where these arise out of repo-style transactions (i.e. repurchase/reverse repurchase and securities lending/securities borrowing transactions). See Section CA-4.3 for the calculation of risk-weighted assets where the credit converted exposure is secured by eligible collateral.

          January 2015

        • CA-3.3.7

          Forward asset purchases, forward deposits and partly-paid shares and securities, which represent commitments with certain drawdown must receive a CCF of 100%.

          January 2015

        • CA-3.3.8

          Certain transaction-related contingent items (e.g. performance bonds, bid bonds, warranties and standby letters of credit related to particular transactions) must receive CCF of 50%.

          January 2015

        • CA-3.3.9

          Note issuance facilities and revolving underwriting facilities must receive a CCF of 50%.

          January 2015

        • CA-3.3.10

          For short-term self-liquidating trade letters of credit arising from the movement of goods, a 20% CCF must be applied to both issuing and confirming banks.

          January 2015

        • CA-3.3.11

          Where there is an undertaking to provide a commitment on an off-balance sheet item, conventional bank licenseesG are to apply the lower of the two applicable CCFs.

          January 2015

        • CA-3.3.12

          The credit equivalent amount of OTC derivatives and SFTsG that expose a conventional bank licenseeG to counterparty credit risk must be calculated as per Appendix CA-2.

          January 2015

        • CA-3.3.13

          Conventional bank licenseesG must closely monitor securities, commodities, and foreign exchange transactions that have failed, starting the first day they fail. A capital charge to failed transactions must be calculated in accordance with CBB guidelines set forth in Appendix CA-4 (Capital treatment for failed trades and non-DvP transactions).

          January 2015

        • CA-3.3.14

          With regard to unsettled securities, commodities, and foreign exchange transactions, conventional bank licenseesG are encouraged to develop, implement and improve systems for tracking and monitoring the credit riskG exposure arising from unsettled transactions as appropriate for producing management information that facilitates action on a timely basis.

          January 2015

        • CA-3.3.15

          Furthermore, when such transactions are not processed through a delivery-versus-payment (DvP) or payment-versus-payment (PvP) mechanism, conventional bank licenseesG must calculate a capital charge of up to 1,250% as set forth in Appendix CA-4.

          January 2015

      • CA-3.4 External Credit Assessments

        • The Recognition Process and Eligibility Criteria

          • CA-3.4.1

            CBB will assess all External Credit Assessment Institutions (ECAI) according to the six criteria below. The CBB also refers to the IOSCO Code of Conduct Fundamentals for Credit Rating Agencies when determining ECAI eligibility. Any failings, in whole or in part, to satisfy these to the fullest extent will result in the respective ECAI's methodology and associated resultant rating not being accepted by the CBB:

            (a) Objectivity: The methodology for assigning credit assessments must be rigorous, systematic, and subject to some form of validation based on historical experience. Moreover, assessments must be subject to ongoing review and responsive to changes in financial condition. Before being recognized by the CBB, an assessment methodology for each market segment, including rigorous back testing, must have been established for an absolute minimum of one year and with a preference of three years;
            (b) Independence: An ECAI must show independence and should not be subject to political or economic pressures that may influence the rating. The assessment process should be as free as possible from any constraints that could arise in situations where the composition of the board of directors, political pressure, the shareholder structure of the assessment institution or any other aspect could be seen as creating a conflict of interest;
            (c) International access/Transparency: The individual assessments, the key elements underlining the assessments and whether the issuer participated in the assessment process should be publicly available on a non-selective basis, unless they are private assessments. In addition, the general procedures, methodologies and assumptions for arriving at assessments used by the ECAI should be publicly available;
            (d) Disclosure: An ECAI should disclose the following information: its code of conduct; the general nature of its compensation arrangements with assessed entities; its assessment methodologies, including the definition of default, the time horizon, and the meaning of each rating; the actual default rates experienced in each assessment category; and the transitions of the assessments, e.g. the likelihood of AA ratings becoming A over time;
            (e) Resources: An ECAI must have sufficient resources to carry out high quality credit assessments. These resources should allow for substantial ongoing contact with senior and operational levels within the entities assessed in order to add value to the credit assessments. Such assessments will be based on methodologies combining qualitative and quantitative approaches; and
            (f) Credibility: Credibility, to a certain extent, can derive from the criteria above. In addition, the reliance on an ECAI's external credit assessments by independent parties (investors, insurers, trading partners) may be evidence of the credibility of the assessments of an ECAI. The credibility of an ECAI will also be based on the existence of internal procedures to prevent the misuse of confidential information. In order to be eligible for recognition, an ECAI does not have to assess firms in more than one country.
            January 2015

          • CA-3.4.2

            The CBB recognises Standard and Poor's, Moody's, Fitch IBCA and Capital Intelligence as eligible ECAIs. With respect to the possible recognition of other rating agencies as eligible ECAIs, CBB will update this paragraph subject to the rating agencies satisfying the eligibility requirements. (See Appendix CA-16 for mapping of eligible ECAIs).

            Amended: April 2016
            Added: January 2015

          • CA-3.4.3

            Conventional bank licenseesG must use the chosen ECAIs and their ratings consistently for each type of claim, for both risk weighting and risk management purposes. Conventional bank licenseesG will not be allowed to "cherry-pick" the assessments provided by different eligible ECAIs and to arbitrarily change the use of ECAIs.

            January 2015

          • CA-3.4.4

            Conventional bank licenseesG must disclose in their annual reports the names of the ECAIs that they use for the risk weighting of their assets by type of claims, the risk weights associated with the particular rating grades as determined by CBB through the mapping process as well as the aggregated risk-weighted assets for each risk weight based on the assessments of each eligible ECAI.

            January 2015

        • Multiple Assessments

          • CA-3.4.5

            If there are two assessments by eligible ECAIs chosen by a conventional bank licenseeG which map into different risk weights, the higher risk weight must be applied.

            January 2015

          • CA-3.4.6

            If there are three or more assessments by eligible ECAIs chosen by a conventional bank licenseeG which map into different risk weights, the assessments corresponding to the two lowest risk weights must be referred to and the higher of those two risk weights must be applied.

            January 2015

        • Issuer Versus Issues Assessment

          • CA-3.4.7

            Where a conventional bank licenseeG invests in a particular issue that has an issue-specific assessment, the risk weight of the claim will be based on this assessment. Where the conventional bank licensee'sG claim is not an investment in a specific assessed issue, the following general principles apply:

            (a) In circumstances where the borrower has a specific assessment for an issued debt — but the conventional bank licensee'sG claim is not an investment in this particular debt — a high quality credit assessment (one which maps into a risk weight lower than that which applies to an unrated claim) on that specific debt may only be applied to the conventional bank licensee'sG un-assessed claim if this claim ranks pari passu or senior to the claim with an assessment in all respects. If not, the credit assessment cannot be used and the un-assessed claim will receive the risk weight for unrated claims; and
            (b) In circumstances where the borrower has an issuer assessment, this assessment typically applies to senior unsecured claims on that issuer. Consequently, only senior claims on that issuer will benefit from a high quality issuer assessment. Other un-assessed claims of a highly assessed issuer will be treated as unrated. If either the issuer or a single issue has a low quality assessment (mapping into a risk weight equal to or higher than that which applies to unrated claims), an un-assessed claim on the same counterparty will be assigned the same risk weight as is applicable to the low quality assessment.
            January 2015

          • CA-3.4.8

            Whether the conventional bank licenseeG intends to rely on an issuer- or an issue-specific assessment, the assessment must take into account and reflect the entire amount of credit riskG exposure the conventional bank licenseeG has with regard to all payments owed to it.13


            13 For example, if a bank is owed both principal and interest, the assessment must fully take into account and reflect the credit risk associated with repayment of both principal and interest.

            January 2015

          • CA-3.4.9

            In order to avoid any double counting of credit enhancement factors, no recognition of credit riskG mitigation techniques will be taken into account if the credit enhancement is already reflected in the issue specific rating (see Paragraph CA-4.1.5).

            January 2015

        • Domestic Currency and Foreign Currency Assessments

          • CA-3.4.10

            Where unrated exposures are risk weighted based on the rating of an equivalent exposure to that borrower, the general rule is that foreign currency ratings must be used for exposures in foreign currency. Domestic currency ratings, if separate, must only be used to risk weight claims denominated in the domestic currency.

            January 2015

          • CA-3.4.11

            However, when an exposure arises through a conventional bank licensee'sG participation in a loan that has been extended, or has been guaranteed against convertibility and transfer risk, by certain MDBs, its convertibility and transfer risk can be considered by CBB, on a case by case basis, to be effectively mitigated. To qualify, MDBs must have preferred creditor status recognised in the market and be included in MDB's qualifying for 0% risk rate under CA-3.2.8. In such cases, for risk weighting purposes, the borrower's domestic currency rating may be used instead of its foreign currency rating. In the case of a guarantee against convertibility and transfer risk, the local currency rating can be used only for the portion that has been guaranteed. The portion of the loan not benefiting from such a guarantee will be risk-weighted based on the foreign currency rating.

            January 2015

        • Short-Term/Long-Term Assessments

          • CA-3.4.12

            For risk-weighting purposes, short-term assessments are deemed to be issue-specific. They can only be used to derive risk weights for claims arising from the rated facility. They cannot be generalised to other short-term claims, except under the conditions of paragraph CA-3.4.14. In no event can a short-term rating be used to support a risk weight for an unrated long-term claim. Short-term assessments may only be used for short-term claims against banks and corporates. The table below provides a framework for conventional bank licensees'G exposures to specific short-term facilities, such as a particular issuance of commercial paper:

            Credit assessment A-1/P-114 A-2/P-2 A-3/P-3 Others15
            Risk weight 20% 50% 100% 150%

            14 The notations follow the methodology used by Standard & Poor's and by Moody's Investors Service. The A-1 rating of Standard & Poor's includes both A-1+ and A-1-.

            15 This category includes all non-prime and B or C ratings.

            January 2015

          • CA-3.4.13

            If a short-term rated facility attracts a 50% risk-weight, unrated short-term claims cannot attract a risk weight lower than 100%. If an issuer has a short-term facility with an assessment that warrants a risk weight of 150%, all unrated claims, whether long-term or short-term, must also receive a 150% risk weight, unless the conventional bank licenseeG uses recognised credit riskG mitigation techniques for such claims.

            January 2015

          • CA-3.4.14

            For short-term claims on conventional bank licenseesG , the interaction with specific short-term assessments is expected to be the following:

            (a) The general preferential treatment for short-term claims, as defined under paragraphs CA-3.2.11 and CA-3.2.12, applies to all claims on conventional bank licenseesG of up to three months original maturity when there is no specific short-term claim assessment;
            (b) When there is a short-term assessment and such an assessment maps into a risk weight that is more favourable (i.e. lower) or identical to that derived from the general preferential treatment, the short-term assessment should be used for the specific claim only. Other short-term claims would benefit from the general preferential treatment; and
            (c) When a specific short-term assessment for a short term claim on a conventional bank licenseeG maps into a less favourable (higher) risk weight, the general short-term preferential treatment for inter-bank claims cannot be used. All unrated short-term claims should receive the same risk weighting as that implied by the specific short-term assessment.
            January 2015

          • CA-3.4.15

            When a short-term assessment is to be used, the institution making the assessment needs to meet all of the eligibility criteria for recognising ECAIs as presented in Paragraph CA-3.4.1 in terms of its short-term assessment.

            January 2015

        • Level of Application of the Assessment

          • CA-3.4.16

            External assessments for one entity within a corporate group must not be used to risk weight other entities within the same group.

            January 2015

        • Unsolicited Ratings

          • CA-3.4.17

            Unsolicited ratings should be treated as unrated exposures.

            January 2015

    • CA-4 Credit Risk — The Standardized Approach — Credit Risk Mitigation

      • CA-4.1 Overarching Issues

        • Introduction

          • CA-4.1.1

            Banks use a number of techniques to mitigate the credit risksG to which they are exposed. For example, exposures may be collateralised by first priority claims, in whole or in part with cash or securities, a loan exposure may be guaranteed by a third party, or a bank may buy a credit derivative to offset various forms of credit riskG . Additionally banks may agree to net loans owed to them against deposits from the same counterparty. Off-balance sheet items will first be converted into on-balance sheet equivalents prior to the CRM being applied.

