Financial Risk Management Framwork & Basel Ii Icmap

7,543 views

Published on

Javed H Siddiqi
Head of Risk Management

Published in: Economy & Finance, Business
0 Comments
14 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
7,543
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
40
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
782
Comments
0
Likes
14
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • “ Performance and predictive ability" covers: risk rating migration across grades estimates of relevant risk components per grade comparison of realised default rates & losses against estimates
  • Transparency Requirement on documentation stipulated in “Minimum Requirements for Internal Rating Systems under IRB Approach” issued in August 2004 Overarching design (purpose, portfolio differentiation, rating approach) Rating criteria & definitions Rating process Internal control structure Model assumptions and development Third parties include (1) rating system reviewers (2) HKMA (3) Internal & external auditors Judgement-based system usually less transparent, should offset this shortcoming by applying greater emphasis on independence in rating approval & rating system review Model-based system usually more transparent. But controls addressing model development, testing, implementation, data integrity & override etc should be in place Accountability For every aspects of a rating system, must have somebody to take up the responsibility Lines of reporting, authority of individuals must be specific & clearly defined Performance standards should be measurable against specific objectives & incentive compensation tied to these standards When different components of a rating system are distributed across multiple units of an AI, the specific individual responsible for the overall performance should ensure that the parts work together effectively & efficiently
  • Business strategies: e.g. acquisition strategy of new exposures collection strategy of problem loans CAAP: “Capital Adequacy Assessment Process” under Pillar II
  • What’s Data Quality ? Accuracy, completeness & “fit for purpose” (appropriateness) Not only the numbers but also the related processes & controls etc Management Oversight & Control Establish policies/procedures, standards & proper organizational structure Assignment of accountabilities/duties Ensure sufficient staffing/resources Formalize the data quality assessment programme (part of internal audit) IT Infrastructure & Data Architecture : Scalable, secure & contingency planning Data Collection, Processing, Storage, Retrieval & Deletion Articulated policies/standards (e.g. IT & updating standards) & procedures, data definitions (dictionary), data cleansing, sample checking, exception reporting & clear audit trials Data update at least annually & higher frequency for riskier positions Life-cycle tracking of credit data; Minimal manual manipulation Reconciliation to accounting data where possible - at minimum on data inputs Identify the relevant data items & establish the reconciliation procedures Significant discrepancies may lead MA to disapprove the use of IRB Use of External/Pooled Data Relevant to the bank’s portfolio & data definition consistent with internal data Understand how the data are collected, check with other sources & ensure sufficient quality control programme of vendor; review at least annually for appropriateness for continuation of use Statistical Techniques Scientific, justified & consistent application; especially careful treatment of missing data Data Quality Assessment Programme (by Internal Audit / Equivalent Function) Independent review of all relevant aspects at least annually, report findings to senior management Use both quantitative & qualitative techniques; Full documentation including follow-up
  • Financial Risk Management Framwork & Basel Ii Icmap

    1. 1. <ul><li>Financial Risk Management </li></ul><ul><li>Framework </li></ul><ul><li>Javed H Siddiqi </li></ul>
    2. 2. <ul><li>Risk Management </li></ul><ul><li>“ Every experience you have is designed to make you stronger ” </li></ul><ul><li>Javed H. Siddiqi </li></ul>
    3. 3. Managing Risk Effectively: Three Critical Challenges <ul><li>Management Challenges for the 21 st Century </li></ul>GLOBALISM TECHNOLOGY CHANGE
    4. 4. <ul><li>What is Risk? </li></ul><ul><li>Risk, in traditional terms, is viewed as a ‘negative’. Webster’s </li></ul><ul><li>dictionary, for instance, defines risk as “exposing to danger or hazard”. </li></ul><ul><li>The Chinese give a much better description of risk </li></ul><ul><li>> The first is the symbol for “danger ”, while </li></ul><ul><li>>the second is the symbol for “opportunity ”, making risk a mix of danger and opportunity. </li></ul>
    5. 5. Risk Management Risk management is present in all aspects of life; It is about the everyday trade-off between an expected reward an a potential danger. We, in the business world, often associate risk with some variability in financial outcomes. However, the notion of risk is much larger. It is universal, in the sense that it refers to human behaviour in the decision making process. Risk management is an attempt to identify, to measure, to monitor and to manage uncertainty.
    6. 6. Risk Assessment <ul><li>Assess your risk bearing capacity </li></ul><ul><li>How much risk can you tolerate? </li></ul><ul><li>How much risk protection can you afford? </li></ul><ul><li>How much risk are you willing to accept </li></ul>
    7. 7. Risk Management <ul><li>Risk management integrates production, marketing & financial decisions </li></ul><ul><li>Risk management is a planning process where you assemble and assess information </li></ul><ul><li>Every management decision carries risk management implications </li></ul>
    8. 8. Risk Management Requires <ul><li>Understanding of Your financial situation </li></ul><ul><li>Understanding sources of risk and potential risk </li></ul><ul><li>Understanding of risk management tools </li></ul>
    9. 9. Risk Management Includes : <ul><li>Evaluation of alternative plans & risk management strategies </li></ul><ul><li>Implementation of the plan </li></ul><ul><li>Monitoring the plan </li></ul><ul><li>Developing probabilities to formalize risk assessment </li></ul>
    10. 10. Steps in the Risk Management Process <ul><li>Determine the corporation’s objectives </li></ul><ul><li>Identify the risk exposures </li></ul><ul><li>Quantify the exposures </li></ul><ul><li>Assess the impact </li></ul><ul><li>Examine alternative risk management tools </li></ul><ul><li>Select appropriate risk management approach </li></ul><ul><li>Implement and monitor program </li></ul>
    11. 11. The Bottom Line: It All Boils Down to Capital <ul><li>“ Capital ” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Assets less liabilities; owners’ equity; net worth </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Support for (riskiness of) operations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Thus, supports profitability and solvency of firm </li></ul></ul><ul><li>“ Capital Management ” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Determine need for and adequacy of capital </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Plans for increasing or releasing capital </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Strategy for efficient use of capital </li></ul></ul>
    12. 12. Why Do We Care About Managing Capital? <ul><li>Leads to solvency and profitability </li></ul><ul><li>Benefits of solidity and profitability </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Higher company value </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Happy claimholders </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Better ratings </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Less unfavorable regulatory treatment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ability to price products competitively </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Customer loyalty </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Potentially lower costs </li></ul></ul>
    13. 13. What Does Capital Management Entail? Capital Management Product Pricing Financial Risk Mgt. Setting Objectives Raising Capital Strategic Planning Liability Valuation Asset Allocation Risk Management
    14. 14. Capital Allocation and RAPM <ul><li>The role of the capital in financial institutions and the different type of capital. </li></ul><ul><li>The key concepts and objective behind regulatory capital. </li></ul><ul><li>The main calculations principles in the Basel II the current Basel II Accord. </li></ul><ul><li>The definition and mechanics of economic capital. </li></ul><ul><li>The use of economic capital as a management tool for risk aggregation, risk-adjusted performance measurement and optimal decision making through capital allocation. </li></ul>
    15. 15. Role of Capital in Financial Institution <ul><li>Absorb large unexpected losses </li></ul><ul><li>Protect depositors and other claim holders </li></ul><ul><li>Provide enough confidence to external investors and rating agencies on the financial heath and viability of the institution. </li></ul>
    16. 16. Type of Capital <ul><li>Economic Capital (EC) or Risk Capital . </li></ul><ul><li>An estimate of the level of capital that a firm requires to operate its business . </li></ul><ul><li>Regulatory Capital (RC). </li></ul><ul><li>The capital that a bank is required to hold by regulators in order to operate . </li></ul><ul><li>Bank Capital (BC) </li></ul><ul><li>The actual physical capital held </li></ul>
    17. 17. Economic Capital <ul><li>Economic capital acts as a buffer that provides protection against all the credit, market, operational and business risks faced by an institution. </li></ul><ul><li>EC is set at a confidence level that is less than 100% (e.g. 99.9%), since it would be too costly to operate at the 100% level. </li></ul>
    18. 18. Risk Measurement- Expected and Unexpected Loss <ul><li>The Expected Loss (EL) and Unexpected Loss (UL) framework may be used to measure economic capital </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Expected Loss: the mean loss due to a specific event or combination of events over a specified period </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Unexpected Loss: loss that is not budgeted for (expected) and is absorbed by an attributed amount of economic capital </li></ul></ul></ul>Losses so remote that capital is not provided to cover them. 500 Expected Loss, Reserves Economic Capital = Difference 2,000 0 Total Loss incurred at x% confidence level Determined by confidence level associated with targeted rating Probability Cost 2,500 EL UL
    19. 19. Financial Risk and Basel Javed H Siddiqi
    20. 20. BASEL-I Capital Calculation <ul><li>Basel I Principles </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Strengthen the stability of the international banking system </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Create minimum risk-based capital adequacy requirements </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Basel I Benefits </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Relatively simple framework </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Widely adopted </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Increased banks’ capital </li></ul></ul>Credit Risk + Market Risk Capital Capital Adequacy Ratio RIWAC =
    21. 21. Basel I Regulatory Capital Rules Types of capital Basel I capital calculation Market risk Capital (Tier 3) <ul><li>Short-term subordinated debt </li></ul>Supplementary Capital (Tier 2) <ul><li>Perpetual securities </li></ul><ul><li>Unrealised gains on investment securities </li></ul><ul><li>Hybrid capital instruments </li></ul><ul><li>Long-term subordinated debt with maturity > 5 years </li></ul>Core Capital (Tier 1) <ul><li>Stock issues </li></ul><ul><li>Disclosed reserves </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Loan loss reserves to cushion future losses or for smoothing out income volatility </li></ul></ul><ul><li>50% of total capital </li></ul>Risk weights Traded Non-Traded Off-balance sheet assets Balance sheet assets Capital (Tiers 1, 2, 3) Risk-Weighted Assets and Contingents ≥ 8%
    22. 22. RIWAC Calculation RIWAC On-Balance Sheet x Counterparty Weighting Off-Balance Sheet Risk x Counterparty Weighting x Credit Conversion Factor = +
    23. 23. RIWAC Weightings 100% Non OECD Sovereigns 0% OECD 100% Corporates OECD Non OECD 100% Banks 20% On-Balance Sheet Risk N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Off Balance Sheet Risk Cont. liabilities 4% 10% 20% 20% 50% 100% 20% 50% 100% Secured LCs Issued Transactional Contingents Financial Guarantees
    24. 24. BASEL I- RIWAC Examples Corporate XYZ Bank Lends USD 100 M to UAE Corporate for 1 year Capital = USD 100 M X 100% (Risk Weight) X 8% (Capital Adequacy) = USD 8 M Banks XYZ Bank Lends USD 100 M to Barclays Bank for 2 years Capital = USD 100 M X 20% (Risk Weight) X 8% (Capital Adequacy) = USD 1.6 M Contingents XYZ confirms Sight L/C of USD 100 M issued by ABN AMRO Capital = USD 100 M X 20% (Risk Weight) X 20% (CCF) X 8% (Capital Adequacy) = USD 0.32 M
    25. 25. Basel I regulatory capital rules – Credit risk (1) On-balance sheet risk weights and Basel I capital calculation Off-balance sheet risk weights and Basel I capital calculation for non-trading assets Step 1: RWA = On BS exposure X Risk Weight Step 2: Capital = 8% X RWA <ul><li>Corporate bonds, equity, real-estate </li></ul><ul><li>Less-developed countries’ debt </li></ul><ul><li>Claims on non-OECD banks </li></ul>100 <ul><li>Residential mortgages </li></ul>50 <ul><li>Claims on OECD banks </li></ul><ul><li>Govt. agency securities </li></ul><ul><li>Claims on municipalities </li></ul>20 <ul><li>Cash & gold </li></ul><ul><li>Obligations on OECD and PAK treasuries </li></ul>0 On-balance sheet asset category Risk weight (%) <ul><li>Corporates and other counterparties </li></ul>50 <ul><li>OECD banks and public sector entities </li></ul>20 <ul><li>OECD governments </li></ul>0 Off-balance sheet asset category Risk weight (%) <ul><li>Documentary credits related to shipment of goods </li></ul>20 <ul><li>Transaction-related contingencies – warranties, performance bonds </li></ul><ul><li>Undrawn commitments – Maturity > 1 year </li></ul>50 <ul><li>General guarantees, standby letters of credit, banker’s acceptance, etc </li></ul>100 <ul><li>Undrawn commitments – Maturity ≤ 1 year </li></ul>0 Off-balance sheet non-trading assets Credit Conversion Factor (%) Step 1: Credit Equivalent Amount (CEA) = Notional amount X Credit Conversion Factor Step 2: RWA = CEA X Risk Weight Step 3: Capital = 8% X RWA
