EBA欧洲银行-CP10_123页_1mb

Summary of Guidelines on the Implementation, Validation and Assessment of Advanced Measurement (AMA) and Internal Ratings Based (IRB) Approaches

Core Content

These guidelines, issued by the Committee of European Banking Supervisors (CEBS), provide a framework for the implementation, validation, and assessment of the Advanced Measurement Approach (AMA) and Internal Ratings Based (IRB) approaches under the recast Capital Requirements Directive (CRD). The guidelines aim to ensure consistency in supervisory practices across the European Union (EU), streamline the approval process, and reduce administrative burden for institutions applying for these advanced risk management methods.

Main Points and Key Information

1. Purpose and Scope

• The guidelines are intended to support national supervisors in evaluating applications for the use of AMA and IRB approaches.
• They elaborate on the CRD's Articles and Annexes, particularly those related to the minimum requirements for credit and operational risk.
• The guidelines do not cover the Standardised Approach for credit risk but provide some guidance on the Basic Indicator Approach (BIA) and Standardised Approach (TSA) for operational risk.
• The guidelines are the first phase of CEBS's work on AMA and IRB, with a second phase planned for more detailed guidance.

2. Application and Approval Process

• The CRD mandates an explicit approval process for the use of AMA and IRB approaches.
• For IRB, approval is granted only if the institution's credit risk rating systems are sound and meet the requirements in Article 84 and Annex VII, Part 4.
• For AMA, approval is granted only if the operational risk measurement systems meet the criteria in Annex X, Part 3.
• The approval process involves three steps: application, assessment, and decision.
• A six-month timeframe is set for the approval decision, and the consolidating supervisor is responsible for coordinating the process.
• A minimum set of documents is agreed upon for applications, though national supervisors may require additional information.

3. Supervisor's Assessment

• The guidelines outline the supervisor's assessment of the application, focusing on:
  • Methodology and documentation for rating systems and risk parameters.
  • Data quality and representativeness.
  • Validation of quantitative and qualitative risk parameters.
  • Internal governance mechanisms.

4. Risk Parameters and Definitions

• Key risk parameters include:
  • Probability of Default (PD)
  • Loss Given Default (LGD)
  • Conversion Factors (CF)
• Clear definitions of default and loss are provided, ensuring uniformity in risk assessment.
• The guidelines address specific exposure classes, such as:
  • Retail exposures (including SMEs, revolving retail exposures, and real estate collateral).
  • Corporate exposures (including SMEs and specialised lending).

5. Internal Governance and Independence

• The guidelines stress the importance of internal governance:
  • Role of the management body.
  • The independent Credit Risk Control unit (CRCU).
  • Role of internal audit.
  • Ensuring independence in rating assignment and managing conflicts of interest.
• Supervisors may rely on external auditors for certain aspects of the review process.

6. Operational Risk Considerations

• The guidelines cover operational risk, with a focus on the AMA.
• They also touch on simpler approaches (BIA, TSA, ASA) for operational risk.
• Partial use combinations are addressed, allowing for the use of AMA and simpler approaches in tandem.
• The three-year average is used as a relevant indicator for operational risk.

7. Validation and Data Issues

• A broader concept of validation is introduced, encompassing both internal and external validation methods.
• Benchmarking and backtesting are recommended validation tools.
• Data accuracy, completeness, and consistency with accounting data are essential.
• The representativeness of data used for model development is highlighted.

8. National Discretions and Flexibility

• The guidelines do not cover explicit national discretions, such as the number of days past due for retail and public sector entities.
• Supervisors may impose more detailed requirements than those outlined in the guidelines.
• The principle of proportionality is expected to be applied when assessing institutions of different sizes and complexity.

9. Co-operation Procedures

• The consolidating supervisor plays a central role in co-ordinating the approval process, especially for cross-border groups.
• Pre-application discussions are encouraged to ensure alignment and efficiency.
• A common understanding among supervisors is essential to streamline the approval process.

Conclusion

These guidelines aim to promote consistency, efficiency, and transparency in the application and approval of AMA and IRB approaches. They provide a common framework for supervisory authorities, support institutional compliance, and ensure risk-based capital requirements are properly implemented. While they do not cover all aspects of the CRD, they form a crucial basis for the supervisory assessment and institutional roll-out of advanced risk management methodologies.