            January 2015

        • General Remarks

          • CA-4.1.2

            The framework set out in this sub-section of "General remarks" is applicable to all banking book exposures.

            January 2015

          • CA-4.1.3

            The comprehensive approach for the treatment of collateral (see Paragraphs CA-4.2.12 to CA-4.2.20 and CA-4.3.1 to CA-4.3.32) will also be applied to calculate the counterparty risk charges for OTC derivatives and repo-style transactions booked in the trading book.

            January 2015

          • CA-4.1.4

            No transaction in which CRM techniques are used should receive a higher capital requirement than an otherwise identical transaction where such techniques are not used.

            January 2015

          • CA-4.1.5

            The effects of CRM will not be double counted. Therefore, no additional recognition of CRM for regulatory capital purposes will be applicable on claims for which an issue-specific rating is used that already reflects that CRM. As stated in Paragraph CA-3.4.8, principal-only ratings will also not be allowed within the framework of CRM.

            January 2015

          • CA-4.1.6

            Conventional bank licenseesG must employ robust procedures and processes to controlG residual risks (see Paragraph CA-4.1.6A), including strategy; consideration of the underlying credit; valuation; policies and procedures; systems; controlG of roll-off risks; and management of concentration risk arising from the conventional bank licensee'sG use of CRM techniques and its interaction with the conventional bank licensee'sG overall credit riskG profile.

            January 2015

          • CA-4.1.6A

            While the use of CRM techniques reduces or transfers credit riskG , it simultaneously may increase other risks (residual risks). Residual risks include legal, operational, liquidity and market risksG .

            January 2015

          • CA-4.1.6B

            Where residual risks are not adequately controlled, the CBB may impose additional capital charges or take supervisory actions.

            January 2015

          • CA-4.1.6C

            Conventional bank licenseesG must ensure that sufficient resources are devoted to the orderly operation of margin agreements with OTC derivative and securities-financing counterparties, as measured by the timeliness and accuracy of its outgoing calls and response time to incoming calls. Conventional bank licenseesG must have collateral management policies in place to control, monitor and report:

            (a) The risk to which margin agreements exposes them (such as the volatility and liquidity of the securities exchanged as collateral);
            (b) The concentration risk to particular types of collateral;
            (c) The reuse of collateral (both cash and non-cash) including the potential liquidity shortfalls resulting from the reuse of collateral received from counterparties; and
            (d) The surrender of rights on collateral posted to counterparties.
            January 2015

          • CA-4.1.7

            Public Disclosure Requirements (see Module PD) relating to the use of collateral must also be observed for conventional bank licenseesG to obtain capital relief in respect of any CRM techniques.

            January 2015

        • Legal Certainty

          • CA-4.1.8

            In order for conventional bank licenseesG to obtain capital relief for any use of CRM techniques, the minimum standards for legal documentation outlined in Paragraph CA-4.1.9 must be met.

            January 2015

          • CA-4.1.9

            All documentation used in collateralised transactions and for documenting on-balance sheet netting, guarantees and credit derivatives must be binding on all parties and legally enforceable in all relevant jurisdictions. Conventional bank licenseesG must have conducted sufficient legal review to verify this and have a well founded legal basis to reach this conclusion, and undertake such further review as necessary to ensure continuing enforceability.

            January 2015

      • CA-4.2 Overview of Credit Risk Mitigation Techniques16


        16 See Appendix CA-5 for an overview of methodologies for the capital treatment of transactions secured by financial collateral under the standardised approach.

        • Collateralised Transactions

          • CA-4.2.1

            A collateralised transaction is one in which:

            (a) Conventional bank licenseesG have a credit exposure or potential credit exposure; and
            (b) That credit exposure or potential credit exposure is hedged in whole or in part by collateral posted by a counterparty17 or by a third party on behalf of the counterparty.

            17 In this section "counterparty" is used to denote a party to whom a bank has an on- or off-balance sheet credit exposure or a potential credit exposure. That exposure may, for example, take the form of a loan of cash or securities (where the counterparty would traditionally be called the borrower), of securities posted as collateral, of a commitment or of exposure under an OTC derivatives contract.

            January 2015

          • CA-4.2.2

            Where conventional bank licenseesG take eligible financial collateral (e.g. cash or securities, more specifically defined in Paragraphs CA-4.3.1 and CA-4.3.2, they are allowed to reduce their credit exposure to a counterparty when calculating their capital requirements to take account of the risk mitigating effect of the collateral.

            January 2015

        • Overall Framework and Minimum Conditions

          • CA-4.2.3

            Conventional bank licenseesG may opt for either the simple approach, which substitutes the risk weighting of the collateral for the risk weighting of the counterparty for the collateralised portion of the exposure (generally subject to a 20% floor), or for the comprehensive approach, which allows fuller offset of collateral against exposures, by effectively reducing the exposure amount by the value ascribed to the collateral. Conventional bank licenseesG may operate under either, but not both, approaches in the banking book, but only under the comprehensive approach in the trading book. Partial collateralisation is recognised in both approaches. Mismatches in the maturity of the underlying exposure and the collateral will only be allowed under the comprehensive approach.

            January 2015

          • CA-4.2.4

            However, before capital relief will be granted in respect of any form of collateral, the standards set out below in Paragraphs CA-4.2.5 to CA-4.2.8 must be met under either approach.

            January 2015

          • CA-4.2.5

            In addition to the general requirements for legal certainty set out in Paragraphs CA-4.1.8 and CA-4.1.9, the legal mechanism by which collateral is pledged or transferred must ensure that the conventional bank licenseeG has the right to liquidate or take legal possession of it, in a timely manner, in the event of the default, insolvency or bankruptcy (or one or more otherwise-defined credit events set out in the transaction documentation) of the counterparty (and, where applicable, of the custodian holding the collateral). Furthermore conventional bank licenseesG must take all steps necessary to fulfil those requirements under the law applicable to the conventional bank licensee'sG interest in the collateral for obtaining and maintaining an enforceable security interest, e.g. by registering it with a registrar, or for exercising a right to net or set off in relation to title transfer collateral.

            January 2015

          • CA-4.2.6

            In order for collateral to provide protection, the credit quality of the counterparty and the value of the collateral must not have a material positive correlation. For example, securities issued by the counterparty — or by any related group entity — would provide little protection and so would be ineligible.

            January 2015

          • CA-4.2.7

            Conventional bank licenseesG must have clear and robust procedures for the timely liquidation of collateral to ensure that any legal conditions required for declaring the default of the counterparty and liquidating the collateral are observed, and that collateral can be liquidated promptly.

            January 2015

          • CA-4.2.8

            Where the collateral is held by a custodian, conventional bank licenseesG must take reasonable steps to ensure that the custodian segregates the collateral from its own assets.

            January 2015

          • CA-4.2.9

            A capital requirement will be applied to a conventional bank licenseeG on either side of the collateralised transaction: for example, both repos and reverse repos will be subject to capital requirements. Likewise, both sides of a securities lending and borrowing transaction will be subject to explicit capital charges, as will the posting of securities in connection with a derivative exposure or other borrowing.

            January 2015

          • CA-4.2.10

            Where a conventional bank licenseeG , acting as agent, arranges a repo-style transaction (i.e. repurchase/reverse repurchase and securities lending/borrowing transactions) between a customer and a third party and provides a guarantee to the customer that the third party will perform on its obligations, then the risk to the conventional bank licenseeG is the same as if the conventional bank licenseeG had entered into the transaction as a principal. In such circumstances, a conventional bank licenseeG will be required to calculate capital requirements as if it were itself the principal.

            January 2015

        • The Simple Approach

          • CA-4.2.11

            In the simple approach the risk weighting of the collateral instrument collateralising or partially collateralising the exposure is substituted for the risk weighting of the counterparty. Details of this framework are provided in Paragraphs CA-4.3.26 to CA-4.3.29.

            January 2015

        • The Comprehensive Approach

          • CA-4.2.12

            In the comprehensive approach, when taking collateral, conventional bank licenseesG must calculate their adjusted exposure to a counterparty for capital adequacy purposes in order to take account of the effects of that collateral. Using haircuts and add-ons, conventional bank licenseesG are required to adjust both the amount of the exposure to the counterparty and the value of any collateral received in support of that counterparty to take account of possible future fluctuations in the value of either18, occasioned by market movements. This will produce volatility adjusted amounts for both exposure and collateral. Unless either side of the transaction is cash, the volatility adjusted amount for the exposure will be higher than the exposure due to the add-on and for the collateral it will be lower due to the haircut.


            18 Exposure amounts may vary where, for example, securities are being lent.

            January 2015

          • CA-4.2.13

            Additionally where the exposure and collateral are held in different currencies an additional downwards adjustment must be made to the volatility adjusted collateral amount to take account of possible future fluctuations in exchange rates.

            January 2015

          • CA-4.2.14

            Where the volatility-adjusted exposure amount is greater than the volatility-adjusted collateral amount (including any further adjustment for foreign exchange risk), conventional bank licenseesG must calculate their risk-weighted assets as the difference between the two multiplied by the risk weight of the counterparty. The framework for performing these calculations is set out in Paragraphs CA-4.3.3 to CA-4.3.6.

            January 2015

          • CA-4.2.15

            Conventional bank licenseesG must use standard haircuts given in Paragraph CA-4.3.7 unless allowed to use models under Paragraph CA-4.3.22.

            January 2015

          • CA-4.2.16

            The size of the individual haircuts and add-ons will depend on the type of instrument, type of transaction and the frequency of marking-to-market and remargining. For example, repo-style transactions subject to daily marking-to-market and to daily re-margining will receive a haircut based on a 5-business day holding period and secured lending transactions with daily mark-to-market and no re-margining clauses will receive a haircut based on a 20-business day holding period. These haircut numbers will be scaled up using the square root of time formula depending on the frequency of re-margining or marking-to-market.

            January 2015

          • CA-4.2.17

            For certain types of repo-style transactions (broadly speaking government bond repos as defined in Paragraphs CA-4.3.14 and CA-4.3.15), the CBB may allow conventional bank licenseesG using standard haircuts not to apply these haircuts in calculating the exposure amount after risk mitigation.

            January 2015

          • CA-4.2.18

            The effect of master netting agreements covering repo-style transactions can be recognised for the calculation of capital requirements subject to the conditions in Paragraph CA-4.3.17.

            January 2015

          • CA-4.2.19

            As an alternative to standard haircuts conventional bank licenseesG may, subject to approval from CBB, use VaR models for calculating potential price volatility for repo-style transactions and other similar SFTsG , as set out in Paragraphs CA-4.3.22 to CA-4.3.25. Alternatively, subject to approval from the CBB's, they may also calculate, for these transactions, an expected positive exposure, as set forth in Appendix CA-2.

            January 2015

        • On-Balance Sheet Netting

          • CA-4.2.20

            Where conventional bank licenseesG have legally enforceable netting arrangements for loans and deposits they may calculate capital requirements on the basis of net credit exposures subject to the conditions in Paragraph CA-4.4.1.

            January 2015

        • Guarantees and Credit Derivatives

          • CA-4.2.21

            Where guarantees or credit derivatives are direct, explicit, irrevocable and unconditional, and the CBB is satisfied that conventional bank licenseesG fulfil certain minimum operational conditions relating to risk management processes the CBB may allow conventional bank licenseesG to take account of such credit protection in calculating capital requirements.

            January 2015

          • CA-4.2.22

            A range of guarantors and protection providers are recognised, as shown in Paragraph CA-4.5.7. A substitution approach will be applied. Thus only guarantees issued by or protection provided by entities with a lower risk weight than the counterparty will lead to reduced capital charges since the protected portion of the counterparty exposure is assigned the risk weight of the guarantor or protection provider, whereas the uncovered portion retains the risk weight of the underlying counterparty.

            January 2015

          • CA-4.2.23

            Detailed operational requirements are given in Paragraphs CA-4.5.1 to CA-4.5.5.