    26. 26. Basel I regulatory capital rules – Credit risk (2) Off-balance sheet risk weights and Basel I capital calculation for trading assets 10.0% 7.0% 6.0% 1.0% 0.0% Less than 1 year Commodity contracts Precious metals Equity derivatives FX and Gold Interest rates More than 5 years 1-5 years 1.5% 0.5% 7.5% 5.0% 10.0% 8.0% 8.0% 7.0% 15.0% 12.0% Credit Conversion Factor (%) Step 1: Current Exposure (CE) = Current marked-to-market value of asset Step 2: Potential Future Exposure (PFE) = Notional amount X Credit Conversion Factor Step 3: Credit Equivalent Amount (CEA) = CE + PFE Step 4: RWA = CEA X Risk Weight Step 5: Capital = 8% X RWA
    27. 27. BASEL I- Draw Backs Criticisms of Basel I Accord <ul><li>Lack of risk sensitivity of capital requirements </li></ul><ul><li>One-size-fits-all’ approach to risk management </li></ul><ul><li>Limited attention to credit risk mitigation </li></ul><ul><li>Over emphasis on minimum capital requirements </li></ul><ul><li>Exclusive focus on financial risk </li></ul>Consequences in the industry <ul><li>Sub-optimal lending behavior </li></ul><ul><li>Increased divergence between regulatory capital and economic capital </li></ul><ul><li>Regulatory capital arbitrage through product innovation </li></ul>
    28. 28. Objectives “Basel II” <ul><li>The objective of the New Basel Capital accord (“Basel II) is: </li></ul><ul><li>To promote safety and soundness in the financial system </li></ul><ul><li>To continue to enhance completive equality </li></ul><ul><li>To constitute a more comprehensive approach to addressing risks </li></ul><ul><li>To render capital adequacy more risk-sensitive </li></ul><ul><li>To provide incentives for banks to enhance their risk measurement capabilities </li></ul>
    29. 29. Comparison Introduces approaches for Credit risk and Operational risk in addition to Market risk introduced earlier. Operational risk not considered More risk sensitivity Broad brush structure Flexibility, menu of approaches. Provides incentives for better risk management One size fits all More emphasis on banks’ internal methodologies, supervisory review and market discipline Focus on a single risk measure Basel 2 Basel I
    30. 30. Economic Objectives <ul><li>Efficiency : best use of capital across business lines, impetus for risk based pricing and operational cost savings </li></ul><ul><li>Stability : ensure capital protection consistent with shareholder value optimization </li></ul>
    31. 31. Economic Objectives <ul><li>Growth sustainability : balanced Portfolio risk and return </li></ul><ul><li>Equity : level competitive playing field across(big and small) banks </li></ul>
    32. 32. Overview of Basel II Pillars The new Basel Accord is comprised of ‘three pillars’… Pillar I <ul><li>Minimum Capital Requirements </li></ul><ul><li>Establishes minimum standards for management of capital on a more risk sensitive basis: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Credit Risk </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Operational Risk </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Market Risk </li></ul></ul>Pillar II <ul><li>Supervisory Review Process </li></ul><ul><li>Increases the responsibilities and levels of discretion for supervisory reviews and controls covering: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Evaluate Bank’s Capital Adequacy Strategies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Certify Internal Models </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Level of capital charge </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Proactive monitoring of capital levels and ensuring remedial action </li></ul></ul>Pillar III Market Discipline Bank will be required to increase their information disclosure, especially on the measurement of credit and operational risks. Expands the content and improves the transparency of financial disclosures to the market.
    33. 33. Development of a revised capital adequacy framework Components of Basel II Pillar 1 Pillar 2 Pillar 3 The three pillars of Basel II and their principles Basel II <ul><li>Continue to promote safety and soundness in the banking system </li></ul><ul><li>Ensure capital adequacy is sensitive to the level of risks borne by banks </li></ul><ul><li>Constitute a more comprehensive approach to addressing risks </li></ul><ul><li>Continue to enhance competitive equality </li></ul>Objectives Supervisory review process <ul><li>How will supervisory bodies assess, monitor and ensure capital adequacy? </li></ul><ul><li>Internal process for assessing capital in relation to risk profile </li></ul><ul><li>Supervisors to review and evaluate banks’ internal processes </li></ul><ul><li>Supervisors to require banks to hold capital in excess of minimum to cover other risks, e.g. strategic risk </li></ul><ul><li>Supervisors seek to intervene and ensure compliance </li></ul>Market disclosure <ul><li>What and how should banks disclose to external parties? </li></ul><ul><li>Effective disclosure of: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Banks’ risk profiles </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Adequacy of capital positions </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Specific qualitative and quantitative disclosures </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Scope of application </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Composition of capital </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Risk exposure assessment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Capital adequacy </li></ul></ul>Minimum capital requirements <ul><li>How is capital adequacy measured particularly for Advanced approaches? </li></ul><ul><li>Better align regulatory capital with economic risk </li></ul><ul><li>Evolutionary approach to assessing credit risk </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Standardised (external factors) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Foundation Internal Ratings Based (IRB) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Advanced IRB </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Evolutionary approach to operational risk </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Basic indicator </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Standardised </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Adv. Measurement </li></ul></ul>Issue Principle
    34. 34. Overview of Basel II Approaches (Pillar I) Approaches that can be followed in determination of Regulatory Capital under Basel II Total Regulatory Capital Operational Risk Capital Credit Risk Capital Market Risk Capital Basic Indicator Approach Standardized Approach Advanced Measurement Approach (AMA) Standardized Approach Internal Ratings Based (IRB) Foundation Advanced Standard Model Internal Model Score Card Loss Distribution Internal Modeling
    35. 35. The Three Pillars <ul><li>The First Pillar - Minimum Capital Requirements </li></ul><ul><li>The Second Pillar - Supervisory Review Process </li></ul><ul><li>The Third Pillar - Market Discipline </li></ul>
    36. 36. Pillar 1 <ul><li>Calculation of the total minimum capital requirements for credit, market and operational risk. </li></ul><ul><li>The minimum capital requirements are composed of three fundamental elements: a definition of regulatory capital, risk weighted assets and the minimum ratio of capital to risk weighted assets. </li></ul>
    37. 38. RISK BASED SUPERVISION
    38. 39. BASEL II : CAPITAL CHARGE
    39. 40. Credit Risk <ul><li>The standardized approach </li></ul><ul><li>The Internal Ratings-Based Approach </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Foundation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Advanced </li></ul></ul>
    40. 41. CREDIT RISK WEIGHTS
    41. 42. Credit Exposure Classes <ul><li>Sovereigns - countries, central banks and multilaterals with 0% risk </li></ul><ul><li>Banks and non-banks- banks, investment houses, securities firms </li></ul><ul><li>Retail -individuals/persons & their guarantees(credit card, personal loan, rem, small business) or pools of these loans with similar characteristics </li></ul>
    42. 43. Credit Exposure Classes <ul><li>Sme - exposure to individual owner, partners and enterprises owned by group usually with government incentives or programs </li></ul>
    43. 44. Coverage And Compliance <ul><li>110 signatory countries (ye 2003). </li></ul><ul><li>All banks, investment houses and securities firms, asset/fund management companies and bank owned/controlled insurance companies. </li></ul>
    44. 45. C & C <ul><li>Banking areas affected : regulatory compliance, audits, risk management practices, accounting standards, financial products and services, human resources, it/systems </li></ul>
    45. 46. Standardized Approach
    46. 47. Internal Ratings Based
    47. 48. FIRB VS. AIRB
    48. 49. IRB <ul><li>Borrower risk rating - inherent creditworthiness without considering facility type or security arrangements. Transformed into a PD </li></ul><ul><li>Facility risk rating -risk rating considering the various security arrangements or credit risk mitigation techniques(thus lower LGD values) </li></ul>
    49. 50. IRB <ul><li>Collaterals </li></ul><ul><li>Netting </li></ul><ul><li>Guarantees and credit derivatives </li></ul>
    50. 51. LGD Valuations <ul><li>FOUNDATION IRB </li></ul><ul><ul><li>CI REAL ESTATE= 35% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>RECEIVABLES FULLY SECURED LOANS=35% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>OTHER PHYSICAL COLLATERALS=40% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>UNSECURED LOANS=50% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>FINANCIAL ASSETS (SCALED BY HAIRCUTS)= 0.5-15% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>SUBORDINATED CLAIMS=75% </li></ul></ul><ul><li>ADVANCED IRB </li></ul><ul><ul><li>BANK OWN ESTIMATES </li></ul></ul>
    51. 52. Credit Risk Mitigants <ul><li>Collateral </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Standard haircuts(issuer,rating, tenor, type) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mark to market </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Operational risks(eg. Legal) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Concentration risks </li></ul></ul>
    52. 53. Credit Risk Mitigants <ul><li>Netting </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Master netting legal agreements(net positions) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Marked to market all </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Transactions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Currency and maturity mismatches </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Creditderivatives/guarantees </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Counterparty/issuer risks </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Derivatives documentation (legal) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Market risks </li></ul></ul>
    53. 54. Credit Risk Impact
    54. 55. Credit Risk Impact <ul><li>IRB estimated to reduce credit risk capital charges by 2-3% versus standardized approach. Another possible 10-20% capital charge reduction versus foundation approaches. </li></ul>
    55. 56. Key Basel Compliance Requirements <ul><li>Reliable historical credit statistics: default rates, recoveries (e.G. Market valuation of collaterals), portfolio concentration data, financial statement analysis/ratio history and projections, exposure valuation) </li></ul><ul><li>Intensive credit risk analysis and portfolio modeling Skills </li></ul><ul><li>Integrated central exposure system with on line Analysis/processing functions </li></ul>
    56. 57. Key Compliance Requirements <ul><li>Robust internal ratings </li></ul><ul><li>Appropriate use of credit risk/var models </li></ul><ul><li>Appropriate credit risk rating and modelling software </li></ul>
    57. 58. Market Risk Compliance <ul><li>Timely and accurate daily mark to market accounting/data and valuation of fx and securities portfolio </li></ul><ul><li>Reliable and robust value at risk model Including historical simulation/ backtesting And stress testing results </li></ul><ul><li>Integrated on line market risk monitoring And control system </li></ul><ul><li>Well trained users(back, front and middle Office) </li></ul>
    58. 59. Ops Risk <ul><li>The Basic Indicator Approach </li></ul><ul><li>The Standardised Approach </li></ul><ul><li>Advanced Measurement Approach </li></ul>
    59. 60. Ops Risk Impact
    60. 61. Operating Risk Compliance <ul><li>High awareness level of operational risk and Control inherent in all business processes, their Likelihood and financial loss impact significance </li></ul><ul><li>Timely and reliable information /monitoring of key Operational risk indicators/events (transaction Volume, financials, system downtimes, control Exceptions, process errors etc) to form part of Operational event loss data base </li></ul>
    61. 62. Operating Risk Compliance <ul><li>Establishing minimum risk control Benchmarks/standards and gaps versus actuals </li></ul><ul><li>Intensive operational risk & control training </li></ul><ul><li>Robust operational risk models (loss given event, Probability of loss, exposure indicators) </li></ul>
    62. 63. Pillar 2 – Supervisory Review <ul><li>Intended not only to ensure that banks have adequate capital to support all the risks in their business, but also to encourage banks to develop and use better risk management techniques in monitoring and managing their risks. </li></ul><ul><li>Supervisors are expected to evaluate how well banks are assessing their capital needs relative to their risks and to intervene, where appropriate. </li></ul>
    63. 64. Pillar 2 <ul><li>Three main areas suited to treatment under Pillar 2: </li></ul><ul><li>Risks considered under Pillar 1 that are not fully captured by the Pillar 1 process (e.g. credit concentration risk) </li></ul><ul><li>Those factors not taken into account by the Pillar 1 process (e.g. interest rate risk in the banking book, business and strategic risk) </li></ul><ul><li>Factors external to the bank (e.g. business cycle effects). </li></ul>
    64. 65. Four Key Principles of Supervisory Review <ul><li>Principle 1: Banks should have a process for assessing their overall capital adequacy in relation to their risk profile and a strategy for maintaining their capital levels. </li></ul>
    65. 66. Four Key Principles <ul><li>Principle 2: Supervisors should review and evaluate banks’ internal capital adequacy assessments and strategies, as well as their ability to monitor and ensure their compliance with regulatory capital ratios. Supervisors should take appropriate supervisory action if they are not satisfied with the result of this process. </li></ul>
    66. 67. Four Key Principles <ul><li>Principle 3: Supervisors should expect banks to operate above the minimum regulatory capital ratios and should have the ability to require banks to hold capital in excess of the minimum. </li></ul>
    67. 68. Four Key Principles <ul><li>Principle 4: Supervisors should seek to intervene at an early stage to prevent capital from falling below the minimum levels required to support the risk characteristics of a particular bank and should require rapid remedial action if capital is not maintained or restored. </li></ul>
    68. 69. Pillar 3 Market Discipline <ul><li>The purpose of Pillar 3 - market discipline is to complement the minimum capital requirements (Pillar 1) and the supervisory review process (Pillar 2). </li></ul><ul><li>Encourage market discipline by developing a set of disclosure requirements which will allow market participants to assess key pieces of information on the scope of application, capital, risk exposures, risk assessment processes, and hence the capital adequacy of the institution. </li></ul>
    69. 70. Banks approach to Basel II Transformation A Journey of Seven Steps… Phase I: Gap Analysis Phase II: Implementation Roadmap Phase III: Implementation Phase IV: Compliance And Certification Approach to Basel II: Recommended Seven Steps Supervisory Certification, Parallel Run and Go Live Basel II Program Initiation Gap Analysis Implementation Roadmap Organization, Policies And Processes Redesign Data Management & IT Applications Analytics- Models, Methodologies and Validation
    70. 71. Challenges <ul><li>Establishing a sound credit risk Rating system </li></ul><ul><li>Enhancing risk management Infrastructure: var based Measurement using central data Repository and risk engines </li></ul><ul><li>Capital allocation by Business:higher returns to Compensate higher risks </li></ul><ul><li>Establishing a risk based culture </li></ul>
    71. 72. MINIMUM CAPITAL REQUREMENTS FOR BANKS (SBP Circular no 6 of 2005) 14% 12% 5 12% 10% 4 10% 9% 3 8% 8% 1 & 2 31 st Dec., 2006 and onwards 31 st Dec. 2005 Institutional Risk Assessment Framework (IRAF) Required CAR effective from IRAF Rating
    72. 73. Operational Risk and the New Capital Accord <ul><li>Operational risk is now to be considered as a fully recognized risk category on the same footing as credit and market risk. </li></ul><ul><li>It is dealt with in every pillar of Accord, i.e., minimum capital requirements, supervisory review and disclosure requirements. </li></ul><ul><li>It is also recognized that the capital buffer related to credit risk under the current Accord implicitly covers other risks. </li></ul>
    73. 74. Operational risk Background Description <ul><li>Three methods for calculating operational risk capital charges are available, representing a continuum of increasing sophistication and risk sensitivity: </li></ul><ul><li>(i) the Basic Indicator Approach (BIA) </li></ul><ul><li>(ii) The Standardised Approach (TSA) and </li></ul><ul><li>(iii) Advanced Measurement Approaches (AMA) </li></ul><ul><li>BIA is very straightforward and does not require any change to the business </li></ul><ul><li>TSA and AMA approaches are much more sophisticated, although there is still a debate in the industry as to whether TSA will be closer to BIA or to AMA in terms of its qualitative requirements </li></ul><ul><li>AMA approach is a step-change for many banks not only in terms of how they calculate capital charges, but also how they manage operational risk on a day-to-day basis </li></ul>Available approaches Operational risk is defined as the risk of loss resulting from inadequate or failed internal processes, people and systems or from external events. This definition includes legal risk, but excludes strategic and reputation risk
    74. 75. The Measurement methodologies <ul><li>Basic Indicator Approach: </li></ul><ul><li>Capital Charge = alpha X gross income </li></ul><ul><li>* alpha is currently fixed as 15% </li></ul><ul><li>Standardized Approach: </li></ul><ul><li>Capital Charges = ∑beta X gross income </li></ul><ul><li>(gross income for business line = i=1,2,3, ….8) </li></ul><ul><li>Value of “Greeks” are supervisory imposed </li></ul>
    75. 76. The Measurement methodologies <ul><li>Business Lines Beta Factors </li></ul><ul><li>Corporate Finance 18% </li></ul><ul><li>Trading & Sales 18% </li></ul><ul><li>Retail Banking 12% </li></ul><ul><li>Commercial Banking 15% </li></ul><ul><li>Payment and Settlement 18% </li></ul><ul><li>Agency Services 15% </li></ul><ul><li>Asset Management 12% </li></ul><ul><li>Retail Brokerage 12% </li></ul>
    76. 77. I. Definition Operational risk is the risk of loss resulting from inadequate or failed internal processes, people, and systems or from external events. <ul><li>Categories of OR events </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Execution, Delivery & Process Management (processing error, information transfer, data coding,...) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Clients, Products & Business Practices (clients misinformation, complaints and discounts due to errors, products mispecification...) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Internal fraud (thefts and frauds by employees) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>External fraud (hold-up, thefts,..) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Employment practices & workplace safety (contract termination, disputes with employees...) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Damage to physical assets </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Business disruption & system failures (IT break-down, hacking...) </li></ul></ul>
    77. 78. I. Definition <ul><li>The Specific Nature of Operational Risk </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Embedded risk </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Not a transaction-risk but a risk embedded in processes, people and systems and due to external events. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Inherent risk </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>A large part of operational risk is inherent to the business in which we are engaging and inherent to management processes. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hidden risk </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The costs due to OR are difficult to trace or anticipate since most are hidden in the accounting framework. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Leads to underestimation of the risk (e.g. information security). </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Unstable risk </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Not linearly linked to the size of the activities. Small activities can be very risky high risk, and vice versa. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>OR can be very unstable and grow exponentially in a short period. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reputation risk </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>A second order risk, leading to additional damage in the form of damage to reputation. </li></ul></ul></ul>
    78. 79. I. Definition Underlying causes of operational losses : processes - people - systems - or external events. Legal risk included , strategic and reputation risk excluded. <ul><li>Appropriate manager per category of operational event : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Execution, Delivery & Process Management : ORM </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Clients, Product & Business Practices : ORM </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Internal fraud : Inspection / ORM </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>External fraud : Inspection </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Employment practices & workplace safety : Security </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Damage to physical assets : Security </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Business disruption & system failures : Security </li></ul></ul>
    79. 80. <ul><li>General Objective : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Define rules and procedures for banks to properly cover their different types of risks due to business activity. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Three Pillars </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Pillar One : Capital Adequacy - formulas and calculations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pillar Two : Supervisory Review Process - adjustment of supervision to individual risks profiles </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pillar Three : Market Discipline - information disclosure </li></ul></ul>II. Outlines of the Basle Reform
    80. 81. <ul><li>Regulatory Capital for OR introduced for the first time </li></ul><ul><li>Rule of thumb : OR capital = 12% of minimum capital requirement </li></ul><ul><li>Basic indicator approach ( BI ): </li></ul><ul><ul><li>OR capital function of gross income (15%) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Gross income = interest margin + fees + other revenues </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Only accessible to local banks </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Standardised approach (  ) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>OR capital function of gross income per business line </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Beta factor between 12% and 18% of gross income, estimated via QIS on a sample of 29 institutions. </li></ul></ul>II. Outlines of the Basle Reform
    81. 82. II. Outlines of the Basle Reform <ul><li>Advanced Measurement Approach ( AMA ) in Basle II: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Banks are free to model their OR capital themselves </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Strongly recommended for internationally active banks </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Floor capital at 75% (so far) of the capital level under the Standardised Approach, and 9% of total regulatory capital </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Submitted to quantitative and qualitative standards, such as: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>incident reporting history of 5 years, minimum 3 years; </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>mapping of risks and losses to regulatory categories </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>independent ORM function; </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>implication of the senior management; </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>written policies and procedures; </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>active day-to-day OR management. </li></ul></ul></ul>
    82. 83. II. Outlines of the Basle Reform <ul><li>Advanced Measurement Approach ( AMA ) in Basle II: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Several types of models admitted by the Committee: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Loss Distribution Approach (LDA) : purely quantitative </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Scorecard approach :mainly quantitative : assessment of risk level and quality of risk management based on different dimensions </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Mix of the two : capital calculations based on incident data + adjustments to account for risk management quality </li></ul></ul></ul>
    83. 84. III. Modelling Operational Risk <ul><li>Quantitative approach : LDA ( Loss Distribution Approach ) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Frequency distribution of losses per business line : Poisson distr. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Severity distribution of losses per business line : logN distr. </li></ul>Both distributions are combined by Monte Carlo simulations.
    84. 85. III. Modelling Operational Risk <ul><li>LDA </li></ul><ul><li>Modeling of frequency and of severity distribution of losses, per business line </li></ul><ul><li>Internal data : to model to body of the distribution </li></ul><ul><li>External data : to model extreme events (tail of the distribution) </li></ul>Frequency Loss amount Body region Tail region Internal data External data Cut-off mix 99.9% = Required Capital
    85. 86. III. Modeling Operational Risk <ul><li>Paradox of the incident data collection : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Data collection is mandatory, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>But external data essentially drive the capital amount. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Remaining issues on : </li></ul><ul><li>the cut-off mix </li></ul><ul><li>the relevant data to include (different processes in each firm) </li></ul>Crucial data choice in the capital determination Data collection needed for active ORM reasons.