            January 2015

        • Maturity Mismatch

          • CA-4.2.24

            Where the residual maturity of the CRM is less than that of the underlying credit exposure a maturity mismatch occurs. Where there is a maturity mismatch and the CRM has an original maturity of less than one year, the CRM is not recognised for capital purposes. In other cases where there is a maturity mismatch, partial recognition is given to the CRM for regulatory capital purposes as detailed below in Paragraphs CA-4.6.1 to CA-4.6.4. Under the simple approach for collateral maturity mismatches will not be allowed.

            January 2015

        • Miscellaneous

          • CA-4.2.25

            Treatments for pools of credit riskG mitigants and first- and second-to-default credit derivatives are given in Paragraphs CA-4.7.1 to CA-4.7.5.

            January 2015

      • CA-4.3 Collateral

        • Eligible Financial Collateral

          • CA-4.3.1

            The following collateral instruments are eligible for recognition in the simple approach:

            (a) Cash (as well as certificates of deposit or comparable instruments issued by the lending bank) on deposit with the bank which is incurring the counterparty exposure;19,20
            (b) Gold;
            (c) Debt securities rated by a recognised external credit assessment institution where these are either:
            (i) At least BB- when issued by sovereigns or PSEs that are treated as sovereigns by the CBB;
            (ii) At least BBB- when issued by other entities (including banks and securities firms); or
            (iii) At least A-3/P-3 for short-term debt instruments;
            (d) Debt securities not rated by a recognised external credit assessment institution where these are:
            (i) Issued by a bank;
            (ii) Listed on a recognised exchange;
            (iii) Classified as senior debt;
            (iv) All rated issues of the same seniority by the issuing bank must be rated at least BBB- or A-3/P-3 by a recognised external credit assessment institution;
            (v) The bank holding the securities as collateral has no information to suggest that the issue justifies a rating below BBB- or A-3/P-3 (as applicable);
            (vi) The CBB is sufficiently confident about the market liquidity of the security;
            (e) Equities (including convertible bonds) that are included in a main index;
            (f) Undertakings for Collective Investments in Transferable Securities (UCITS) and mutual funds where:
            (i) A price for the units is publicly quoted daily; and
            (ii) The UCITS/mutual fund is limited to investing in the instruments listed in this paragraph21; and
            (g) Re-securitisations (as defined in the securitisation framework), irrespective of any credit ratings, are not eligible financial collateral.

            19 Cash funded credit linked notes issued by the bank against exposures in the banking book which fulfil the criteria for credit derivatives will be treated as cash collateralised transactions.

            20 When cash on deposit, certificates of deposit or comparable instruments issued by the lending bank are held as collateral at a third-party bank in a non-custodial arrangement, if they are openly pledged/assigned to the lending bank and if the pledge /assignment is unconditional and irrevocable, the exposure amount covered by the collateral (after any necessary haircuts for currency risk) will receive the risk weight of the third-party bank.

            21 However, the use or potential use by a UCITS/mutual fund of derivative instruments solely to hedge investments listed in this paragraph and paragraph CA-4.3.2 shall not prevent units in that UCITS /mutual fund from being eligible financial collateral.

            January 2015

          • CA-4.3.2

            The following collateral instruments are eligible for recognition in the comprehensive approach:

            (a) All of the instruments in paragraph CA-4.3.1;
            (b) Equities (including convertible bonds) which are not included in a main index but which are listed on a recognised exchange; and
            (c) UCITS/mutual funds which include such equities.
            January 2015

        • The Comprehensive Approach

          • Calculation of Capital Requirement

            • CA-4.3.3

              For a collateralised transaction, the exposure amount after risk mitigation is calculated as follows:

              E* = Max {0, [E x (1 + He) - C x (1 - Hc - Hfx)]}

              where:
              E* = The exposure value after risk mitigation
              E = Current value of the exposure
              He = Add-on appropriate to the exposure
              C = The current value of the collateral received
              Hc = Haircut appropriate to the collateral
              Hfx = Haircut appropriate for currency mismatch between the collateral and exposure

              January 2015

            • CA-4.3.4

              The exposure amount after risk mitigation is multiplied by the risk weight of the counterparty to obtain the risk-weighted asset amount for the collateralised transaction.

              January 2015

            • CA-4.3.5

              The treatment for transactions where there is a mismatch between the maturity of the counterparty exposure and the collateral is given in Paragraphs CA-4.6.1 to CA-4.6.4.

              January 2015

            • CA-4.3.6

              Where the collateral is a basket of assets, the haircut on the basket will be:

              H = ∑i ai Hi, where ai is the weight of the asset (as measured by units of currency) in the i basket and Hi the haircut applicable to that asset.

              January 2015

          • Standard Haircuts and Add-Ons

            • CA-4.3.7

              These are the standardised supervisory haircuts and add-ons (assuming daily mark-to market, daily re-margining and a 10-business day holding period), expressed as percentages:

              Issue rating for debt securities Residual Maturity Sovereigns22,23 Other issuers24 Securitisation Exposures25
              AAA to AA-/A-1 ≤1 year 0.5 1 2
              >1 year, ≤5 years 2 4 8
              >5 years 4 8 16
              A+ to BBB-/ A-2/ A-3/ P-3 and Unrated bank securities ≤1 year 1 2 4
              >1 year, ≤5 years 3 6 12
              >5 years 6 12 24
              BB+ to BB- All 15 Not Eligible Not Eligible
              Main index equities 15
              Other equities 25
              UCITS/mutual funds Highest haircut applicable to any security in fund
              Cash in the same currency26 0

              22 Includes PSEs which are treated as sovereigns by the CBB.

              23 Multilateral development banks receiving a 0% risk weight will be treated as sovereigns.

              24 Includes PSEs which are not treated as sovereigns by CBB.

              25 Securitisation exposures are defined as those exposures that meet the definition set forth in the securitisation framework.

              26 Eligible cash collateral specified in Subparagraph CA-4.3.1(a).

              January 2015

            • CA-4.3.8

              The standard haircut for currency risk where exposure and collateral are denominated in different currencies is 8% (also based on a 10-business day holding period and daily mark-to-market).

              January 2015

            • CA-4.3.9

              For transactions in which the conventional bank licenseeG lends non-eligible instruments (e.g. non-investment grade corporate debt securities), the add-on to be applied on the exposure must be the same as the one for equity traded on a recognised exchange that is not part of a main index.

              January 2015

          • Adjustment for Different Holding Periods and Non Daily Mark-to-market or Re-Margining

            • CA-4.3.10

              For some transactions, depending on the nature and frequency of the revaluation and re-margining provisions, different holding periods are appropriate. The framework for collateral haircuts distinguishes between repo-style transactions (i.e. repo/reverse repos and securities lending/borrowing), "other capital-market-driven transactions" (i.e. OTC derivatives transactions and margin lending) and secured lending. In capital-market-driven transactions and repo-style transactions, the documentation contains remargining clauses; in secured lending transactions, it generally does not.

              January 2015

            • CA-4.3.11

              The minimum holding period for various products is summarised in the following table.

              Transaction type Minimum holding period Condition
              Repo-style transaction five business days daily re-margining
              Other capital market transactions ten business days daily re-margining
              Secured lending twenty business days daily revaluation
              January 2015

            • CA-4.3.12

              When the frequency of re-margining or revaluation is longer than the minimum, the minimum haircut numbers will be scaled up depending on the actual number of business days between re margining or revaluation using the square root of time formula below:

              where:

              H = Haircut

              HM = Haircut under the minimum holding period

              TM = Minimum holding period for the type of transaction

              NR = Actual number of business days between re margining for capital market transactions or revaluation for secured transactions.

              When a conventional bank licenseeG calculates the volatility on a TN day holding period which is different from the specified minimum holding period TM, the HM will be calculated using the square root of time formula:

              TN = Holding period used by the bank for deriving HN

              HN = Haircut based on the holding period TN

              January 2015

            • CA-4.3.13

              For example, for conventional bank licenseesG using the standard CBB haircuts, the 10-business day haircuts provided in paragraph CA-4.3.7 will be the basis and this haircut will be scaled up or down depending on the type of transaction and the frequency of re-margining or revaluation using the formula below:

              where:

              H = Haircut

              H10 = 10-business day standard CBB haircut for instrument

              NR = Actual number of business days between re-margining for capital

              = Market transactions or revaluation for secured transactions.

              TM = Minimum holding period for the type of transaction

              January 2015

          • Conditions for Zero H

            • CA-4.3.14

              For repo-style transactions where the following conditions are satisfied, and the counterparty is a core market participant, conventional bank licenseesG are not required to apply the haircuts specified in the comprehensive approach and may instead apply a haircut of zero. This carve-out will not be available for conventional bank licenseesG using the modelling approaches as described in Paragraphs CA-4.3.22 to CA-4.3.25:

              (a) Both the exposure and the collateral are cash or a sovereign security or PSE security qualifying for a 0% risk weight in the standardised approach;
              (b) Both the exposure and the collateral are denominated in the same currency;
              (c) Either the transaction is overnight or both the exposure and the collateral are marked-to-market daily and are subject to daily re-margining;
              (d) Following a counterparty's failure to re-margin, the time that is required between the last mark-to-market before the failure to re-margin and the liquidation27 of the collateral is considered to be no more than four business days;
              (e) The transaction is settled across a settlement system proven for that type of transaction;
              (f) The documentation covering the agreement is standard market documentation for repo-style transactions in the securities concerned;
              (g) The transaction is governed by documentation specifying that if the counterparty fails to satisfy an obligation to deliver cash or securities or to deliver margin or otherwise defaults, then the transaction is immediately terminable; and
              (h) Upon any default event, regardless of whether the counterparty is insolvent or bankrupt, the conventional bank licenseeG has the unfettered, legally enforceable right to immediately seize and liquidate the collateral for its benefit.

              27 This does not require the bank to always liquidate the collateral but rather to have the capability to do so within the given time frame.

              January 2015

            • CA-4.3.15

              Core market participants include the following entities:

              (a) Sovereigns, central banks and PSEs;
              (b) Banks and securities firms;
              (c) Other financial companies (including insurance companies) eligible for a 20% risk weight in the standardised approach;
              (d) Regulated mutual funds that are subject to capital or leverage requirements;
              (e) Regulated pension funds; and
              (f) Recognised clearing organisations.
              January 2015

            • CA-4.3.16

              Where a supervisor has applied a specific carve-out to repo-style transactions in securities issued by its domestic government, then banks incorporated in Bahrain are allowed to adopt the same approach to the same transactions.

              January 2015

          • Treatment of Repo-Style Transactions Covered under Master Netting Agreements

            • CA-4.3.17

              The effects of bilateral netting agreements covering repo-style transactions will be recognised on a counterparty-by-counterparty basis if the agreements are legally enforceable in each relevant jurisdiction upon the occurrence of an event of default and regardless of whether the counterparty is insolvent or bankrupt. In addition, netting agreements must:

              (a) Provide the non-defaulting party the right to terminate and close-out in a timely manner all transactions under the agreement upon an event of default, including in the event of insolvency or bankruptcy of the counterparty;
              (b) Provide for the netting of gains and losses on transactions (including the value of any collateral) terminated and closed out under it so that a single net amount is owed by one party to the other;
              (c) Allow for the prompt liquidation or setoff of collateral upon the event of default; and
              (d) Be, together with the rights arising from the provisions required in (a) to (c) above, legally enforceable in each relevant jurisdiction upon the occurrence of an event of default and regardless of the counterparty's insolvency or bankruptcy.
              January 2015

            • CA-4.3.18

              Netting across positions in the banking and trading book will only be recognised when the netted transactions fulfil the following conditions:

              (a) All transactions are marked to market daily28; and
              (b) The collateral instruments used in the transactions are recognised as eligible financial collateral in the banking book.

              28 The holding period for the haircuts will depend as in other repo-style transactions on the frequency of margining.

              January 2015

            • CA-4.3.19

              The formula in Paragraph CA-4.3.3 will be adapted to calculate the capital requirements for transactions with netting agreements.

              January 2015

            • CA-4.3.20

              For conventional bank licenseesG using the standard haircuts, the framework below will apply to take into account the impact of master netting agreements.

              E* = Max {0, [(∑(E) – ∑(C)) + ∑ (ES x HS) + ∑ (EFX x HFX)]}29

              Where:

              E* = The exposure value after risk mitigation
              E = Current value of the exposure
              C = The value of the collateral received
              ES = Absolute value of the net position in a given security
              HS = Haircut appropriate to ES
              EFX = Absolute value of the net position in a currency different from the settlement currency
              HFX = Haircut appropriate for currency mismatch


              29 The starting point for this formula is the formula in paragraph CA-4.3.3 which can also be presented as the following: E* = max {0, [(E – C) + (E x He) + (C x Hc) + (C x Hfx)]}

              January 2015

            • CA-4.3.21

              The net long or short position of each security included in the netting agreement will be multiplied by the appropriate haircut. All other rules regarding the calculation of haircuts stated in Paragraphs CA4.3.3 to CA-4.3.16 equivalently apply for conventional bank licenseesG using bilateral netting agreements for repo-style transactions.

              January 2015

          • Use of Models

            • CA-4.3.22

              As an alternative to the use of standard haircuts, CBB may allow conventional bank licenseesG to use a VaR models approach to reflect the price volatility of the exposure and collateral for repo-style transactions, taking into account correlation effects between security positions. This approach would apply to repo-style transactions covered by bilateral netting agreements on a counterparty-by-counterparty basis. At the discretion of CBB, firms are also eligible to use the VaR model approach for margin lending transactions, if the transactions are covered under a bilateral master netting agreement that meets the requirements of Paragraphs CA-4.3.17 and CA-4.3.18. The VaR models approach is available to conventional bank licenseesG that have received CBB's recognition for an internal market riskG model under Chapter CA-14. Conventional bank licenseesG which have not received CBB's recognition for use of models under Chapter CA-14 can separately apply for CBB's recognition to use their internal VaR models for calculation of potential price volatility for repo-style transactions. Internal models will only be accepted when a conventional bank licenseeG can prove the quality of its model to CBB through the backtesting of its output using one year of historical data.

              January 2015

            • CA-4.3.23

              The quantitative and qualitative criteria for recognition of internal market riskG models for repo-style transactions and other similar transactions are in principle the same as in Chapter CA-14. With regard to the holding period, the minimum will be 5-business days for repo-style transactions, rather than the 10-business days in the Market RiskG Amendment. For other transactions eligible for the VaR models approach, the 10-business day holding period will be retained. The minimum holding period should be adjusted upwards for market instruments where such a holding period would be inappropriate given the liquidity of the instrument concerned.

              January 2015

            • CA-4.3.24

              The calculation of the exposure E* for banks using their internal model will be the following:

              E* = Max {0, [(∑E – ∑c) + VaR output from internal model]}

              In calculating capital requirements banks will use the previous business day's VaR number.

              January 2015

            • CA-4.3.25

              [This paragraph was deleted in January 2015.]

              January 2015

        • The Simple Approach

          • Minimum Conditions

            • CA-4.3.26

              For collateral to be recognised in the simple approach, the collateral must be pledged for at least the life of the exposure and it must be marked to market and revalued with a minimum frequency of six months. Those portions of claims collateralised by the market value of recognised collateral receive the risk weight applicable to the collateral instrument. The risk weight on the collateralised portion will be subject to a floor of 20% except under the conditions specified in Paragraphs CA-4.3.27 to CA-4.3.29. The remainder of the claim should be assigned to the risk weight appropriate to the counterparty. A capital requirement will be applied to conventional bank licenseesG on either side of the collateralised transaction: for example, both repos and reverse repos will be subject to capital requirements.

              January 2015

        • Exceptions to the Risk Weight Floor

          • CA-4.3.27

            Transactions which fulfil the criteria outlined in Paragraph CA-4.3.14 and are with a core market participant, as defined in Paragraph CA-4.3.15, receive a risk weight of 0%. If the counterparty to the transactions is not a core market participant the transaction should receive a risk weight of 10%.

            January 2015

          • CA-4.3.28

            OTC derivative transactions subject to daily mark-to-market, collateralised by cash and where there is no currency mismatch receive a 0% risk weight. Such transactions collateralised by sovereign or PSE securities qualifying for a 0% risk weight in the standardised approach will receive a 10% risk weight.

            January 2015

          • CA-4.3.29

            The 20% floor for the risk weight on a collateralised transaction will not be applied and a 0% risk weight can be applied where the exposure and the collateral are denominated in the same currency, and either:

            (a) The collateral is cash on deposit as defined in Paragraph CA-4.3.1(a); or
            (b) The collateral is in the form of sovereign/PSE securities eligible for a 0% risk weight, and its market value has been discounted by 20%.
            January 2015

        • Collateralised OTC Derivatives Transactions

          • CA-4.3.30

            Under the Current Exposure Method, the calculation of the counterparty credit risk charge for an individual contract is as follows:

            Counterparty charge = [(RC + add-on) – CA] x r x 8%

            Where:

            RC = The replacement cost,
            Add-on = The amount for potential future exposure calculated according to paragraph 45 of Appendix CA-2.
            CA = The volatility adjusted collateral amount under the comprehensive approach prescribed in Paragraphs CA-4.3.3 to CA-4.3.16, or zero if no eligible collateral is applied to the transaction, and
            r = The risk weight of the counterparty.

            January 2015

          • CA-4.3.31

            When effective bilateral netting contracts are in place, RC is the net replacement cost and the add-on is ANet as calculated according to paragraph 50 (i) to 50 (vi) of Appendix CA-2. The haircut for currency risk (Hfx) must be applied when there is a mismatch between the collateral currency and the settlement currency. Even in the case where there are more than two currencies involved in the exposure, collateral and settlement currency, a single haircut assuming a 10-business day holding period scaled up as necessary depending on the frequency of mark-to-market must be applied.

            January 2015

          • CA-4.3.32

            As an alternative to the Current Exposure Method for the calculation of the counterparty credit risk charge, conventional bank licenseesG may also use the Standardised Method.

            January 2015

      • CA-4.4 On-Balance Sheet Netting

        • CA-4.4.1

          Where a conventional bank licenseeG :

          (a) Has a well-founded legal basis for concluding that the netting or offsetting agreement is enforceable in each relevant jurisdiction regardless of whether the counterparty is insolvent or bankrupt;
          (b) Is able at any time to determine those assets and liabilities with the same counterparty that are subject to the netting agreement;
          (c) Monitors and controls its roll-off risks; and
          (d) Monitors and controls the relevant exposures on a net basis,

          it may use the net exposure of loans and deposits as the basis for its capital adequacy calculation in accordance with the formula in Paragraph CA-4.3.3. Assets (loans) are treated as exposure and liabilities (deposits) as collateral. The haircuts will be zero except when a currency mismatch exists. A 10-business day holding period will apply when daily mark-to- market is conducted and all the requirements contained in Paragraphs CA-4.3.7, CA-4.3.13, and CA-4.6.1 to CA-4.6.4 will apply.

          January 2015

      • CA-4.5 Guarantees and Credit Derivatives

        • Operational Requirements

          • Operational Requirements Common to Guarantees and Credit Derivatives

            • CA-4.5.1

              A guarantee (counter-guarantee) or credit derivative must represent a direct claim on the protection provider and must be explicitly referenced to specific exposures or a pool of exposures, so that the extent of the cover is clearly defined and incontrovertible. Other than non-payment by a protection purchaser of money due in respect of the credit protection contract it must be irrevocable; there must be no clause in the contract that would allow the protection provider unilaterally to cancel the credit cover or that would increase the effective cost of cover as a result of deteriorating credit quality in the hedged exposure30. It must also be unconditional; there should be no clause in the protection contract outside the direct controlG of the conventional bank licenseeG that could prevent the protection provider from being obliged to pay out in a timely manner in the event that the original counterparty fails to make the payment(s) due.


              30 Note that the irrevocability condition does not require that the credit protection and the exposure be maturity matched; rather that the maturity agreed ex ante may not be reduced ex post by the protection provider. Paragraph CA-4.6.2 sets forth the treatment of call options in determining remaining maturity for credit protection.

              January 2015

          • Additional Operational Requirements for Guarantees

            • CA-4.5.2

              In addition to the legal certainty requirements in Paragraphs CA-4.1.8 and CA-4.1.9, in order for a guarantee to be recognised, the following conditions must be satisfied:

              (a) On the qualifying default/non-payment of the counterparty, the conventional bank licenseeG may in a timely manner pursue the guarantor for any monies outstanding under the documentation governing the transaction. The guarantor may make one lump sum payment of all monies under such documentation to the conventional bank licenseeG , or the guarantor may assume the future payment obligations of the counterparty covered by the guarantee. The conventional bank licenseeG must have the right to receive any such payments from the guarantor without first having to take legal actions in order to pursue the counterparty for payment;
              (b) The guarantee is an explicitly documented obligation assumed by the guarantor; and
              (c) Except as noted in the following sentence, the guarantee covers all types of payments the underlying obligor is expected to make under the documentation governing the transaction, for example notional amount, margin payments etc. Where a guarantee covers payment of principal only, interests and other uncovered payments must be treated as an unsecured amount in accordance with Paragraph CA-4.5.10.
              January 2015

          • Additional Operational Requirements for Credit Derivatives

            • CA-4.5.3

              In order for a credit derivative contract to be recognised, the following conditions must be satisfied:

              (a) The credit events specified by the contracting parties must at a minimum cover:
              (i) Failure to pay the amounts due under terms of the underlying obligation that are in effect at the time of such failure (with a grace period that is closely in line with the grace period in the underlying obligation);
              (ii) Bankruptcy, insolvency or inability of the obligor to pay its debts, or its failure or admission in writing of its inability generally to pay its debts as they become due, and analogous events; and
              (iii) Restructuring of the underlying obligation involving forgiveness or postponement of principal, interest or fees that results in a credit loss event (i.e. charge-off, specific provision or other similar debit to the profit and loss account). When restructuring is not specified as a credit event, refer to Paragraph CA-4.5.4;
              (b) If the credit derivative covers obligations that do not include the underlying obligation, Subparagraph (g) governs whether the asset mismatch is permissible;
              (c) The credit derivative shall not terminate prior to expiration of any grace period required for a default on the underlying obligation to occur as a result of a failure to pay, subject to the provisions of Paragraph CA-4.6.2;
              (d) Credit derivatives allowing for cash settlement are recognised for capital purposes insofar as a robust valuation process is in place in order to estimate loss reliably. There must be a clearly specified period for obtaining post-credit- event valuations of the underlying obligation. If the reference obligation specified in the credit derivative for purposes of cash settlement is different than the underlying obligation, Subparagraph (g) below governs whether the asset mismatch is permissible;
              (e) If the protection purchaser's right/ability to transfer the underlying obligation to the protection provider is required for settlement, the terms of the underlying obligation must provide that any required consent to such transfer may not be unreasonably withheld;
              (f) The identity of the parties responsible for determining whether a credit event has occurred must be clearly defined. This determination must not be the sole responsibility of the protection seller. The protection buyer must have the right/ability to inform the protection provider of the occurrence of a credit event;
              (g) A mismatch between the underlying obligation and the reference obligation under the credit derivative (i.e. the obligation used for purposes of determining cash settlement value or the deliverable obligation) is permissible if (1) the reference obligation ranks pari passu with or is junior to the underlying obligation, and (2) the underlying obligation and reference obligation share the same obligor (i.e. the same legal entity) and legally enforceable cross-default or cross-acceleration clauses are in place; and
              (h) A mismatch between the underlying obligation and the obligation used for purposes of determining whether a credit event has occurred is permissible if (1) the latter obligation ranks pari passu with or is junior to the underlying obligation, and (2) the underlying obligation and reference obligation share the same obligor (i.e. the same legal entity) and legally enforceable cross-default or cross-acceleration clauses are in place.
              January 2015

            • CA-4.5.4

              When the restructuring of the underlying obligation is not covered by the credit derivative, but the other requirements in Paragraph CA-4.5.3 are met, partial recognition of the credit derivative will be allowed. If the amount of the credit derivative is less than or equal to the amount of the underlying obligation, 60% of the amount of the hedge can be recognised as covered. If the amount of the credit derivative is larger than that of the underlying obligation, then the amount of eligible hedge is capped at 60% of the amount of the underlying obligation31.