    86. 87. IV. Managing Operational Risk Dashboards - Dynamic risk analysis Key Risks /Key Performance Indicators Risk & Control Self-Assesment (RCSA) Internal Reporting : Mapping of losses Four Dimensions of Operational Risks
    87. 88. Dimension One : Incident Reporting <ul><li>Incident reporting tool : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Free to define, often Access based </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Full reporting tool, for management purposes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Internal control when encoding </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fields to include per event : </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>1. Date </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>2. Event localisation : BU, department, service </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>3. Event type : codification of Basle categories </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>4. Business line : codification of Basle categories </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>5. Comment : nature of the event </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>6. Gross Loss amount </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>7. Recovery amount : via insurance / other </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>8. Actions taken : preventive / corrective </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>9. Reporter coordinates. </li></ul></ul></ul>
    88. 89. <ul><li>First exploitation possibilities of an incident database </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Summary statistics of the losses </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>! Matching the organisation chart rather than the Basle categories </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Total losses, Min, Max, Frequency </li></ul></ul><ul><li>“ Low Frequency, High Severity” events </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Identification of the potential “uncapped” risks </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Top loss analysis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Examples? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>“ High Frequency, Low Severity” events </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Recurrent, small, similar events </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>May signal a breach in control </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Could be inherent to the activity (to be included in pricing) </li></ul></ul>Dimension One : Incident Reporting
    89. 90. Dimension Two : Dynamic Loss Analysis <ul><li>Dashboards </li></ul><ul><li>Periodic reporting (monthly/quarterly) of KRI’s </li></ul><ul><li>Early warning: timely identification of changes in control level : change in the trend </li></ul>Example
    90. 91. Dimension Three : Key Risks & Key Performance Indicators <ul><li>People: turn-over, temporary staff, overtime, client complaints, absenteeism </li></ul><ul><li>Processing: outstanding confirmations, (status/duration of) reconciliation; failed & overdue settlements; claims & complaints; manual bookings; reversals </li></ul><ul><li>Accounting: volumes & lead-times suspense-accounts; reversals; </li></ul><ul><li>Systems: logs of downtimes; hacking-attempts; project-planning-overruns </li></ul>
    91. 92. Dimension Three : KRIs & KPIs <ul><li>Headlines : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Regular KRI reporting for all businesses and functions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Green, Amber and Red thresholds for all KRI’s </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Develop new/better KRI’s on on-going basis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Discuss all KRI reports in OR committee </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Immediate management response to red and amber KRI’s </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Trend analysis and local lessons learnt program </li></ul></ul>
    92. 93. Dimension Four : RCSA
    93. 94. Dimension Four : RCSA <ul><li>Identification </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Incident reporting analysis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Check list from the key risks library </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Prioritization list with the line management </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Orientation questionnaires with selected people from the department. </li></ul></ul>
    94. 95. Dimension Four : RCSA <ul><li>RCSA performed by local management, with the support of ORM </li></ul><ul><ul><li>RCSA processes for all key businesses and functions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>High level management driven identification of key risk areas </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Apply & document the analytic RCSA process </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Report & discuss the outcomes of a RCSA in ORC </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Implementation & progress-tracking of mitigating actions and key risk indicators (KRI) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Line management is responsible and key for the output </li></ul></ul>
    95. 96. Dimension Four : RCSA Assessment : Impact / Probability Matrix Based on a risk analysis report which reflects all (residual) risks and controls. Note : each point on the graph represents a different event or potential risk. Ex. Misleading capture screen in equity brokerage Ex. Product misspecification
    96. 97. Dimension Four : RCSA <ul><li>Mitigation of uncapped or significant risks via : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Better controls : process control / supervision / training, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Transfer : insurance policies / merge of activities, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Avoidance : activity suppression / outsourcing / automation. </li></ul></ul>
    97. 98. <ul><li>Quantitative assessment of active ORM techniques </li></ul><ul><li>Principle : modify the parameters of the losses distribution, to include the impact of the active management. </li></ul><ul><li>Risk Adjusted Return on Capital (RAROC) adaptable to Operational Risk. </li></ul><ul><li>We define: </li></ul><ul><li>with EL and EC readily available. </li></ul><ul><li>Operational Income is assumed equal to 5% of total revenues. </li></ul>V. Measuring the impact of ORM
    98. 99. V. Measuring the impact of ORM <ul><li>Scenario : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>AMA approach, and target RAROC of 18%. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Board Objective : ORM should reduce EL by 15%. </li></ul></ul>Minus x % in the number of events in Business Line “ i ”, for the event types “ j,k,l ”. Dashboard : Systematic reduction of events in BL “ i ”, event types “ j,k,l ” Minus x % in the number of events in BL “ i ”, minus y % in the severity of losses for event types: “Internal fraud” and “Processing errors”. Audit tracking : Application of audit recommendations in BL “ i ” Minus x % in frequency and minus y % in severity for event types “Clients, products and business practices”, Business line reorganization : New product review process for all BL Cut off the x top losses, all Business Lines Lessons learned : Analysis of largest losses in Business Line (BL) “ i ” Impact on the distributions Risk Management Action
    99. 100. V. Measuring the impact of ORM -22% -20% - - -18% - -19% - -15% -15% -14% -15% -11% -18% -15% -37% Expected Loss -14% -22% - - -10% - -9% - -10% -12% -5% -10% -3% -10% -11% -9% Unexpected Loss -10% -10% - - -4% - -4% - - - - - - - - - Severity -12% -22% - - -9% - -7% - -9% -12% -2% -10% -2% -10% -11% -8% Reg. Capital (by cell) -12% -12% - - -13% - -15% - -14% -15% -14% -15% - - - - Frequency -15.1% - -7.0% -4.1% -9.7% -5.9% -3.9% -9.6% Reg. Capital (by BL) BL Reorganization Audit Tracking Dashboards Lessons Learned -2 (2,2) -2 (2,1) -2 (1,2) -6.1% -2 (1,1) - (2,2) - (2,1) - (1,2) -8.2% - (1,1) - (2,2) - (2,1) - (1,2) -5.8% - (1,1) - (2,1) Reg. Capital (total) Number Induced changes -9.1% - (1,1) - - (2,2) (1,2)
    100. 101. V. Measuring the impact of ORM 0.75% 0.43% 0,51% 0.28% - BL2 – Retail Banking 243,922 140,041 165,387 91,112 - BL2 – Retail Banking 243,922 202,704 232,937 189,114 - TOTAL BL Reorganization Audit Tracking Dashboards Lessons Learned Default AMA Maximum acceptable cost (in % of total income) - 0.36% 0,39% 0.56% - BL1 – Asset Management/Private Banking 0.49% 0.41% 0,47% 0.38% - TOTAL - 62,663 67,550 98,003 - BL1 – Asset Management/Private Banking BL Reorganization Audit Tracking Dashboards Lessons Learned Default AMA Maximum acceptable cost (in currency units) 27.49% 26.55% 27.24% 26.36% 25.54% TOTAL 31.02% 27.37% 28.32% 25.94% 27.11% BL2 – Retail Banking 25.23% Audit Tracking 25.54% Dashboards 27.11% Lessons Learned 22.57% Default AMA 22.57% BL Reorganization BL1 – Asset Management/Private Banking Operational RAROC
    101. 102. VI. Conclusion <ul><li>ORM Goals – at board level : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Decrease the likelihood of a catastrophic event </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cost - benefit analysis of controls </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Compliance with regulatory requirements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lower economic & regulatory capital </li></ul></ul><ul><li>ORM Goals and Ways – at business unit level : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Consolidated incident reporting </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Involvement of line management </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Active Management of operational risks </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Set-up and use of dashboards </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Implementation of RCSA </li></ul></ul>
    102. 103. Market Risk and Basel II It is the risk that the value of on and off-balance sheet positions of a financial institution will be adversely affected by movements in market rates or prices such as interest rates , foreign exchange rates , equity prices , credit spreads and/or commodity prices resulting in a loss to earnings and capital.
    103. 104. Types of financial risk Financial Risks Liquidity Risk Operational Risk Regulatory Risk Human Factor Risk Market Risk Equity Risk Interest Rate Risk Currency Risk Commodity Risk Trading Risk Gap Risk Credit Risk Portfolio Concentration Risk Transaction Risk Counterparty Risk Issuer Risk
    104. 105. Market Risk under Basel II <ul><li>Standardized Approach </li></ul><ul><li>Building Block Approach : Capital charge captured separately for each risk and then summed. Trading book used for general and specific risk in interest and equities markets. Both trading and banking books are used for general risk in currency and commodities markets. </li></ul><ul><li>Internal Model </li></ul><ul><li>VAR modeling: On daily basis and 99th percentile one-tailed confidence interval is to be used, 10days holding period. </li></ul>
    105. 106. <ul><ul><li>Convergence of Economies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Easy and faster flow of information </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Skill Enhancement </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Increasing Market activity </li></ul></ul>Why the focus on Market Risk Management ? Leading to <ul><li>Increased Volatility </li></ul><ul><li>Need for measuring and managing Market Risks </li></ul><ul><li>Regulatory focus </li></ul><ul><li>Profiting from Risk </li></ul>
    106. 107. Value-at-Risk Value-at-Risk is a measure of Market Risk, which measures the maximum loss in the market value of a portfolio with a given confidence VaR is denominated in units of a currency or as a percentage of portfolio holdings For e.g.., a set of portfolio having a current value of say Rs.100,000- can be described to have a daily value at risk of Rs. 5000- at a 99% confidence level, which means there is a 1/100 chance of the loss exceeding Rs. 5000/- considering no great paradigm shifts in the underlying factors. It is a probability of occurrence and hence is a statistical measure of risk exposure Measure, Monitor & Manage – Value at Risk
    107. 108. Variance- covariance Matrix Multiple Portfolios Yields Duration Incremental VaR Stop Loss Portfolio Optimization VaR Features of RMD VaR Model Facility of multiple methods and portfolios in single model Return Analysis for aiding in trade-off For Identifying and isolating Risky and safe securities For picking up securities which gel well in the portfolio For aiding in cutting losses during volatile periods Helps in optimizing portfolio in the given set of constraints
    108. 109. Value at Risk-VAR <ul><li>Value at risk (VAR) is a probabilistic method of measuring the potentional loss in portfolio value over a given time period and confidence level. </li></ul><ul><li>The VAR measure used by regulators for market risk is the loss on the trading book that can be expected to occur over a 10-day period 1% of the time </li></ul><ul><li>The value at risk is $1 million means that the bank is 99% confident that there will not be a loss greater than $1 million over the next 10 days. </li></ul>