              31 The 60% recognition factor is provided as an interim treatment, which the CBB may refine in the future.

              January 2015

            • CA-4.5.5

              Only credit default swaps and total return swaps that provide credit protection equivalent to guarantees will be eligible for recognition. The following exception applies. Where a conventional bank licenseeG buys credit protection through a total return swap and records the net payments received on the swap as net income, but does not record offsetting deterioration in the value of the asset that is protected (either through reductions in fair value or by an addition to reserves), the credit protection will not be recognised. The treatment of first-to-default and second-to-default products is covered separately in Paragraphs CA-4.7.2 to CA-4.7.5.

              January 2015

            • CA-4.5.6

              Other types of credit derivatives are not eligible for recognition32.


              32 Cash funded credit linked notes issued by the bank against exposures in the banking book which fulfil the criteria for credit derivatives will be treated as cash collateralised transactions.

              January 2015

        • Range of Eligible Guarantors (Counter-Guarantors)/Protection Providers

          • CA-4.5.7

            Credit protection given by the following entities will be recognised:

            (a) Sovereign entities33, PSEs, banks34 and securities firms with a lower risk weight than the counterparty;
            (b) Other entities that are externally rated except where credit protection is provided to a securitisation exposure. This would include credit protection provided by parent, subsidiaryG and affiliateG companies when they have a lower risk weight than the obligor; and
            (c) When credit protection is provided to a securitisation exposure, other entities that currently are externally rated BBB- or better and that were externally rated A- or better at the time the credit protection was provided. This would include credit protection provided by parentG , subsidiaryG and affiliateG companies when they have a lower risk weight than the obligor.

            33 This includes the Bank for International Settlements, the International Monetary Fund, the European Central Bank and the European Community, as well as those MDBs referred to in CA-3.2.8.

            34 This includes other MDBs.

            January 2015

        • Risk Weights

          • CA-4.5.8

            The protected portion is assigned the risk weight of the protection provider. The uncovered portion of the exposure is assigned the risk weight of the underlying counterparty.

            January 2015

          • CA-4.5.9

            Materiality thresholds on payments below which no payment is made in the event of loss are equivalent to retained first loss positions and must be deducted in full from the Total Capital of the conventional bank licenseeG purchasing the credit protection.

            January 2015

        • Proportional Cover

          • CA-4.5.10

            Where the amount guaranteed, or against which credit protection is held, is less than the amount of the exposure, and the secured and unsecured portions are of equal seniority, i.e. the conventional bank licenseeG and the guarantor share losses on a pro-rata basis capital relief will be afforded on a proportional basis: i.e. the protected portion of the exposure will receive the treatment applicable to eligible guarantees/credit derivatives, with the remainder treated as unsecured.

            January 2015

        • Tranched Cover

          • CA-4.5.11

            Where the conventional bank licenseeG transfers a portion of the risk of an exposure in one or more tranches to a protection seller or sellers and retains some level of risk of the loan and the risk transferred and the risk retained are of different seniority, conventional bank licenseesG may obtain credit protection for either the senior tranches (e.g. second loss portion) or the junior tranche (e.g. first loss portion). In this case the rules as set out in Chapter CA-6 (Credit riskG — securitisation framework) will apply.

            January 2015

        • Currency Mismatches

          • CA-4.5.12

            Where the credit protection is denominated in a currency different from that in which the exposure is denominated — i.e. there is a currency mismatch — the amount of the exposure deemed to be protected will be reduced by the application of a haircut HFX, i.e.

            GA = G x (1 – HFX)

            Where:

            G = Nominal amount of the credit protection
            HFX = Haircut appropriate for currency mismatch between the credit protection and underlying obligation.

            The appropriate haircut based on a 10-business day holding period (assuming daily marking-to-market) will be applied. If a conventional bank licenseeG uses the standard haircuts it will be 8%. The haircuts must be scaled up using the square root of time formula, depending on the frequency of revaluation of the credit protection as described in Paragraph CA-4.3.12.

            January 2015

        • Sovereign Guarantees and Counter-guarantees

          • CA-4.5.13

            Portions of claims guaranteed by the entities detailed in Paragraph CA-3.2.1, where the guarantee is denominated in the domestic currency (and US$ in case of a guarantee provided by the Government of Bahrain and CBB) may get a 0% risk-weighting. A claim may be covered by a guarantee that is indirectly counter-guaranteed by such entities. Such a claim may be treated as covered by a sovereign guarantee provided that:

            (a) The sovereign counter-guarantee covers all credit riskG elements of the claim;
            (b) Both the original guarantee and the counter-guarantee meet all operational requirements for guarantees, except that the counter-guarantee need not be direct and explicit to the original claim; and
            (c) CBB is satisfied that the cover is robust and that no historical evidence suggests that the coverage of the counter-guarantee is less than effectively equivalent to that of a direct sovereign guarantee.
            January 2015

      • CA-4.6 Maturity Mismatches

        • CA-4.6.1

          For the purposes of calculating risk-weighted assets, a maturity mismatch occurs when the residual maturity of a hedge is less than that of the underlying exposure.

          January 2015

        • Definition of Maturity

          • CA-4.6.2

            The maturity of the underlying exposure and the maturity of the hedge should both be defined conservatively. The effective maturity of the underlying should be gauged as the longest possible remaining time before the counterparty is scheduled to fulfil its obligation, taking into account any applicable grace period. For the hedge, embedded options which may reduce the term of the hedge should be taken into account so that the shortest possible effective maturity is used. Where a call is at the discretion of the protection seller, the maturity will always be at the first call date. If the call is at the discretion of the protection buying bank but the terms of the arrangement at origination of the hedge contain a positive incentive for the bank to call the transaction before contractual maturity, the remaining time to the first call date will be deemed to be the effective maturity. For example, where there is a step-up in cost in conjunction with a call feature or where the effective cost of cover increases over time even if credit quality remains the same or increases, the effective maturity will be the remaining time to the first call.

            January 2015

        • Risk Weights for Maturity Mismatches

          • CA-4.6.3

            As outlined in Paragraph CA-4.2.24, hedges with maturity mismatches are only recognised when their original maturities are greater than or equal to one year. As a result, the maturity of hedges for exposures with original maturities of less than one year must be matched to be recognised. In all cases, hedges with maturity mismatches will not be recognised when they have a residual maturity of three months or less.

            January 2015

          • CA-4.6.4

            When there is a maturity mismatch with recognised credit riskG mitigants (collateral, on-balance sheet netting, guarantees and credit derivatives) the following adjustment will be applied.

            Pa = P x (t – 0.25) / (T – 0.25)
            Where:

            Pa = Value of the credit protection adjusted for maturity mismatch.
            P = Credit protection (e.g. collateral amount, guarantee amount) adjusted for any haircuts.
            T = Min (T, residual maturity of the credit protection arrangement) expressed in years.
            T = Min (5, residual maturity of the exposure) expressed in years.

            January 2015

      • CA-4.7 Other Items Related to the Treatment of CRM Techniques

        • Treatment of Pools of CRM Techniques

          • CA-4.7.1

            In the case where a conventional bank licenseeG has multiple CRM techniques covering a single exposure (e.g. a bank has both collateral and guarantee partially covering an exposure), the conventional bank licenseeG is required to subdivide the exposure into portions covered by each type of CRM technique (e.g. portion covered by collateral, portion covered by guarantee) and the risk-weighted assets of each portion must be calculated separately. When credit protection provided by a single protection provider has differing maturities, they must be subdivided into separate protection as well.

            January 2015

        • First-to-default Credit Derivatives

          • CA-4.7.2

            There are cases where a conventional bank licenseeG obtains credit protection for a basket of reference names and where the first default among the reference names triggers the credit protection and the credit event also terminates the contract. In this case, the conventional bank licenseeG may recognise regulatory capital relief for the asset within the basket with the lowest risk-weighted amount, but only if the notional amount is less than or equal to the notional amount of the credit derivative.

            January 2015

          • CA-4.7.3

            With regard to the conventional bank licenseeG providing credit protection through such an instrument, if the product has an external credit assessment from an eligible credit assessment institution, the risk weight in Paragraph CA-6.4.8 applied to securitisation tranches will be applied. If the product is not rated by an eligible external credit assessment institution, the risk weights of the assets included in the basket will be aggregated up to a maximum of 1250% and multiplied by the nominal amount of the protection provided by the credit derivative to obtain the risk-weighted asset amount.

            January 2015

        • Second-to-default Credit Derivatives

          • CA-4.7.4

            In the case where the second default among the assets within the basket triggers the credit protection, the conventional bank licenseeG obtaining credit protection through such a product will only be able to recognise any capital relief if first-default-protection has also be obtained or when one of the assets within the basket has already defaulted.

            January 2015

          • CA-4.7.5

            For conventional bank licenseesG providing credit protection through such a product, the capital treatment is the same as in Paragraph CA-4.7.3 above with one exception. The exception is that, in aggregating the risk weights, the asset with the lowest risk weighted amount can be excluded from the calculation.

            January 2015

    • CA-5 Credit Risk — The Internal Ratings-Based Approach

      • CA-5.1

        [This Chapter was deleted in January 2015.]

        January 2015

    • CA-6 Credit Risk — Securitisation Framework

      • CA-6.1 Scope and Definitions of Transactions Covered under the Securitisation Framework

        • CA-6.1.1

          Conventional bank licenseesG must apply the securitisation framework for determining regulatory capital requirements on exposures arising from traditional and synthetic securitisations or similar structures that contain features common to both.

          January 2015

        • CA-6.1.1A

          A conventional bank licenseeG must meet all the requirements listed in the Paragraph CA-6.1.1.B below, to use any of the approaches specified in the securitisation framework. If a conventional bank licenseeG does not perform the level of the due diligence specified, it must risk weight the amount of the securitisation (or re-securitisation) exposure at 1,250% using the approach outlined in the Paragraphs CA-6.4.2 to CA-6.4.4.

          January 2015

        • CA-6.1.1B

          In order for a conventional bank licenseeG to use the securitisation framework, a conventional bank licenseeG must have the information specified below or risk weight the exposure at 1,250%:

          (a) A conventional bank licenseeG must have a comprehensive understanding of the risk characteristics of its individual securitisation exposures, whether on-balance sheet or off-balance sheet, as well as the risk characteristics of the pools underlying its securitisation exposures;
          (b) A conventional bank licenseeG must be able to access performance information on the underlying pools on an ongoing basis in a timely manner. Such information should include: exposure type, percentage of loans more than 30, 60 and 90 days past due, default rates, prepayment rates, loans in foreclosure, property type, occupancy, average credit score or other measures of creditworthiness, average loan-to-value ratio, and industry and geographic diversification. For re-securitisations, a conventional bank licenseeG must have not only information on the underlying securitisation tranches, such as the issuer name and credit quality, but also the characteristics and performance of the pools underlying the securitisation tranches; and
          (c) A conventional bank licenseeG must have a thorough understanding of all structural features of a securitisation transaction that would materially impact the performance of the conventional bank licensee'sG exposures to the transaction, such as the contractual waterfall and waterfall-related triggers, credit enhancements, liquidity enhancements, market value triggers, and deal-specific definitions of default.
          January 2015

        • CA-6.1.2

          Since securitisations may be structured in many different ways, the capital treatment of a securitisation exposure must be determined on the basis of its economic substance rather than its legal form. Similarly, CBB will look to the economic substance of a transaction to determine whether it should be subject to the securitisation framework for purposes of determining regulatory capital. Conventional bank licenseesG are encouraged to consult with the CBB when there is uncertainty about whether a given transaction should be considered a securitisation. For example, transactions involving cash flows from real estate (e.g. rents) may be considered specialised lending exposures, if warranted.