    109. 110. Value at Risk-VAR <ul><li>VAR (x%) = Z x% σ </li></ul><ul><li>VAR(x%)=the x% probability value at risk </li></ul><ul><li>Z x% = the critical Z-value </li></ul><ul><li>σ = the standard deviation of daily return's on a percentage basis </li></ul><ul><li>VAR (x%) dollar basis = </li></ul><ul><li>VAR (x%) decimal basis X asset value </li></ul>
    110. 111. Example: Percentage and dollar VAR <ul><li>If the asset has a daily standard deviation of returns equal to 1.4 percent and the asset has a current value of $5.3 million calculate the VAR(5%) on both a percentage and dollar basis . </li></ul><ul><li>Critical Z-value for a VAR(5%)= -1.65, VAR(10%)=-1.28, VAR(1%)=-2.32 </li></ul><ul><li>VAR(5%) = -1.65( σ ) = -1.65(.014) = -2.31% </li></ul><ul><li>VAR (x%)dollar basis= VAR (x%) decimal basis X asset value </li></ul><ul><li>VAR (x%)dollar basis= -.0231X5,300,000 = $-122,430 </li></ul><ul><li>Interpretation: </li></ul><ul><li>there is a 5% probability that on any given day, the loss in value on this particular asset will equal or exceed 2.31% or $122,430 </li></ul>
    111. 112. Time conversions for VAR <ul><li>VAR(x%)= VAR(x%) 1-day √J </li></ul><ul><li>Daily VAR: 1 day </li></ul><ul><li>Weekly VAR: 5 days </li></ul><ul><li>Monthly VAR: 20 days </li></ul><ul><li>Semiannual VAR: 125 days </li></ul><ul><li>Annual VAR: 250 days </li></ul>
    112. 113. Converting daily VAR to other time bases: <ul><li>Assume that a risk manager has calculated the daily VAR(10%) dollar basis of a particular assets to be $12,500. </li></ul><ul><li>VAR(10%) 5-days(weekly) = 12,500 √5= 27,951 </li></ul><ul><li>VAR(10%) 20-days(monthy) = 12,500 √20= 55,902 </li></ul><ul><li>VAR(10%) 125-days = 12,500 √125= 139,754 </li></ul><ul><li>VAR(10%) 250-days = 12,500 √250= 197,642 </li></ul>
    113. 114. Understanding of Asset & Liability Management (ALCO) <ul><li>The process of making decision about the composition of assets and liabilities and their risk assessment is known as asset /liability management. </li></ul><ul><li>The decisions are usually made by the asset/liability management committee (ALCO) that is responsible for the overall financial direction of the bank. </li></ul>
    114. 115. Classification of Assets and Liabilities <ul><li>Rate-sensitive assets (RSAs) </li></ul><ul><li>Rate-sensitive liabilities (RSLs) </li></ul><ul><li>Those assets and Liabilities whose interest return or costs vary with interest rate changes over given time horizon referred to as rate sensitive assets/liabilities. </li></ul><ul><li>Non rate-sensitive (NRS) </li></ul><ul><li>Those assets and Liabilities whose interest return or costs do not vary with interest rate movement over the same time horizon referred to as non-rate sensitive </li></ul>
    115. 116. Gap and Relative Ratio <ul><li>Gap= RSA – RSL </li></ul><ul><li>Relative gap ratio= Gap/Total assets </li></ul><ul><li>Interest–sensitivity ratio=RSA/RSL </li></ul>
    116. 117. Interest–sensitivity <ul><li>A financial institution at given time may be asset or liability sensitive. </li></ul><ul><li>Asset sensitive e.g. RSA(100B)-RSL(50B) </li></ul><ul><li>Positive gap or Interest-sensitivity ratio > 1 </li></ul><ul><li>Bank will experience an increase in their net interest income when interest rate increase and a decrease in their net interest income when interest rate fall. </li></ul><ul><li>Liability sensitive e.g. RSA(50B)-RSL(100B) </li></ul><ul><li>Negative gap or Interest-sensitivity ratio < 1 </li></ul><ul><li>Bank will experience an decrease in their net interest income when interest rate increase and a increase in their net interest income when interest rate fall. </li></ul>
    117. 118. Gap, Interest Rate Changes, and Net Interest Income No Change Decrease RSA=RSL Zero No Change Increase RSA=RSL Zero Increase Decrease RSA<RSL Negative Decrease Increase RSA<RSL Negative Decrease Decrease RSA>RSL Positive Increase Increase RSA>RSL Positive Change in Net Interest Income Change in Interest Rates Gap
    118. 119. Managing Interest Rate Risk Rs/$ Gap <ul><li>Aggressive asset/liability management </li></ul><ul><li>The aggregative asset/liability management focuses on increasing the net interest income through altering the portfolio of the institution. </li></ul><ul><li>Defensive asset/liability management </li></ul><ul><li>The goal of defensive asset/liability management is to insulate the net interest income from changes in interest rate </li></ul>
    119. 120. Duration Gap Analysis <ul><li>The duration gap is the difference between the duration of a bank’s assets and liabilities. </li></ul><ul><li>It is a measure of interest rate sensitivity that helps to explain how changes in interest rate affect the market value of a bank’s assets and liabilities, and, in turn, its net worth. </li></ul><ul><li>NW=A-L </li></ul><ul><li>∆ NW= ∆A- ∆L </li></ul>
    120. 121. Measurement of the Duration Gap <ul><li>Balance Sheet Duration </li></ul><ul><li>Assets Rs Duration (Yrs) Liabilities Rs Duration (Yrs) </li></ul><ul><li>Cash 100 0.00 Deposit 1 Yr 600 1.00 </li></ul><ul><li>Loans 400 1.25 Deposit 5 Yr 300 5.00 </li></ul><ul><li>T. Liabilities 900 2.33 </li></ul><ul><li>Mort 500 7.00 Equity 100 </li></ul><ul><li>Loans 1,000 4.00 1,000 DGAP (duration gap)=D a -WD L </li></ul><ul><li>DGAP (duration gap)=4.0 – (0.9)(2.33) = 4.00-2.10= 1.90 Years </li></ul><ul><li>D a = Average duration of assets </li></ul><ul><li>D L =Average duration of liabilities </li></ul><ul><li>W=Ratio of total liabilities to total assets </li></ul><ul><li>Suppose that current interest rate are 11% and are expected to increase by 100 basis points(1%) </li></ul><ul><li>%age change in the Net Worth=% ∆Net Worth= (-1.90)(1/1.11) = -1.7% </li></ul><ul><li>Amt change in the Net Worth= ∆Net Worth= (-1.90)(1/1.11) x TA= -1.7%X1000= -17 </li></ul>
    121. 122. Duration Gap, Interest Rate and Changes in Net Worth No Change Decrease Zero No Change Increase Zero Decrease Decrease Negative Increase Increase Negative Increase Decrease Positive Decrease Increase Positive Change in Net Worth Change in interest Rate Duration Gap
    122. 123. History
    123. 124. Credit Risk Management
    124. 125. Credit Risk Credit risk refers to the risk that a counter party or borrower may default on contractual obligations or agreements
    125. 126. Standardized Approach (Credit Risk) <ul><li>The Banks are required to use rating from External Credit Rating Agencies (ECAIS ). (Long Term) </li></ul>100% Unrated Unrated Unrated Unrated 150% CCC+ and below CCC+ and below 7 6 150% 100% 100% 50% 20% Risk Weight (Corporate) B+ B B- B+ B B- 5,6 5 BB+ BB BB- BB+ BB BB- 4 4 BBB+ BBB BBB- BBB+ BBB BBB- 3 3 A+ A A- A+ A A- 2 2 AAA AA+ AA AA- AAA AA+ AA AA- 0,1 1 JCR-VIS PACRA ECA Scores SBP Rating Grade
    126. 127. Short-Term Rating Grade Mapping and Risk Weight 4 3 2 1 External grade (short term claim on banks and corporate) 150% Other Other S4 100% A-3 A-3 S3 50% A-2 A-2 S2 20% A-1 A-1 S1 Risk Weight JCR-VIS PACRA SBP Rating Grade
    127. 128. Methodology Calculate the Risk Weighted Assets <ul><li>Solicited Rating </li></ul><ul><li>Unsolicited Rating </li></ul><ul><li>Banks may use unsolicited ratings (if solicited rating is not available) based on the policy approved by the BOD. </li></ul>
    128. 129. Short-Term Rating <ul><li>Short term rating may only be used for short term claim. </li></ul><ul><li>Short term issue specific rating cannot be used to risk-weight any other claim. </li></ul><ul><li>e.g. If there are two short term claims on the same counterparty. </li></ul><ul><li>Claim-1 is rated as S2 </li></ul><ul><li>Claim-2 is unrated </li></ul>100% 50% Risk -weight Claim-2 unrated Claim-1 rated as S2
    129. 130. Short-Term Rating (Continue) <ul><li>e.g. If there are two short term claims on the same counterparty. </li></ul><ul><li>Claim-1 is rated as S4 </li></ul><ul><li>Claim-2 is unrated </li></ul>150% 150% Risk -weight Claim-2 unrated Claim-1 rated as S4
    130. 131. Ratings and ECAIs <ul><li>Rating Disclosure </li></ul><ul><li>Banks must disclose the ECAI it is using for each type of claim. </li></ul><ul><li>Banks are not allowed to “cherry pick” the assessments provided by different ECAIs </li></ul>
    131. 132. Basel I v/s Basel II <ul><li>Basel: No Risk Differentiation </li></ul><ul><li>Capital Adequacy Ratio = Regulatory Capital / RWAs (Credit + Market) </li></ul><ul><li>8 % = Regulatory Capital / RWAs </li></ul><ul><li>RWAs (Credit Risk) = Risk Weight * Total Credit Outstanding Amount </li></ul><ul><li>RWAs = 100 % * 100 M = 100 M </li></ul><ul><li>8 % = Regulatory Capital / 100 M </li></ul><ul><li>Basel II: Risk Sensitive Framework </li></ul><ul><li>RWA (PSO) = Risk Weight * Total Outstanding Amount </li></ul><ul><li>= 20 % * 10 M = 2 M </li></ul><ul><li>RWA (ABC Textile) = 100 % * 10 M = 10 M </li></ul><ul><li>Total RWAs = 2 M + 10 M =12 M </li></ul>
    132. 134. Credit Risk Mitigation (CRM) <ul><li>Where a transaction is secured by eligible collateral. </li></ul><ul><li>Meets the eligibility criteria and Minimum requirements. </li></ul><ul><li>Banks are allowed to reduce their exposure under that particular transaction by taking into account the risk mitigating effect of the collateral. </li></ul>
    133. 135. Adjustment for Collateral: <ul><li>There are two approaches : </li></ul><ul><li>Simple Approach </li></ul><ul><li>Comprehensive Approach </li></ul>
    134. 136. Simple Approach (S.A) <ul><li>Under the S. A. the risk weight of the counterparty is replaced by the risk weight of the collateral for the part of the exposure covered by the collateral. </li></ul><ul><li>For the exposure not covered by the collateral, the risk weight of the counterparty is used. </li></ul><ul><li>Collateral must be revalued at least every six months. </li></ul><ul><li>Collateral must be pledged for at least the life of the exposure. </li></ul>
    135. 137. Comprehensive Approach (C.A) <ul><li>Under the comprehensive approach, banks adjust the size of their exposure upward to allow for possible increases. </li></ul><ul><li>And adjust the value of collateral downwards to allow for possible decreases in the value of the collateral. </li></ul><ul><li>A new exposure equal to the excess of the adjusted exposure over the adjusted value of the collateral. </li></ul><ul><li>counterparty's risk weight is applied to the new exposure. </li></ul>
    136. 138. e.g. Suppose that an Rs 80 M exposure to a particular counterparty is secured by collateral worth Rs 70 M. The collateral consists of bonds issued by an A-rated company. The counterparty has a rating of B+. The risk weight for the counterparty is 150% and the risk weight for the collateral is 50%. <ul><li>The risk-weighted assets applicable to the exposure using the simple approach is therefore: </li></ul><ul><li>0.5 X 70 + 1.50 X 10 = 50 million </li></ul><ul><li>Risk-adjusted assets = 50 M </li></ul><ul><li>Comprehensive Approach: Assume that the adjustment to exposure to allow for possible future increases in the exposure is +10% and the adjustment to the collateral to allow for possible future decreases in its value is -15%. The new exposure is: </li></ul><ul><li>1.1 X 80 -0.85 X 70 = 28.5 million </li></ul><ul><li>A risk weight of 150% is applied to this exposure : </li></ul><ul><li>Risk-adjusted assets = 28.5 X 1.5 =42.75 M </li></ul>
    137. 139. Credit risk Basel II approaches to Credit Risk Standardised Approach Foundation Advanced Internal Ratings Based (IRB) Approaches Evolutionary approaches to measuring Credit Risk under Basel II <ul><li>RWA based on externally provided: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Probability of Default (PD) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Exposure At Default (EAD) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Loss Given Default (LGD) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>RWA based on internal models for: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Probability of Default (PD) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>RWA based on externally provided: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Exposure At Default (EAD) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Loss Given Default (LGD) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>RWA based on internal models for </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Probability of Default (PD) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Exposure At Default (EAD) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Loss Given Default (LGD) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Limited recognition of credit risk mitigation & supervisory treatment of collateral and guarantees </li></ul><ul><li>Limited recognition of credit risk mitigation & supervisory treatment of collateral and guarantees </li></ul><ul><li>Internal estimation of parameters for credit risk mitigation – guarantees, collateral, credit derivatives </li></ul>Basel II provides a ‘tailored’ or ‘evolutionary’ approach to banks that is sensitive to their credit risk profiles Increasing complexity and data requirement Decreasing regulatory capital requirement
    138. 140. Credit Risk – Linkages to Credit Process Transaction Credit Risk Attributes Exposure at Default Loss Given Default Probability of Default Exposure Term Economic loss or severity of loss in the event of default Likelihood of borrower default over the time horizon Expected amount of loan when default occurs Expected tenor based on pre-payment, amortization, etc. CREDIT POLICY RISK RATING / UNDERWRITING COLLATERAL / WORKOUT LIMIT POLICY / MANAGEMENT MATURITY GUIDELINES INDUSTRY / REGION LIMITS BORROWER LENDING LIMITS Portfolio Credit Risk Attributes Relationship to other assets within the portfolio Exposure size relative to the portfolio Default Correlation Relative Concentration
    139. 141. The causes of credit risk <ul><li>The underlying causes of the credit risk include the performance health of counterparties or borrowers. </li></ul><ul><li>Unanticipated changes in economic fundamentals. </li></ul><ul><li>Changes in regulatory measures </li></ul><ul><li>Changes in fiscal and monetary policies and in political conditions. </li></ul>
    140. 142. Risk Management <ul><li>Risk Management activities are taking place simultaneously </li></ul>RM performed by Senior management and Board of Directors Middle management or unit devoted to risk reviews On-line risk performed by individual who on behalf of bank take calculated risk and manages it at their best, eg front office or loan originators. Strategic Macro Micro Level
    141. 143. Best Practices for Credit Risk Management 1. Rethinking the credit process 2. Deploy Best Practices framework 3. Design Credit Risk Assessment Process 4. Architecture for Internal Rating 5. Measure, Monitor & Manage Portfolio Credit Risk 6. Scientific approach for Loan pricing 7. Adopt RAROC as a common language 8. Explore quantitative models for default prediction 9. Use Hedging techniques 10. Create Credit culture
    142. 144. <ul><li>Increased reliance on objective risk assessment </li></ul><ul><li>Align “Risk strategy” & “Business Strategy” </li></ul><ul><li>Credit process differentiated on the basis of risk, not size </li></ul><ul><li>Investment in workflow automation / back-end processes </li></ul><ul><li>Active Credit Portfolio Management </li></ul>1. Rethinking the credit process
    143. 145. <ul><li>Credit & Credit Risk Policies should be comprehensive </li></ul><ul><li>Set Limits On Different Parameters </li></ul><ul><li>Credit organisation - Independent set of people for Credit function & Risk function / Credit function & Client Relations </li></ul><ul><li>Ability to Calculate a Probability of Default based on the Internal Score assigned </li></ul><ul><li>Separate Internal Models for each borrower category and mapping of scales to a common scale </li></ul>2. Deploy Best Practices framework
    144. 146. RMD provides well structured “ready to use” “value statements” to fairly capture and mirror the Rating officer’s risk assessment under each specific risk factor as part of the Internal Rating Model 3. Design Credit Risk Assessment Process Credit Risk Industry Risk Business Risk Management Risk Financial Risk Industry Characteristics Industry Financials Market Position Operating Efficiency Track Record Credibility Payment Record Others Existing Fin. Position Future Financial Position Financial Flexibility Accounting Quality <ul><li>External factors </li></ul><ul><li>Scored centrally once in a year </li></ul><ul><li>Internal factors </li></ul><ul><li>Scored for each borrowing entity by the concerned credit officer </li></ul>
    145. 147. Credit Rating System consists of all of the methods, processes, controls and data collection and IT systems that support the assessment of credit risk, the assignment of internal risk ratings and the quantification of default and loss estimates. The New Basle Capital Accord <ul><li>Appropriate rating system for each asset class </li></ul><ul><li>Multiple methodologies allowed within each asset class (large corporate , SME) </li></ul><ul><li>Each borrower must be assigned a rating </li></ul><ul><li>Two dimensional rating system </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Risk of borrower default </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Transaction specific factors (For banks using advanced approach, facility rating must exclusively reflect LGD) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Minimum of nine borrower grades for non-defaulted borrowers and three for those that have defaulted </li></ul>CORPORATE/ BANK/ SOVEREIGN EXPOSURES <ul><li>Each retail exposure must be assigned to a particular pool </li></ul><ul><li>The pools should provide for meaningful </li></ul><ul><li>differentiation of risk, grouping of sufficiently homogenous exposures and allow for accurate and consistent estimation of loss characteristics at pool level </li></ul>RETAIL EXPOSURES 4. Architecture for Internal Rating
    146. 148. ONE DIMENSIONAL R RMD’s modified TWO DIMENSIONAL approach Rating reflects Expected Loss CONCEPTUALLY SOUND INTERNAL RATING MODEL – CAPTURES PD, LGD SEPARATELY Differs from the two dimensional system portrayed above in that it records LGD rather than EL as the second grade. The benefit of this approach is that rater’s LGD judgment can be evaluated and refined over time by comparing them to loss experience. The Facility grade explicitly measures LGD. The rater would assign a facility to one of several LGD grades based on the likely recovery rates associated with various types of collateral, guarantees or other factors of the facility structure. 4. Architecture for Internal Rating…contd.
    147. 149. What is a Rating System? <ul><li>A rating system is one by which borrowers/facilities are systematically assigned to (grouped into) rating grades according to the credit risk characteristics ( rating criteria or risk factors ) of the borrowers/facilities </li></ul>Rating grades 1 6 5 4 3 2 7 defaul t
    148. 150. Types of Rating System: Hybrid Rating System <ul><li>Rating systems that uses both expert judgements and statistical modelling techniques - the most commonly-used rating systems in industry </li></ul>Classic expert judgement-based system Pure model-based system Expert judgement-based system with quantitative guidelines Model-based system with judgemental overrides Expert-derived models Constrained judgement Spectrum of Rating Systems Hybrid system - the most commonly-used in the industry
    149. 151. Types of Rating System: An Example RISK FACTORS SCORE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE Subjective factors 1. Management 32% Strong 100 Weak 0 2. Entry barrier 25% High 100 Low 0 Objective factors 3. Gearing 34.5% <=50% 100 > 50% 0 4. Earnings growth 8.5% >= 10% 100 < 10% 0 Risk factors & scores determined by judgements Relative importance determined by models
    150. 152. Types of Rating System: An Example <ul><li>The range of scores would lie between “0” (i.e. weak management, low entry barrier, gearing >50% and earnings growth <10%) to “100” (i.e. strong management, high entry barrier, gearing <=50% and earnings growth >=10%) </li></ul><ul><li>Assume the Bank maps score ranges to rating grades : </li></ul><ul><li>e.g. if a borrower has a strong management, the industry has low entry barrier, the gearing is 80%, and earnings growth is 30%, then it would have credit score: 100  32% + 0  25% + 0  34.5% + 100  8.5% = 40.5 and the borrower would be assigned to rating grade 5 </li></ul>Rating grades 6 5 4 3 2 7 (95,100] (70,95] (60,70] (50,60] (40,50] (20,40] [0,20] 1 Score ranges
    151. 153. <ul><li>FIRB Approach for corporate, bank & sovereign exposures: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Bank estimates PD for each borrower rating </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>LGD, EAD and M are prescribed by the SBP </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(supervisory estimates) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>AIRB Approach for corporate, bank & sovereign exposures: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Bank estimates PD for each borrower rating </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>it also estimates LGD for each facility rating </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>it also estimates EAD for each facility type </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>it also calculates M according to rules prescribed by the SBP </li></ul></ul><ul><li>For retail exposures: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Bank estimates PD, LGD and EAD for each pool </li></ul></ul>Quantification of a Rating System
    152. 154. <ul><li>For FIRB or AIRB Approach for Corporate/Commercial/SME, bank/FI & sovereign exposures , 3 methods can be used to estimate the PD of a borrower rating </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1. Internal default experience </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2. Mapping to external data </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>3. Statistical default models </li></ul></ul>Quantification of a Rating System: PD of Corporate/Commercial/SME, Bank/FI & Sovereign Exposures
    153. 155. <ul><li>1. Internal default experience: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>e.g. in the past 5 years, annual default rates of borrowers assigned to rating grade 4 were 10%, 12%, 9%, 8% and 11% respectively. PD of rating grade 4 for this year can be estimated as the simple average of these default rates, i.e.: </li></ul></ul><ul><li>(10% + 12% + 9% + 8% + 11%)  5 = 10% </li></ul>Quantification of a Rating System: PD of Corporate/Commercial/SME, Bank/FI & Sovereign Exposures
    154. 156. <ul><li>2. Mapping to external data : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>e.g. By comparing the rating criteria of its internal rating system with those of the Moody’s, Bank concludes that 50% of the borrowers assigned to its rating grade 2 would have Moody’s ratings “Baa1”, 25% “A3” and 25% “Ba1”. In the past 5 years, average annual default rates of these Moody’s ratings were 3%, 2% and 4% respectively. The Bank’s rating grade 2 can be estimated as: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>50%  3% + 25%  2% + 25%  4% = 3% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>There are many types of mapping methodologies </li></ul></ul>Quantification of a Rating System: PD of Corporate/Commercial/SME, Bank/FI & Sovereign Exposures
    155. 157. <ul><li>3. Statistical default models : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>e.g. Bank uses a model-based rating system , under which PD is estimated for each borrower. There are 3 borrowers assigned to rating grade 3, with PD estimated to be 4.5%, 5% and 5.5% respectively by the model. PD of rating grade 3 can be estimated as the simple average of the individual PDs of these borrowers, i.e.: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(4.5% + 5% + 5.5%)  3 = 5% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>5% will be used for all the 3 borrowers for CAR purpose, regardless of the individual PDs generated from the model </li></ul></ul>Quantification of a Rating System: PD of Corporate/Commercial/SME, Bank & Sovereign Exposures
    156. 158. What is Validation? <ul><li>Basel definition: “encompasses a range of processes and activities that contribute to an assessment of whether ratings adequately differentiate risk, and whether estimates of risk components appropriately characterise the relevant aspects of risk” </li></ul><ul><li>Bank’s responsibility to demonstrate its rating system meets minimum requirements </li></ul><ul><li>Review of a Bank’s validation process a major part of the IRB recognition process </li></ul>
    157. 159. Six Principles of the Validation <ul><li>Six Principles of the Validation of the Basel Accord Implementation </li></ul><ul><li>(i) Validation is fundamentally about assessing the predictive ability of a bank’s risk estimates and the use of ratings in credit processes </li></ul><ul><li>(ii) The bank has primary responsibility for validation </li></ul><ul><li>(iii) Validation is an iterative process </li></ul><ul><li>(iv) There is no single validation method </li></ul><ul><li>(v) Validation should encompass both quantitative and qualitative elements </li></ul><ul><li>(vi) Validation processes and outcomes should be subject to independent review </li></ul>
    158. 160. Basel Approach to Validation (1) <ul><li>Closely aligned with the 6 principles </li></ul><ul><li>Bank conducts its own internal validation of the rating system, estimates of risk components & the risk ratings generation processes </li></ul><ul><li>Internal validation clearly documented & shared with Regulator </li></ul><ul><li>Individuals involved in validation must have necessary skills & knowledge and independence </li></ul><ul><li>No universal validation tool </li></ul>
    159. 161. Basel Approach to Validation (2) <ul><li>No industry “best practice” standard on validation </li></ul><ul><li>Quantitative techniques very diverse, portfolio specific, and still evolving </li></ul><ul><li>Setting prescriptive quantitative standards & benchmarks for IRB systems could stifle innovation </li></ul><ul><li>Principles-based approaches by other supervisors </li></ul><ul><li>Views of external consultants & industry experts </li></ul>
    160. 162. Basel Approach to Validation (3) <ul><li>Qualitative and Quantitative elements. </li></ul><ul><li>Qual. - processes, procedures & controls </li></ul><ul><li>Corporate governance & oversight, independence, transparency, accountability, use of internal ratings, internal & external audit, use of external vendor models </li></ul><ul><li>Quant. - generally accepted techniques </li></ul><ul><li>Data quality, accuracy of PDs, LGDs & EADs, model logic & conceptual soundness, estimation & validation techniques, back-testing, benchmarking </li></ul>