          January 2015

        • CA-6.1.3

          A traditional securitisation is a structure where the cash flow from an underlying pool of exposures is used to service at least two different stratified risk positions or tranches reflecting different degrees of credit riskG . Payments to the investors depend upon the performance of the specified underlying exposures, as opposed to being derived from an obligation of the entity originating those exposures. The stratified/tranched structures that characterise securitisations differ from ordinary senior/subordinated debt instruments in that junior securitisation tranches can absorb losses without interrupting contractual payments to more senior tranches, whereas subordination in a senior/subordinated debt structure is a matter of priority of rights to the proceeds of liquidation.

          January 2015

        • CA-6.1.4

          A synthetic securitisation is a structure with at least two different stratified risk positions or tranches that reflect different degrees of credit riskG where credit riskG of an underlying pool of exposures is transferred, in whole or in part, through the use of funded (e.g. credit-linked notes) or unfunded (e.g. credit default swaps) credit derivatives or guarantees that serve to hedge the credit riskG of the portfolio. Accordingly, the investors' potential risk is dependent upon the performance of the underlying pool.

          January 2015

        • CA-6.1.5

          Conventional bank licensees'G exposures to a securitisation are hereafter referred to as "securitisation exposures". Securitisation exposures can include but are not restricted to the following: asset-backed securities, mortgage-backed securities, credit enhancements, liquidity facilities, interest rate or currency swaps, credit derivatives and tranched cover as described in Paragraph CA-4.5.11. Reserve accounts, such as cash collateral accounts, recorded as an asset by the originating conventional bank licenseeG must also be treated as securitisation exposures.

          January 2015

        • CA-6.1.5A

          A re-securitisation exposure is a securitisation exposure in which the risk associated with an underlying pool of exposures is tranched and at least one of the underlying exposures is a securitisation exposure. In addition, an exposure to one or more re-securitisation exposures is a re-securitisation exposure.

          January 2015

        • CA-6.1.5B

          Given the complexity of many securitisation transactions, licensees are encouraged to consult with the CBB when there is uncertainty about whether a particular structured credit position should be considered a re-securitisation exposure. The CBB will consider the exposure's economic substance when making a determination on whether a structured credit position is a re-securitisation exposure.

          January 2015

        • CA-6.1.5C

          Re-securitisation exposures include collateralised debt obligations (CDOs) of asset-backed securities (ABS) including, for example, a CDO backed by residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS). Moreover, it also captures a securitisation exposure where the pool contains many individual mortgage loans and a single RMBS. This means that even if only one of the underlying exposures is a securitisation exposure, then any tranched position (such as senior or subordinated ABS) exposed to that pool is considered a re-securitisation exposure.

          January 2015

        • CA-6.1.5D

          Furthermore, when an instrument's performance is linked to one or more re-securitisation exposures, generally that instrument is a re-securitisation exposure. Thus a credit derivative providing credit protection for a CDO squared tranche is a re-securitisation exposure.

          January 2015

        • CA-6.1.5E

          The definition of re-securitisation also applies to ABCP programmes. The ratings based risk approach tables include weightings for both securitisation and re-securitisation exposures (see CA-6.4.8 onward).

          January 2015

        • CA-6.1.6

          Underlying instruments in the pool being securitised may include but are not restricted to the following: loans, commitments, asset-backed and mortgage-backed securities, corporate bonds, equity securities, and private equity investments. The underlying pool may include one or more exposures.

          January 2015

      • CA-6.2 Definitions and General Terminology

        • Originating Bank

          • CA-6.2.1

            For risk-based capital purposes, a conventional bank licenseeG is considered to be an originator with regard to a certain securitisation if it meets either of the following conditions:

            (a) The conventional bank licenseeG originates directly or indirectly underlying exposures included in the securitisation; or
            (b) The conventional bank licenseeG serves as a sponsor of an asset-backed commercial paper (ABCP) conduit or similar programme that acquires exposures from third-party entities. In the context of such programmes, a conventional bank licenseeG would generally be considered a sponsor and, in turn, an originator if it, in fact or in substance, manages or advises the programme, places securities into the market, or provides liquidity and/or credit enhancements.
            January 2015

        • Asset Backed Commercial Paper (ABCP) Programme

          • CA-6.2.2

            An asset-backed commercial paper (ABCP) programme predominately issues commercial paper with an original maturity of one year or less that is backed by assets or other exposures held in a bankruptcy-remote, Special Purpose Securitisation Vehicle (SPSV).

            January 2015

        • Clean-Up Call

          • CA-6.2.3

            A clean-up call is an option that permits the securitisation exposures (e.g. asset-backed securities) to be called before all of the underlying exposures or securitisation exposures have been repaid. In the case of traditional securitisations, this is generally accomplished by repurchasing the remaining securitisation exposures once the pool balance or outstanding securities have fallen below some specified level. In the case of a synthetic transaction, the clean-up call may take the form of a clause that extinguishes the credit protection.

            January 2015

        • Credit Enhancement

          • CA-6.2.4

            A credit enhancement is a contractual arrangement in which the conventional bank licenseeG retains or assumes a securitisation exposure and, in substance, provides some degree of added protection to other parties to the transaction.

            January 2015

        • Credit Enhancing Interest-Only Strip

          • CA-6.2.5

            A credit-enhancing interest-only strip (I/O) is an on-balance sheet asset that (i) represents a valuation of cash flows related to future margin income, and (ii) is subordinated.

            January 2015

        • Early Amortisation

          • CA-6.2.6

            Early amortisation provisions are mechanisms that, once triggered, allow investors to be paid out prior to the originally stated maturity of the securities issued. For risk-based capital purposes, an early amortisation provision will be considered either controlled or non-controlled. A controlled early amortisation provision must meet all of the following conditions:

            (a) The conventional bank licenseeG must have an appropriate capital/liquidity plan in place to ensure that it has sufficient capital and liquidity available in the event of an early amortisation;
            (b) Throughout the duration of the transaction, including the amortisation period, there is the same pro-rata sharing of interest, principal, expenses, losses and recoveries based on the conventional bank licensee'sG and investors' relative shares of the receivables outstanding at the beginning of each month;
            (c) The conventional bank licenseeG must set a period for amortisation that would be sufficient for at least 90% of the total debt outstanding at the beginning of the early amortisation period to have been repaid or recognised as in default; and
            (d) The pace of repayment must not be any more rapid than would be allowed by straight-line amortisation over the period set out in criterion (c).
            January 2015

          • CA-6.2.7

            An early amortisation provision that does not satisfy the conditions for a controlled early amortisation provision must be treated as a non-controlled early amortisation provision.

            January 2015

        • Excess Spread

          • CA-6.2.8

            Excess spread is generally defined as gross finance charge collections and other income received by the trust or SPSV (specified in Paragraph CA-6.2.10) minus certificate interest, servicing fees, charge-offs, and other senior trust or SPSV expenses.

            January 2015

        • Implicit Support

          • CA-6.2.9

            Implicit support arises when a conventional bank licenseeG provides support to a securitisation in excess of its predetermined contractual obligation.

            January 2015

        • SPSV

          • CA-6.2.10

            An SPSV is a corporation, trust, or other entity organised for a specific purpose, the activities of which are limited to those appropriate to accomplish the purpose of the SPSV, and the structure of which is intended to isolate the SPSV from the credit riskG of an originator or seller of exposures. SPSVs are commonly used as financing vehicles in which exposures are sold to a trust or similar entity in exchange for cash or other assets funded by debt issued by the trust.

            January 2015

      • CA-6.3 Operational Requirements for the Recognition of Risk Transference

        • CA-6.3.1

          The following operational requirements are applicable to the standardised approach of the securitisation framework.

          January 2015

        • Operational Requirements for Traditional Securitisations

          • CA-6.3.2

            An originating bank may exclude securitised exposures from the calculation of risk weighted assets under Paragraph CA-6.4.1, only if all of the following conditions have been met. Conventional bank licenseesG meeting these conditions must still hold regulatory capital against any securitisation exposures they retain:

            (a) Significant credit riskG associated with the securitised exposures has been transferred to third parties;
            (b) The transferor does not maintain effective or indirect controlG 35 over the transferred exposures. The assets are legally isolated from the transferor in such a way (e.g. through the sale of assets or through sub-participation) that the exposures are put beyond the reach of the transferor and its creditors, even in bankruptcy or receivership. These conditions must be supported by an opinion provided by a qualified legal counsel;
            (c) The securities issued are not obligations of the transferor. Thus, investors who purchase the securities only have claim to the underlying pool of exposures;
            (d) The transferee is an SPSV and the holders of the beneficial interests in that entity have the right to pledge or exchange them without restriction;
            (e) Clean-up calls must satisfy the conditions set out in Paragraph CA-6.3.5; and
            (f) The securitisation does not contain clauses that (i) require the originating bank to alter systematically the underlying exposures such that the pool's weighted average credit quality is improved unless this is achieved by selling assets to independent and unaffiliated third parties at market prices; (ii) allow for increases in a retained first loss position or credit enhancement provided by the originating bank after the transaction's inception; or (iii) increase the yield payable to parties other than the originating bank, such as investors and third-party providers of credit enhancements, in response to a deterioration in the credit quality of the underlying pool.

            35 The transferor is deemed to have maintained effective control over the transferred credit risk exposures if it: (i) is able to repurchase from the transferee the previously transferred exposures in order to realise their benefits; or (ii) is obligated to retain the risk of the transferred exposures. The transferor's retention of servicing rights to the exposures will not necessarily constitute indirect control of the exposures.

            January 2015

        • Operational Requirements for Synthetic Securitisations

          • CA-6.3.3

            For synthetic securitisations, the use of CRM techniques (i.e. collateral, guarantees and credit derivatives) for hedging the underlying exposure may be recognised for risk-based capital purposes only if the conditions outlined below are satisfied:

            (a) Credit riskG mitigants must comply with the requirements as set out in Chapter CA-4 of this Module;
            (b) Eligible collateral is limited to that specified in Paragraphs CA-4.3.1 and CA-4.3.2. Eligible collateral pledged by SPSVs may be recognised;
            (c) Eligible guarantors are defined in Paragraph CA-4.5.7. Conventional bank licenseesG may not recognise SPSVs as eligible guarantors in the securitisation framework;
            (d) Conventional bank licenseesG must transfer significant credit riskG associated with the underlying exposure to third parties;
            (e) The instruments used to transfer credit riskG may not contain terms or conditions that limit the amount of credit riskG transferred, such as those provided below:
            (i) Clauses that materially limit the credit protection or credit riskG transference (e.g. significant materiality thresholds below which credit protection is deemed not to be triggered even if a credit event occurs or those that allow for the termination of the protection due to deterioration in the credit quality of the underlying exposures);
            (ii) Clauses that require the originating bank to alter the underlying exposures to improve the pool's weighted average credit quality;
            (iii) Clauses that increase the conventional bank licenseesG ' cost of credit protection in response to deterioration in the pool's quality;
            (iv) Clauses that increase the yield payable to parties other than the originating bank, such as investors and third-party providers of credit enhancements, in response to a deterioration in the credit quality of the reference pool; and
            (v) Clauses that provide for increases in a retained first loss position or credit enhancement provided by the originating bank after the transaction's inception;
            (f) An opinion must be obtained from a qualified legal counsel that confirms the enforceability of the contracts in all relevant jurisdictions; and
            (g) Clean-up calls must satisfy the conditions set out in Paragraph CA-6.3.5.
            January 2015

          • CA-6.3.4

            For synthetic securitisations, the effect of applying CRM techniques for hedging the underlying exposure are treated according to Chapter CA-4. In case there is a maturity mismatch, the capital requirement will be determined in accordance with Paragraphs CA-4.6.1 to CA-4.6.4. When the exposures in the underlying pool have different maturities, the longest maturity must be taken as the maturity of the pool. Maturity mismatches may arise in the context of synthetic securitisations when, for example, a conventional bank licenseeG uses credit derivatives to transfer part or all of the credit riskG of a specific pool of assets to third parties. When the credit derivatives unwind, the transaction will terminate. This implies that the effective maturity of the tranches of the synthetic securitisation may differ from that of the underlying exposures. Originating banks of synthetic securitisations must treat such maturity mismatches in the following manner. A conventional bank licenseeG applying the standardised approach for securitisation must risk weight all retained positions that are unrated or rated below investment grade at 1,250%. For all other securitisation exposures, the conventional bank licenseeG must apply the maturity mismatch treatment set forth in Paragraphs CA-4.6.1 to CA-4.6.4.