    161. 163. Corporate Governance & Oversight <ul><li>Board & senior management involvement </li></ul><ul><li>Understanding of Basel /SBP requirements </li></ul><ul><li>Understanding & approval of key aspects of IRB system </li></ul><ul><li>Ensures adequate resources and clearly defines responsibilities </li></ul><ul><li>Ensures adequate training </li></ul><ul><li>Integrates IRB systems with policies, procedures, systems, controls </li></ul><ul><li>Tracks differences between policies & actual practice (e.g. exceptions/overrides) </li></ul><ul><li>Quarterly MIS on rating system performance & regular internal review </li></ul><ul><li>Receives regular reports on internal ratings </li></ul>
    162. 164. Independent Rating Approval Process <ul><li>General rule that approval of ratings & transactions should be separate from sales & marketing </li></ul><ul><li>Independent & separate functional reporting lines for rating “assignors” & rating “approvers” (e.g. credit officers, with well-defined performance measures) </li></ul><ul><li>Where ratings are assigned & approved within sales & marketing </li></ul><ul><ul><li>mitigate the inherent conflict of interest with compensating controls (e.g. limited credit limits, independent post-approval review of ratings, more frequent internal audit coverage) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Where rating assignment or approval process is automated, verify accuracy & completeness of data inputs </li></ul>
    163. 165. <ul><li>Annual Review </li></ul><ul><li>Reviews conducted internally or by external experts </li></ul><ul><li>Functional independence </li></ul><ul><li>Should encompass all aspects of the process generating the risk estimates & usage </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Compliance with established policies & procedures </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Quantification process & accuracy of risk component estimates </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Model development, use & validation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Adequacy of data systems & controls </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Adequacy of staff skills & experience </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Identify weakness, make recommendations & take corrective actions </li></ul><ul><li>Significant findings reported to senior management & the Board </li></ul>Independent Review of IRB System & Risk Quantification
    164. 166. Transparency & Accountability <ul><li>Transparency </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Enable third parties to understand the design, operations & accuracy of a rating system & to evaluate whether it is performing as intended </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>An ongoing requirement: update documentation when there are changes </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Achieved through documentation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Expert judgement-based vs. Model-based rating system </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Accountability </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Identify individuals or parties responsible for rating accuracy & rating system performance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Inventory of models & accountability chart of roles of parties </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Establish performance standards </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Senior individual to take responsibility for overall performance </li></ul></ul>
    165. 167. <ul><li>The IRS & risk estimates should have substantial influence on decision-making & actions: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Credit approval & pricing,, individual & portfolio limit setting </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Portfolio monitoring & determining provisioning </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Analysis & reporting of credit risk information </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Modelling & management of economic capital </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Assessment of total credit risk capital requirements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Formulating business strategies & assessment of risk appetite </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Assessment of profitability & performance, and determining performance-related remuneration </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Other aspects (e.g. Banks’ infrastructure such as IT, skills & resources and organisational structure) </li></ul></ul>Use of Internal Ratings
    166. 168. Data Quality <ul><li>Accuracy, completeness & appropriateness </li></ul>Data architecture Storage, retrieval & deletion Data processing Data collection IT infrastructure Reconciliation IRB data A/C data External & pooled data Use of statistical techniques Staff competency Management oversight & control Data quality assessment programme & internal audit
    167. 169. Quantitative Requirements <ul><li>Accuracy of PD, LGD, EAD </li></ul><ul><li>Discriminatory power and calibration </li></ul><ul><li>Benchmarking </li></ul><ul><li>Stress testing </li></ul>
    168. 170. Validation of a Rating System: Back-testing <ul><li>Back-testing is the direct comparison between the risk component estimates with the realised figures , e.g. PD against default rate of a borrower grade (or pool for retail) </li></ul><ul><li>In practice, estimates will never be exactly the same as realised figures. The question is whether the deviation is acceptable, especially when the estimates are smaller than the realised figures (i.e. underestimation ) </li></ul><ul><li>In general, statistical hypothesis testing can be applied: </li></ul><ul><li>Null hypothesis (H0): The estimate of the risk component is correct </li></ul><ul><li>Alternative hypothesis (H1): The risk component is underestimated </li></ul><ul><li>To use the hypothesis testing technique, a confidence level needs to be set and a probability distribution of the risk component needs to be defined. </li></ul>
    169. 171. Validation of a Rating System: Benchmarking <ul><li>Benchmarking is the comparison of a Bank’s risk component estimates with those of a third party such as estimates by rating agencies </li></ul><ul><li>For PD, external benchmarks are generally most useful where backtesting is difficult </li></ul><ul><li>For LGD and EAD, as well as PD of small-sized borrowers (e.g. individuals and SMEs), external benchmarks may not be available </li></ul><ul><li>LGD and EAD depend heavily on individual Banks’ recovery and credit monitoring policies , and therefore it is possible for there to be big differences of internal estimates from the benchmarks, even for the same type of facilities </li></ul>
    170. 172. Validation of a Rating System: Stability Analysis <ul><li>Even if a rating system performs well under certain situations or for certain types of borrowers/facilities, it may not do so in other situations or with other types of borrowers/facilities </li></ul><ul><li>Stability analysis examines whether a rating system and/or the risk component estimates remain valid under different situations or for different types of borrowers/facilities. It involves asking questions like: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Would the back-testing results remain satisfactory during economic boom as well as recession? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How would distribution of borrowers/facilities amongst rating grades and estimates of risk components change if certain assumptions are modified (e.g. discount rates in workout LGD)? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What would be the risk component estimates if only a sub-sample of data are used in quantification? </li></ul></ul>
    171. 173. Validation of a Rating System: Discriminatory Power <ul><li>Discriminatory power is about the “rank order” of borrowers. It assesses the ability of a rating system to differentiate “bad” borrowers (i.e. those going to default) from “good” borrowers (i.e. those not going to default). </li></ul><ul><li>Many quantitative techniques can be used to assess discriminatory power : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Accuracy Ratio </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Receiver Operating Characteristic Measure </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pietra Index </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Bayesian Error Rate </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Conditional Information Entropy Ratio </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Information Value </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Brier Score </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Divergence </li></ul></ul>
    172. 174. <ul><li>Generally speaking, all these techniques are to measure the difference between the distribution of the “good” borrowers and that of the “bad” borrowers in relation to risk characteristics, e.g. credit scores, rating grades, income </li></ul>Validation of a Rating System: Discriminatory Power Frequency Rating score “ Bad” borrowers “ Good” borrowers
    173. 175. Validation of a Rating System: Discriminatory Power <ul><li>For a perfect rating system, the distribution of “bad” borrowers would not overlap with that of “good” borrowers </li></ul><ul><li>Discriminatory power analysis can be applied to borrower ratings of corporate, bank and sovereign exposures </li></ul><ul><li>For retail exposures, discriminatory power can be assessed for individual rating criteria that are used in segmentation </li></ul><ul><li>As with back-testing, it is difficult to set a “passing mark” for a rating system’s discriminatory power </li></ul>
    174. 176. ‘ CREDIT CAPITAL’ The portfolio approach to credit risk management integrates the key credit risk components of assets on a portfolio basis, thus facilitating better understanding of the portfolio credit risk. The insight gained from this can be extremely beneficial both for proactive credit portfolio management and credit-related decision making. 1.   I t is based on a rating (internal rating of banks/ external ratings) based methodology.        2. Being based on a loss distribution (CVaR) approach, it easily forms a part of the Integrated risk management framework. 5. Measure, Monitor & Manage Portfolio Credit Risk
    175. 177. PORTFOLIO CREDIT VaR Expected (EL) Priced into the product (risk-based pricing) Unexpected (UL) Covered by capital reserves (economic capital) Probability Loss (L) Credit Capital models the loss to the value of the portfolio due to changes in credit quality over a time frame
    176. 178. ARE CORRELATIONS IMPORTANT 99.99% 99.67% 99.35% 99.03% 98.71% 98.39% 98.07% 97.75% 97.43% 97.11% 96.79% 96.47% 96.15% 95.83% 95.51% 95.19% Correlation Probability of Default Confidence level Large impact of correlations RELATIVE CONTRIBUTION OF CORRELATIONS AND PROBABILITY OF DEFAULT IN CREDIT VaR CREDIT VaR Source: S&P 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
    177. 179. Corr(X,Y)=ρ xy =Cov(X,Y)/std(X)std(Y) 2.07 1.99 4.33 2.21 1.48 0.22 1.67 1.30 1.78 0.67 0.05 1.31 2.39 Utility 1.99 3.85 5.63 4.78 3.40 1.08 2.82 2.61 3.29 1.03 -0.28 2.56 3.56 Trans 4.33 5.63 16.72 -1.14 3.51 0.50 4.63 5.21 3.85 -0.04 -0.44 2.49 7.04 Telecom 2.21 4.78 -1.14 13.15 9.39 0.46 3.83 0.91 7.32 6.27 -0.20 6.03 2.40 Real Est. 1.48 3.40 3.51 9.39 4.07 0.10 2.45 2.12 3.64 1.88 -1.63 2.01 2.06 Leisure 0.22 1.08 0.50 0.46 0.10 96.00 0.47 0.41 0.41 -0.03 0.75 0.52 0.67 Insur 1.67 2.82 4.63 3.83 2.45 0.47 3.01 2.34 2.78 0.73 0.75 1.69 3.11 High tech 1.30 2.61 5.21 0.91 2.12 0.41 2.34 3.50 2.09 0.52 0.94 1.60 3.65 Chem 1.78 3.29 3.85 7.32 3.64 0.41 2.78 2.09 3.81 1.54 -0.49 2.36 2.68 Build 0.67 1.03 -0.04 6.27 1.88 -0.03 0.73 0.52 1.54 1.39 -0.50 0.83 0.67 Finan 0.05 -0.28 -0.44 0.20 -1.63 0.75 0.75 0.94 -0.49 -0.50 4.74 -1.41 1.57 Energ 1.31 2.56 2.49 6.03 2.01 0.52 1.69 1.60 2.36 0.83 -1.41 2.51 1.84 Cons 2.39 3.56 7.04 2.40 2.06 0.67 3.11 3.65 2.68 0.67 1.57 1.84 4.81 Auto Utility Trans Tele R.E. Leisure Insur Hi tech Chem Build Finan Energ Cons Auto   3-Year Default Correlations
    178. 180. RMD’s approach ‘CREDIT CAPITAL’ Overall Architecture STEP 1 From the historical correlation data of industries, the firm-to-firm correlations are found. STEP 2 Calculate asset value thresholds for entire transition matrix. This is done assuming that given current rating, the asset values have to move up/down by certain amounts (which can be read off a Standard Normal distribution) for it to be upgraded /downgraded. Step 3 Large no. of Simulations (Monte Carlo) of the asset value thresholds preserving the correlation structure using Cholesky Decomposition is carried out. Asset value thresholds are converted to simulated ratings for the portfolio for each of the simulation runs. STEP 4 Using the forward yield curve (rating wise) and recovery data suitable valuation of each of the instruments in the portfolio is done for each simulation run. The distribution of portfolio values is subtracted from the original value to generate the loss distribution. Average variability explained by each industry Industry Correlation Step 1 Tenor of Evaluation, Current Rating Correlations Transition rates Step 2 Return Thresholds Simulated Credit Scenarios Step 3 Monte Carlo simulation Migration Portfolio Loss Distribution Spot & Forward Curve for each grade Recovery Rates Valuation Step 4 Exposure Default
    179. 181. Credit Risk - Raroc