            January 2015

        • Operational Requirements and Treatment of Clean-Up Calls

          • CA-6.3.5

            For securitisation transactions that include a clean-up call, no capital will be required due to the presence of a clean-up call if the following conditions are met:

            (a) The exercise of the clean-up call must not be mandatory, in form or in substance, but rather must be at the discretion of the originating bank;
            (b) The clean-up call must not be structured to avoid allocating losses to credit enhancements or positions held by investors or otherwise structured to provide credit enhancement; and
            (c) The clean-up call must only be exercisable when 10% or less of the original underlying portfolio, or securities issued remain, or, for synthetic securitisations, when 10% or less of the original reference portfolio value remains.
            January 2015

          • CA-6.3.6

            Securitisation transactions that include a clean-up call that does not meet all of the criteria stated in Paragraph CA-6.3.5 result in a capital requirement for the originating bank. For a traditional securitisation, the underlying exposures must be treated as if they were not securitised. Additionally, conventional bank licenseesG must not recognise in regulatory capital any gain-on-sale, as defined in Paragraph CA-6.4.3. For synthetic securitisations, the bank purchasing protection must hold capital against the entire amount of the securitised exposures as if they did not benefit from any credit protection. If a synthetic securitisation incorporates a call (other than a clean-up call) that effectively terminates the transaction and the purchased credit protection on a specific date, the conventional bank licenseeG must treat the transaction in accordance with Paragraph CA-6.3.4 and Paragraphs CA-4.6.1 to CA-4.6.4.

            January 2015

          • CA-6.3.7

            If a clean-up call, when exercised, is found to serve as a credit enhancement, the exercise of the clean-up call must be considered a form of implicit support provided by the conventional bank licenseeG and must be treated in accordance with the supervisory guidance pertaining to securitisation transactions.

            January 2015

      • CA-6.4 Treatment of Securitisation Exposures

        • Calculation of Capital Requirements

          • CA-6.4.1

            Except as stated in Paragraph CA-6.3.2, conventional bank licenseesG are required to hold regulatory capital against all of their securitisation exposures and re-securitisation exposures, including those arising from the provision of credit riskG mitigants to a securitisation transaction, investments in asset-backed securities, retention of a subordinated tranche, and extension of a liquidity facility or credit enhancement, as set forth in the remainder of this section. Repurchased securitisation exposures must be treated as retained securitisation exposures.

            January 2015

          • (i) Deduction

            • CA-6.4.2

              [This Paragraph has been deleted in January 2015.]

              January 2015

            • CA-6.4.3

              Conventional bank licenseesG must deduct from CET1 any increase in equity capital resulting from a securitisation transaction, such as that associated with expected future margin income (FMI) resulting in a gain-on-sale. Such an increase in capital is referred to as a "gain-on-sale" for the purposes of the securitisation framework.

              January 2015

            • CA-6.4.4

              [This Paragraph has been deleted in January 2015.]

              January 2015

          • (ii) Implicit Support

            • CA-6.4.5

              When a conventional bank licenseeG provides implicit support to a securitisation, it must, at a minimum, hold capital against all of the exposures associated with the securitisation transaction as if they had not been securitised. Additionally, conventional bank licenseesG would not be permitted to recognise in regulatory capital any gain-on-sale, as defined in Paragraph CA-6.4.3. Furthermore, the conventional bank licenseeG is required to disclose publicly that (a) it has provided non-contractual support and (b) the capital impact of doing so.

              January 2015

        • Operational Requirements for Use of External Credit Assessments

          • CA-6.4.6

            The following operational criteria concerning the use of external credit assessments apply in the standardised approach of the securitisation framework:

            (a) To be eligible for risk-weighting purposes, the external credit assessment must take into account and reflect the entire amount of credit riskG exposure the conventional bank licenseeG has with regard to all payments owed to it. For example, if a conventional bank licenseeG is owed both principal and interest, the assessment must fully take into account and reflect the credit riskG associated with timely repayment of both principal and interest;
            (b) The external credit assessments must be from an eligible ECAI as recognised by the CBB in accordance with Section CA-3.4 with the following exception. In contrast with Subparagraph CA-3.4.1(c), an eligible credit assessment must be publicly available, on a non-selective basis and free of charge. In other words, a rating must be published in an accessible form and included in the ECAI's transition matrix. Also, loss and cashflow analysis as well as sensitivity of ratings to changes in the underlying ratings assumptions must be publicly available. Consequently, ratings that are made available only to the parties to a transaction do not satisfy this requirement;
            (c) Eligible ECAIs must have a demonstrated expertise in assessing securitisations, which may be evidenced by strong market acceptance;
            (d) A conventional bank licenseeG must apply external credit assessments from eligible ECAIs consistently across a given type of securitisation exposure. Furthermore, a conventional bank licenseeG cannot use the credit assessments issued by one ECAI for one or more tranches and those of another ECAI for other positions (whether retained or purchased) within the same securitisation structure that may or may not be rated by the first ECAI. Where two or more eligible ECAIs can be used and these assess the credit riskG of the same securitisation exposure differently, Paragraphs CA-3.4.5 and CA-3.4.6 will apply;
            (e) Where CRM is provided directly to an SPSV by an eligible guarantor defined in Paragraph CA-4.5.7 and is reflected in the external credit assessment assigned to a securitisation exposure(s), the risk weight associated with that external credit assessment should be used. In order to avoid any double counting, no additional capital recognition is permitted. If the CRM provider is not recognised as an eligible guarantor in Paragraph CA-4.5.7, the covered securitisation exposures should be treated as unrated; and
            (f) In the situation where a credit riskG mitigant is not obtained by the SPSV but rather applied to a specific securitisation exposure within a given structure (e.g. ABS tranche), the conventional bank licenseeG must treat the exposure as if it is unrated and then use the CRM treatment outlined in Chapter CA-4 to recognise the hedge.
            January 2015

          • CA-6.4.6A

            A conventional bank licenseeG is not permitted to use any external credit assessment for risk-weighting purposes where the assessment is at least partly based on unfunded support provided by the conventional bank licenseeG . For example, if a conventional bank licenseeG buys ABCP where it provides an unfunded securitisation exposure extended to the ABCP programme (e.g. liquidity facility or credit enhancement), and that exposure plays a role in determining the credit assessment on the ABCP, the conventional bank licenseeG must treat the ABCP as if it were not rated. The conventional bank licenseeG must continue to hold capital against the other securitisation exposures it provides (e.g. against the liquidity facility and/or credit enhancement). The treatment described above is also applicable to exposures held in the trading book. A conventional bank licensee'sG capital requirement for such exposures held in the trading book can be no less than the amount required under the banking book treatment.

            January 2015

          • CA-6.4.6B

            Conventional bank licenseesG are permitted to recognise overlap in their exposures, consistent with Paragraph CA-6.4.23. For example, a conventional bank licenseeG providing a liquidity facility supporting 100% of the ABCP issued by an ABCP programme and purchasing (for its own account) 20% of the outstanding ABCP of that programme could recognise an overlap of 20% (100% liquidity facility + 20% CP held − 100% CP issued = 20%). If a conventional bank licenseeG provided a liquidity facility that covered 90% of the outstanding ABCP and purchased 20% of the ABCP, the two exposures would be treated as if 10% of the two exposures overlapped (90% liquidity facility + 20% CP held – 100% CP issued = 10%). If a conventional bank licenseeG provided a liquidity facility that covered 50% of the outstanding ABCP and purchased 20% of the ABCP, the two exposures would be treated as if there were no overlap.

            January 2015

        • Standardised Approach for Securitisation Exposures

          • (i) Scope

            • CA-6.4.7

              Conventional bank licenseesG that apply the standardised approach to credit riskG for the type of underlying exposure(s) securitised must use the standardised approach under the securitisation framework.

              January 2015

          • (ii) Risk Weights

            • CA-6.4.8

              The risk-weighted asset amount of a securitisation exposure is computed by multiplying the amount of the position by the appropriate risk weight determined in accordance with the following tables. For off-balance sheet exposures, conventional bank licenseesG must apply a CCF and then risk weight the resultant credit equivalent amount. If such an exposure is rated, a CCF of 100% must be applied.

              Long term rating36 Securitisation Exposure Re-securitisation Exposure
              AAA to AA– 20% 40%
              A+ to A– 50% 100%
              BBB+ to BBB– 100% 225%
              BB+ to BB– 350% 650%
              B+ and below or unrated 1,250% 1,250%
              Short term rating Securitisation Exposure Re-securitisation Exposure
              A-1/P-1 20% 40%
              A-2/P-2 50% 100%
              A-3/P-3 100% 225%
              All other ratings or unrated 1,250% 1,250%

              36 The rating designations used in the following tables are for illustrative purposes only and do not indicate any preference for, or endorsement of, any particular external assessment system.

              January 2015

            • CA-6.4.9

              The capital treatment of positions retained by originators, liquidity facilities, creditG riskG mitigants, and securitisations of revolving exposures are identified separately. The treatment of clean-up calls is provided in Paragraphs CA-6.3.5 to CA-6.3.7.

              January 2015

            • Recognition of Ratings on Below-Investment Grade Exposures

              • CA-6.4.10

                Only third-party investors, as opposed to conventional bank licenseesG that serve as originators, may recognise external credit assessments that are equivalent to BB+ to BB- for risk weighting purposes of securitisation exposures.

                January 2015

            • Originators to Apply 1,250% Risk Weight to all Below-Investment Grade Exposures

              • CA-6.4.11

                Originating banks as defined in paragraph CA-6.2.1 must risk weight all retained securitisation exposures rated below investment grade (i.e. BBB-) at 1,250%.

                January 2015

          • (iii) Exceptions to General Treatment of Unrated Securitisation Exposures

            • CA-6.4.12

              As noted in the tables above, unrated securitisation exposures must be risk weighted at 1,250% with the following exceptions: (i) the most senior exposure in a securitisation, (ii) exposures that are in a second loss position or better in ABCP programmes and meet the requirements outlined in Paragraph CA-6.4.15, and (iii) eligible liquidity facilities.

              January 2015

            • Treatment of Unrated Most Senior Securitisation Exposures

              • CA-6.4.13

                If the most senior exposure in a securitisation of a traditional or synthetic securitisation is unrated, a conventional bank licenseeG that holds or guarantees such an exposure may determine the risk weight by applying the "look-through" treatment, provided the composition of the underlying pool is known at all times. Conventional bank licenseesG are not required to consider interest rate or currency swaps when determining whether an exposure is the most senior in a securitisation for the purpose of applying the "look-through" approach.

                January 2015

              • CA-6.4.14

                In the look-through treatment, the unrated most senior position receives the average risk weight of the underlying exposures subject to CBB review. Where the conventional bank licenseeG is unable to determine the risk weights assigned to the underlying credit riskG exposures, the unrated position must be risk-weighted at 1,250%.

                January 2015

            • Treatment of Exposures in a Second Loss Position or Better in ABCP Programmes

              • CA-6.4.15

                A 1,250% risk weighting is not required for those unrated securitisation exposures provided by sponsoring conventional bank licenseesG to ABCP programmes that satisfy the following requirements:

                (a) The exposure is economically in a second loss position or better and the first loss position provides significant credit protection to the second loss position;
                (b) The associated credit riskG is the equivalent of investment grade or better; and
                (c) The conventional bank licenseeG holding the unrated securitisation exposure does not retain or provide the first loss position.
                January 2015

              • CA-6.4.16

                Where these conditions are satisfied, the risk weight is the greater of (i) 100% or (ii) the highest risk weight assigned to any of the underlying individual exposures covered by the facility.

                January 2015

            • Risk Weights for Eligible Liquidity Facilities

              • CA-6.4.17

                For eligible liquidity facilities as defined in Paragraph CA-6.4.19 and where the conditions for use of external credit assessments in Paragraph CA-6.4.6 are not met, the risk weight applied to the exposure's credit equivalent amount is equal to the highest risk weight assigned to any of the underlying individual exposures covered by the facility.

                January 2015

          • (iv) Credit Conversion Factors for Off-Balance Sheet Exposures

            • CA-6.4.18

              For risk-based capital purposes, conventional bank licenseesG must determine whether, according to the criteria outlined below, an off-balance sheet securitisation exposure qualifies as an 'eligible liquidity facility' or an 'eligible servicer cash advance facility'. All other off-balance sheet securitisation exposures will receive a 100% CCF.

              January 2015

            • Eligible Liquidity Facilities

              • CA-6.4.19

                Conventional bank licenseesG are permitted to treat off-balance sheet securitisation exposures as eligible liquidity facilities if the following minimum requirements are satisfied:

                (a) The facility documentation must clearly identify and limit the circumstances under which it may be drawn. Draws under the facility must be limited to the amount that is likely to be repaid fully from the liquidation of the underlying exposures and any seller-provided credit enhancements. In addition, the facility must not cover any losses incurred in the underlying pool of exposures prior to a draw, or be structured such that draw-down is certain (as indicated by regular or continuous draws);
                (b) The facility must be subject to an asset quality test that precludes it from being drawn to cover credit riskG exposures where the obligor is more than 90 days past due on any material risk in the banking group. In addition, if the exposures that a liquidity facility is required to fund are externally rated securities, the facility can only be used to fund securities that are externally rated investment grade at the time of funding;
                (c) The facility cannot be drawn after all applicable (e.g. transaction-specific and programme-wide) credit enhancements from which the liquidity would benefit have been exhausted; and
                (d) Repayment of draws on the facility (i.e. assets acquired under a purchase agreement or loans made under a lending agreement) must not be subordinated to any interests of any note holder in the programme (e.g. ABCP programme) or subject to deferral or waiver.
                January 2015

              • CA-6.4.20

                Where these conditions are met, the conventional bank licenseeG may apply a 50% CCF to the eligible facility regardless of the maturity of the facility. However, if an external rating of the facility itself is used for risk-weighting the facility, a 100% CCF must be applied.

                January 2015

              • CA-6.4.21

                [This Paragraph has been deleted in January 2012].

                January 2015

              • CA-6.4.22

                [This Paragraph has been deleted in January 2012].

                January 2015

            • Treatment of Overlapping Exposures

              • CA-6.4.23

                A conventional bank licenseeG may provide several types of facilities that can be drawn under various conditions. The same conventional bank licenseeG may be providing two or more of these facilities. Given the different triggers found in these facilities, it may be the case that a conventional bank licenseeG provides duplicative coverage to the underlying exposures. In other words, the facilities provided by a conventional bank licenseeG may overlap since a draw on one facility may preclude (in part) a draw under the other facility. In the case of overlapping facilities provided by the same conventional bank licenseeG , the conventional bank licenseeG does not need to hold additional capital for the overlap. Rather, it is only required to hold capital once for the position covered by the overlapping facilities (whether they are liquidity facilities or credit enhancements). Where the overlapping facilities are subject to different conversion factors, the conventional bank licenseeG must attribute the overlapping part to the facility with the highest conversion factor. However, if overlapping facilities are provided by different banks, each conventional bank licenseeG must hold capital for the maximum amount of the facility (see also Paragraph CA-6.4.6A).

                January 2015

            • Eligible Servicer Cash Advance Facilities

              • CA-6.4.24

                If contractually provided for, servicers may advance cash to ensure an uninterrupted flow of payments to investors so long as the servicer is entitled to full reimbursement and this right is senior to other claims on cash flows from the underlying pool of exposures. A 0% CCF must be applied to such un-drawn servicer cash advances or facilities provided that these are unconditionally cancellable without prior notice.

                January 2015

            • Treatment of Credit Risk Mitigation for Securitisation Exposures

              • CA-6.4.25

                The treatment below applies to a conventional bank licenseeG that has obtained a credit riskG mitigant on a securitisation exposure. Credit riskG mitigants include guarantees, credit derivatives, collateral and on-balance sheet netting. Collateral in this context refers to that used to hedge the credit riskG of a securitisation exposure rather than the underlying exposures of the securitisation transaction.

                January 2015

              • CA-6.4.26

                When a conventional bank licenseeG other than the originator provides credit protection to a securitisation exposure, it must calculate a capital requirement on the covered exposure as if it were an investor in that securitisation. If a conventional bank licenseeG provides protection to an unrated credit enhancement, it must treat the credit protection provided as if it were directly holding the unrated credit enhancement.

                January 2015

            • Collateral

              • CA-6.4.27

                Eligible collateral is limited to that recognised under the standardised approach for CRM (Paragraphs CA-4.3.1 and CA-4.3.2). Collateral pledged by SPSVs may be recognised.

                January 2015

            • Guarantees and Credit Derivatives

              • CA-6.4.28

                Credit protection provided by the entities listed in Paragraph CA-4.5.7 may be recognised. SPSVs cannot be recognised as eligible guarantors. A conventional bank licenseeG must not recognise any support provided by itself (see also Paragraph CA-6.4.6).

                January 2015

              • CA-6.4.29

                Where guarantees or credit derivatives fulfil the minimum operational conditions as specified in Paragraphs CA-4.5.1 to CA-4.5.6, conventional bank licenseesG can take account of such credit protection in calculating capital requirements for securitisation exposures.

                January 2015

              • CA-6.4.30

                Capital requirements for the guaranteed/protected portion will be calculated according to CRM for the standardised approach as specified in Paragraphs CA-4.5.8 to CA-4.5.13.

                January 2015

            • Maturity Mismatches

              • CA-6.4.31

                For the purpose of setting regulatory capital against a maturity mismatch, the capital requirement will be determined in accordance with Paragraphs CA-4.6.1 to CA-4.6.4. When the exposures being hedged have different maturities, the longest maturity must be used.

                January 2015

          • (vi) Capital Requirement for Early Amortisation Provisions

            • Scope

              • CA-6.4.32

                An originating bank is required to hold capital against all or a portion of the investors' interest (i.e. against both the drawn and un-drawn balances related to the securitised exposures) when:

                (a) It sells exposures into a structure that contains an early amortisation feature; and
                (b) The exposures sold are of a revolving nature. These involve exposures where the borrower is permitted to vary the drawn amount and repayments within an agreed limit under a line of credit (e.g. credit card receivables and corporate loan commitments).
                January 2015

              • CA-6.4.33

                The capital requirement should reflect the type of mechanism through which an early amortisation is triggered.

                January 2015

              • CA-6.4.34

                For securitisation structures wherein the underlying pool comprises revolving and term exposures, a conventional bank licenseeG must apply the relevant early amortisation treatment (outlined in Paragraphs CA-6.4.36 to CA-6.4.47) to that portion of the underlying pool containing revolving exposures.

                January 2015

              • CA-6.4.35

                Conventional bank licenseesG are not required to calculate a capital requirement for early amortisations in the following situations:

                (a) Replenishment structures where the underlying exposures do not revolve and the early amortisation ends the ability of the conventional bank licenseeG to add new exposures;
                (b) Transactions of revolving assets containing early amortisation features that mimic term structures (i.e. where the risk on the underlying facilities does not return to the originating bank);
                (c) Structures where a bank securitises one or more credit line(s) and where investors remain fully exposed to future draws by borrowers even after an early amortisation event has occurred; and
                (d) The early amortisation clause is solely triggered by events not related to the performance of the securitised assets or the selling bank, such as material changes in tax laws or regulations.
                January 2015

            • Maximum Capital Requirement

              • CA-6.4.36

                For a conventional bank licenseeG subject to the early amortisation treatment, the total capital charge for all of its positions will be subject to a maximum capital requirement (i.e. a 'cap') equal to the greater of (i) that required for retained securitisation exposures, or (ii) the capital requirement that would apply had the exposures not been securitised. In addition, conventional bank licenseesG must deduct the entire amount of any gain-on-sale and credit enhancing I/Os arising from the securitisation transaction in accordance with Paragraphs CA-6.4.2 to CA-6.4.4.

                January 2015

            • Mechanics

              • CA-6.4.37

                The originator's capital charge for the investors' interest is determined as the product of (a) the investors' interest, (b) the appropriate CCF (as discussed below), and (c) the risk weight appropriate to the underlying exposure type, as if the exposures had not been securitised. As described below, the CCFs depend upon whether the early amortisation repays investors through a controlled or non-controlled mechanism. They also differ according to whether the securitised exposures are uncommitted retail credit lines (e.g. credit card receivables) or other credit lines (e.g. revolving corporate facilities). A line is considered uncommitted if it is unconditionally cancellable without prior notice.

                January 2015

          • (vii) Determination of CCFs for Controlled Early Amortisation Features

            • CA-6.4.38

              An early amortisation feature is considered controlled when the definition as specified in Paragraph CA-6.2.6 is satisfied.

              January 2015

            • Uncommitted Retail Exposures

              • CA-6.4.39

                For uncommitted retail credit lines (e.g. credit card receivables) in securitisations containing controlled early amortisation features, conventional bank licenseesG must compare the three-month average excess spread defined in Paragraph CA-6.2.8 to the point at which the conventional bank licenseeG is required to trap excess spread as economically required by the structure (i.e. excess spread trapping point).

                January 2015

              • CA-6.4.40

                In cases where such a transaction does not require excess spread to be trapped, the trapping point is deemed to be 4.5 percentage points.

                January 2015

              • CA-6.4.41

                The conventional bank licenseeG must divide the excess spread level by the transaction's excess spread trapping point to determine the appropriate segments and apply the corresponding conversion factors, as outlined in the following table.

                Controlled Early Amortisation Features

                  Uncommitted Committed
                Retail credit lines 3-month average excess spread Credit Conversion Factor (CCF)

                133.33% of trapping point or more
                0% CCF

                less than 133.33% to 100% of trapping point
                1% CCF

                less than 100% to 75% of trapping point
                2% CCF

                less than 75% to 50% of trapping point
                10% CCF

                less than 50% to 25% of trapping point
                20% CCF

                less than 25%
                40% CCF
                90% CCF
                Non-retail credit lines 90% CCF 90% CCF
                January 2015

              • CA-6.4.42

                Conventional bank licenseesG are required to apply the conversion factors set out above for controlled mechanisms to the investors' interest referred to in Paragraph CA-6.4.37.

                January 2015

            • Other Exposures

              • CA-6.4.43

                All other securitised revolving exposures (i.e. those that are committed and all non-retail exposures) with controlled early amortisation features will be subject to a CCF of 90% against the off-balance sheet exposures.

                January 2015

          • (viii) Determination of CCFs for Non-Controlled Early Amortisation Features

            • CA-6.4.44

              Early amortisation features that do not satisfy the definition of a controlled early amortisation as specified in Paragraph CA-6.2.6 will be considered non-controlled and treated as follows.

              January 2015

            • Uncommitted Retail Exposures

              • CA-6.4.45

                For uncommitted retail credit lines (e.g. credit card receivables) in securitisations containing non-controlled early amortisation features, conventional bank licenseesG must make the comparison described in Paragraphs CA-6.4.38 and CA-6.4.40.

                January 2015

              • CA-6.4.46

                The conventional bank licenseeG must divide the excess spread level by the transaction's excess spread trapping point to determine the appropriate segments and apply the corresponding conversion factors, as outlined in the following table.

                Non-Controlled Early Amortisation Features

                  Uncommitted Committed
                Retail credit lines 3-month average excess spread
                Credit Conversion Factor (CCF)

                133.33% or more of trapping point
                0% CCF

                less than 133.33% to 100% of trapping point
                5% CCF

                less than 100% to 75% of trapping point
                15% CCF

                less than 75% to 50% of trapping point
                50% CCF

                less than 50% of trapping point
                100% CCF
                100% CCF
                Non-retail credit lines 100% CCF 100% CCF
                January 2015

            • Other Exposures

              • CA-6.4.47

                All other securitised revolving exposures (i.e. those that are committed and all non-retail exposures) with non-controlled early amortisation features will be subject to a CCF of 100% against the off-balance sheet exposures.

                January 2015

            • [Paragraphs CA-6.4.48 to CA-6.4.88 were deleted in January 2015]

Back to top