    180. 182. What is RAROC ? The concept of RAROC (Risk adjusted Return on Capital) is at the heart of Integrated Risk Management. 7. Adopt RAROC as a common language <ul><li>Revenues </li></ul><ul><li>Expenses </li></ul><ul><li>Expected Losses </li></ul><ul><li>+ Return on economic capital </li></ul><ul><li>+ transfer values / prices </li></ul><ul><li>Capital required for </li></ul><ul><li>Credit Risk </li></ul><ul><li>Market Risk </li></ul><ul><li>Operational Risk </li></ul>Risk Adjusted Return Risk Adjusted Capital or Economic Capital RAROC
    181. 183. Will the loan default? What will be the exposure at default ? How much will be recovered ? no yes Risk of Default Risk of Exposure Risk of Recovery The 3 components of Credit Risk Loss = 0 Average (expected) Loss <ul><li>Country risk </li></ul><ul><li>Quality of the USR </li></ul><ul><li>Maturity </li></ul><ul><li>Transfer Risk (per product) </li></ul><ul><li>Commitment level </li></ul><ul><li>Current Exposure </li></ul><ul><li>Unused part of the line </li></ul><ul><li>Product Loan Equivalent (LEF) </li></ul><ul><li>Available pledges on assets </li></ul><ul><li>Recovery on unsecured assets </li></ul>
    182. 184. <ul><li>R isk A djusted R eturn O n C apital </li></ul><ul><li>RAROC = Revenues - Expected Loss </li></ul><ul><li>Economic capital </li></ul><ul><li>with : EL = EDF . EAD . Severity </li></ul><ul><ul><li>EDF = expected default frequency (depending on the risk class / on the ration) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>EAD = exposure at default </li></ul></ul><ul><li> = outstanding . LEF . (1 - pledges) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>LGD = Severity = loss given default (depending on the type of counterparty) </li></ul></ul>RAROC - Definition & Hypotheses
    183. 185. <ul><li>EL = expected losses, very likely, based on historical data </li></ul><ul><li>RAROC calculated per transaction / client / group of clients </li></ul><ul><li>Revenues : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Credit </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Non Credit </li></ul></ul><ul><li>RAREV = R isk A djusted Rev enues = Revenues - EL </li></ul><ul><li>Minimum required for a non-destroying value loan : </li></ul><ul><li> RAREV > 0 </li></ul><ul><li>-> impact on credit pricing </li></ul>RAROC - Definition & Hypotheses
    184. 186. Economic capital : own funds needed to cover the unexpected losses of a transaction, as they are assessed by the banking institution. Economic Capital =  (EDF) .  . 6,3 . LGD . (1-tax) . EAD where :  (EDF) = (edf. (1-edf)) 1/2  = default correlation between assets of the same risk class 6,3 = stress factor for a confidence interval of 99.95% (1-tax) = accounting for fiscal deductibility of losses RAROC - Definition & Hypotheses
    185. 187. RAROC = (12 %) x 65 % + (RFR + 0,5%) x 35 % = 14.9% = RFR + 10% (1 - 40%) <ul><li>ROE = 12 % </li></ul><ul><li>RFR = 5 % </li></ul><ul><li>Tier I / Tier II = 65% / 35 % </li></ul><ul><li>cost of Tier II : RFR + 0,5% </li></ul><ul><li>taxation rate = 40 % </li></ul>The transaction revenues need to be sufficient to cover the funding costs, ie., to remunerate the economic capital properly. RAROC - Hurdle Rate
    186. 188. Raroc - Leverages <ul><li>Profitability </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Credit Margin </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Non Credit revenues </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Risk </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Risk class </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Credit type </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Maturity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Country of credit </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Recovery rate </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Pledges </li></ul></ul>
    187. 189. <ul><li>Investment loan : 1 MM EUR </li></ul><ul><li>Bullet repayment </li></ul><ul><li>Credit margin : 2% </li></ul><ul><li>Pledges : 400,000 eur </li></ul><ul><li>No other recoveries </li></ul><ul><li>EDF : 1,5% </li></ul><ul><li>Maturity : 1 an </li></ul><ul><li>EL = 1.5% . 60% . 1000 000 = 9 000 EUR </li></ul><ul><li>Eco K =  (EDF) .  . 6,3 . Severity . (1-tax) . EAD </li></ul><ul><li> = (1,5% . 98,5%) 1/2 . 2,7% . 6,32 . 60% . 60%. 1MM </li></ul><ul><li> = 74 670 EUR </li></ul><ul><li>RAROC = 20 000 - 9 000 = RFR + 14.7% </li></ul><ul><li>74 670 </li></ul>Raroc - Numerical Example
    188. 190. <ul><ul><li>Quantification of the funding cost of the bank per transaction, per product and per client type. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Management tool of capital, a scarce and an expensive ressource. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Management by objectives of the banking network’s agents </li></ul></ul>Uses of Raroc
    189. 191. <ul><li>Alignement of regulatory and economic capital </li></ul><ul><li>Validation of internal models -> détermination of risk classes and of corresponding EDF’s. </li></ul>Basle II RAROC <ul><li>Measurement and management of economic capital </li></ul><ul><li>Key role of the EDF’s in Raroc: </li></ul><ul><li>Raroc = (Revenues - EL) / K </li></ul><ul><li>EL = EDF . EAD . Severity </li></ul><ul><li>K=  (EDF) .  .6,3. sev.(1-tax).EAD </li></ul>Raroc in Basle II
    190. 192. <ul><li>Direct link between the risk class of a debtor and his capital requirement. </li></ul><ul><li>Fine-tuning of the capital requirement based on the bank’s activities and on its risk profile (pillar 2). </li></ul>Basle II RAROC <ul><li>Raroc capital seen as both regulatory and economic. </li></ul><ul><li>Raroc as a global management and optimisation tool for the bank’s activities. </li></ul>Raroc in Basle II
    191. 193. RAROC 22% EVA 310 Risk-adjusted Net income 1750 Capital Charge 1440 Risk-adjusted After tax income 1.75% Average Lending assets 100 000 Total capital 8000 Cost of capital 18% Risk-adjusted Net income 2.20% Net Tax 0.45% Total capital 8.0 % Average Lending assets 100 000 Risk-adjusted income 5.60 % Costs 3.40 % Credit Risk Capital 4.40 % Market Risk Capital 1.60 % Operational Risk Capital 2.00 % Income 6.10 % Expected Loss 0.50 % RAROC Profitability Tree – an illustration
    192. 194. <ul><li>More than 10 years old, but still a flexible and efficient management tool in a modern regulatory environment. </li></ul><ul><li>Based on numerous parameters, it is adaptable to new banking products and activities. </li></ul><ul><li>Best suited for : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>the assessment of the credit risk capital of a bank; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>internal credit risk management; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>external credit pricing tool . </li></ul></ul>Raroc - Summary
    193. 195. <ul><li>Corporate predictor Model is a quantitative model to predict default risk dynamically </li></ul><ul><li>Model is constructed by using the hybrid approach of combining Factor model & Structural model (market based measure) </li></ul><ul><li>The inputs used include: Financial ratios, default statistics, Capital Structure & Equity Prices. </li></ul><ul><li>The present coverage include listed & ECAIs rated companies </li></ul><ul><li>The product development work related to private firm model & portfolio management model is in process </li></ul><ul><li>The model is validated internally </li></ul><ul><li>. </li></ul><ul><li>Derivation of Asset value & volatility </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Calculated from Equity Value , volatility for each company-year </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Solving for firm Asset Value & Asset Volatility simultaneously from 2 eqns. relating it to equity value and volatility </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Calculate Distance to Default </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Calculate default point (Debt liabilities for given horizon value) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Simulate the asset value and Volatility at horizon </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Calculate Default probability (EDF) </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Relating distance to default to actual default experience </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Use QRM & Transition Matrix </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Calculate Default probability based on Financials </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Arrive at a combined measure of Default using both </li></ul></ul></ul>8. Explore quantitative models for default prediction
    194. 196. Interest Rate Risk Spread Risk Default Risk Credit Default Swap Credit Spread Swap Total Return Swap Basket Credit Swap Securi Securitization tization Credit Portfolio Risks Different Hedging Techniques . . . as we go along, the extensive use of credit derivatives would become imminent 9. Use Hedging techniques
    195. 197. Credit Risk: Loan Portfolio and Concentration Risk <ul><li>The Portfolio and Individual Securities are prone to two Type of Risks. </li></ul><ul><li>1. Systematic Risk </li></ul><ul><li>2. Unsystematic Risk </li></ul><ul><li>The Unsystematic Risk can be eliminated with Diversification. </li></ul>
    196. 198. Models of Loan Concentration Risk <ul><li>1. Migration Analysis. </li></ul><ul><li>Migration analysis uses a loan migration matrix (transition matrix), which provide probabilities that the credit quality of a loan will migrate from one quality class to another quality class over a period of time, usually one year. </li></ul><ul><li>2. Concentration Limits. </li></ul><ul><li>The concentration limit is the maximum permitted loan amount to that can be granted to an individual borrower in a given sector, expressed as percentage of capital: </li></ul><ul><li>3. Subjective Model. </li></ul><ul><li>e.g. We have already lent too much to this borrower. </li></ul>
    197. 199. Concentration Limits <ul><li>Concentration Limit = Maximum loss as a percentage of capital X 1/Loss Rate </li></ul><ul><li>e.g. A bank wants to limit its losses in a particular sector to 5% of its capital and loss rate for this sector is 60%. </li></ul><ul><li>Concentration Limit = 0.05 X (1/0.6) </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>= 8.33% </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul>
    198. 200. INTERNAL EXPOSURE LIMIT PER PARTY 2% of tier-1 4:5 2.5% of tier-1 4:4 5% of tier-1 4:3 10% of tier-1 4:2 15% of tier-1 4:1 Risk Rated “4” 2.5% of tier-1 3:4 5% of tier-1 3:4 10% of tier-1 3:3 15% of tier-1 3:2 22% of tier-1 3:1 Risk Rated “3” 5% of tier-1 2:5 10% of tier-1 2:3 15% of tier-1 1:2 20% of tier-1 2:2 25% of tier-1 2:1 Risk Rated “2” 10% of tier-1 1:5 15% of tier-1 1:4 20% of tier-1 1:3 25% of tier-1 1:2 30% of tier-1 1:1 Risk Rated “1” Risk Rated “5” Risk Rated “4” Risk Rated “3” Risk Rated “2” Risk Rated “1” Risk Rating of the Industry
    199. 201. INTERNAL EXPOSURE LIMIT PER GROUP 2% of Tier -1 Capital 4:5 2.5% of Tier -1 Capital 4:4 5% of Tier -1 Capital 4:3 10% of Tier -1 Capital 4:2 20% of Tier -1 Capital 4:1 Risk Rated “4” 2.5% of Tier -1 Capital 3:5 5% of Tier -1 Capital 3:4 10% of Tier -1 Capital 3:3 20% of Tier -1 Capital 3:2 30% of Tier -1 Capital 3:1 Risk Rated “3” 5% of Tier -1 Capital 2:5 10% of Tier -1 Capital 2:4 20% of Tier -1 Capital 2:3 30% of Tier -1 Capital 2:2 45% of Tier -1 Capital 2:1 Risk Rated “2” 10% of Tier -1 Capital 1:5 20% of Tier -1 Capital 1:4 30% of Tier -1 Capital 1:3 45% of Tier -1 Capital 1:2 50% of Tier -1 Capital 1:1 Risk Rated “1” Risk Rating (Group) Risk Rating “5” Risk Rating “4” Risk Rating “3” Risk Rating “2” Risk Rating “1” Risk Rating Industry
    200. 202. Migration Analysis <ul><li>Loan Migration Matrix </li></ul>0.04 0.80 0.13 0.03 3 0.02 0.03 0.83 0.12 2 0.01 0.04 0.10 0.85 1 D 3 2 1 Risk Grade at End of Year Risk Grade at Beginning of Year
    201. 203. Sample Credit Rating Transition Matrix ( Probability of migrating to another rating within one year as a percentage) Credit Rating One year in the future 18.60 39.97 24.86 12.34 2.06 1.85 0.25 0.06 CCC 5.58 10.13 63.89 2.31 8.29 9.25 0.36 0.21 B 1.32 4.14 8.05 74.68 5.53 3.29 2.91 0.08 BB 0.07 0.16 0.32 6.51 84.21 5.00 1.89 1.84 BBB 0.03 0.06 0.13 1.48 7.40 89.05 1.59 0.27 A 0.02 0.05 0.13 1.11 2.16 7.47 88.23 0.84 AA 0.02 0.02 0.10 0.12 0.63 0.45 10.93 87.74 AAA Default CCC B BB BBB A AA AAA C U R R E N T CREDIT R A T I N G
    202. 204. <ul><li>“ Credit culture” refers to an implicit understanding among bank personnel that certain standards of underwriting and loan management must be maintained. </li></ul><ul><li>Strong incentives for the individual most responsible for negotiating with the borrower to assess risk properly </li></ul><ul><li>Sophisticated modelling and analysis introduce pressure for architecuture involving finer distinctions of risk </li></ul><ul><li>Strong review process aim to identify and discipline among relationship managers </li></ul>10. Create Credit culture
    203. 205. Effective Management of Risk benefits the bank.. <ul><li>Efficient allocation of capital to exploit different risk / reward pattern across business </li></ul><ul><li>Better Product Pricing </li></ul><ul><li>Early warning signals on potential events impacting business </li></ul><ul><li>Reduced earnings Volatility </li></ul><ul><li>Increased Shareholder Value </li></ul>To Summarise…. No Gain! No Risk …
    204. 207. Thanks for your attention . . .

    ×