Comment on Proposed Supervisory Guidance for Internal Ratings Based Systems for Credit Risk

Description

Deutsche Bank e Bank AG New York, 60 Wall Street, New York, NY 10005 May 29, 2007 Re: Comment on Proposed Supervisory Guidance for Internal Ratings Based Systems for Credit Risk, Advanced Measurement Approaches for Operational Risk, andy Review Process (Pillar 2) Related to Basel II Implementation Board Docket Nos. OP-1277, OCC Docket Nos. OCC-2007-004, OTS Nos. 2007-06 Jennifer J. Johnson Robert E. Feldman Secretary, Executive Secretary Board of Governors Attn; Comments, of the Federal Reserve System Federal Deposit Insurance Corp, 20th Street & Constitution Ave, NW 550 17th Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20551 Washington, D.C. 20429 Office of the Comptroller Regulation Comments of the Currency Attn; 2007-06 250 E Street, SW Chief Counsel's Office Mail Stop 1-5, Office of Thrift Supervision Washington, D.C. 20219 1700 G Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20552 Ladies and Gentlemen; Deutsche Bank appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Joint Supervisory Guidance ("Supervisory Guidance") relating to Basel II Implementation. In order to communicate effectively its major concerns to the agencies while providing supporting technical detail, Deutsche Bank has divided its comments between this letter and a more detailed Supplemental Memorandum attached as Appendix A hereto. Deutsche Bank is responding to the Supervisory Guidance consultation document while maintaining its position in relation to the scope and content of the Basel II Joint Notice ...

Informations

• Publié par: Seah
• Nombre de lectures: 39
• Langue: English

Extrait

Basel II Supervisory Guidance - Appendix A IRB

US Guideline Chapter § 1 I S 1-1 1 II S 1-2 1 II S 1-3 1 II S 1-4 §9 1 II S 1-4 §10 1 II S 1-5 1 II S 1-6 2 I §1 2 II §3 2 II §4 2 II §14 2 III S 2-1

Deutsche Bank

Page 1

Legend 1=Exempt non-US banks by introducing standardised approach option 2=Align NPR with Basel II 3=Align with CEBS guidance 4=Remove DB classification as core bank Problem for? 5=Remove / ease requirement Requirement all non-US banks Deutsche Bank Remedy Main reason An IRB system must have five interdependent components that Requirement to calibrate both LGD enable an accurate measurement of credit risk and risk-basedYES YES ELGD1,2,4 and capital requirements. Senior management must ensure that all of the components of the NPR default definition banks’ advanced systems for credit risk function effectively andYES YES1,2,4 comply with the qualification requirements in the NPR. The board of directors or its designated committee must at least Basel II standard annually evaluate the effectiveness of, and approve, the banks’NO NO advanced systems. Each bank (including each depository institution) must ensure that the risk parameters and reference data used to determine its risk- based capital requirements are representative of its own credit risk. NO NO … each bank subject to the capital requirements for advanced systems must determine its risk-based capital requirements forNOYES credit risk on a stand-alone basis p B e a r n fo k r s  m s a h n o c u e l   d o   f e   s t t h a ei b r l   is a h d   v s a p n e c c e if d ic     s a y c st c e o m un s t f a o b r i   li c t r y e  f d o i r t     t ri h s e k   . o   verall  NO NO   A banks’ advanced systems should be transparent.NO NO The risk rating system must be designed to facilitate quantification of obligor ratings in terms of PD and loss severity in terms of ELGDYES YES and LGD. Only risk rating systems that distinguish probability of default from loss given default meet the two-dimensional requirements for theNO NO IRB framework. bank meets the qualification requirements in the NPR <for IRB YES YES systems> Overrides should be specifically identified, monitored, and analyzed to evaluate their impact on the banks’ IRB rating system.NO NO Banks must identify obligor defaults in accordance with the IRB definition of default. YES YES

US Guidelines issues for DB 070529.xls

1,4,5

1,2,4

1,2,4 1,2,4

Standalone parameter calibrations neither meaningful nor reliable

Requirement to calibrate both LGD and ELGD

NPR default definition NPR default definition

29/05/2007

Basel II Supervisory Guidance - Appendix A IRB

Deutsche Bank

YES NO NO NO YES

YES NO NO NO YES

1,2,4

Page 2

Requirement to calibrate both LGD and ELGD

Legend 1=Exempt non-US banks by introducing standardised approach option 2=Align NPR with Basel II 3=Align with CEBS guidance 4=Remove DB classification as core bank US Guideline Problem for? 5=Remove / ease requirement Chapter § Requirement all non-US banks Deutsche Bank Remedy Main reason 2 IV S 2-2 Banks should demonstrate that their wholesale risk rating Separation between rating and §17 processes are sufficiently independent to produce objective ratings. credit approval only planned for li F n o e r  s e  s x o a  t m h p a l t e   , t   h a e     b c a r n e k d   it c   o a u p l p d r   o st v r a u l  c a tu n r d e     t i h ts e     o r r at g i a n n g i   z a a s ti si o g n n al m  r e e n p t  o d rt e in ci g s   ions  NOYES CdiM  ton ,setarorpcol na   io , a 4 t , r 2 nte 1 ni ap.  are separate from each other. 2 V S 2-3 IRB risk rating systems must have two dimensions — obligor default and loss severity — corresponding to PD (obligor default), and ELGD and LGD (loss severity). 2 V S 2-4 Banks must assign discrete obligor rating grades. 2 V S 2-5 The obligor rating system must rank obligors by likelihood of default. 2 V S 2-6 Banks must assign an obligor to only one rating grade. 2 V S 2-7 A banks’ rating policy must describe its ratings philosophy and how S 2-8 quickly obligors are expected to migrate from one rating grade to another in response to economic cycles. In assigning an obligor to a rating grade, a bank should assess the risk of obligor default over a period of at least one year taking into account the possibility of adverse economic conditions. 2 V S 2-9 Banks must have at least seven discrete obligor rating grades for non-defaulted obligors and at least one rating grade for defaulted obligors. 2 V S 2-10 Banks should justify the number of obligor rating grades used in its risk rating system and the distribution of obligors across those grades. 2 V S 2-11 Banks may recognize implied support as a rating criterion subject to specific supervisory considerations; however, banks should not rely upon the possibility of U.S. government financial assistance, except for the financial assistance that the U.S. government has legally committed to provide. 2 V S 2-12 Banks must have a loss severity rating system that is able to assign loss severity estimates (ELGD and LGD) to each wholesale exposure.

US Guidelines issues for DB 070529.xls

NO NO YES YES

NO NO YES YES

1,2,4,5

5 1,2,4

No calibration of rating transitions required under Basel II

Implied support only defined with respect to US Requirement to calibrate both LGD and ELGD

29/05/2007

Basel II Supervisory Guidance - Appendix A IRB

Deutsche Bank

Page 3

Legend 1=Exempt non-US banks by introducing standardised approach option 2=Align NPR with Basel II 3=Align with CEBS guidance 4=Remove DB classification as core bank US Guideline Problem for? 5=Remove / ease requirement Chapter § Requirement all non-US banks Deutsche Bank Remedy Main reason 2 V S 2-13 Banks should have empirical support for their loss severity rating Requirement to calibrate both LGD s q y u s a t n e t m and the rating system should be capable of supporting the  YES YES  ELGD1,2,4 and ification of ELGD estimates (and LGD estimates if approved for internal estimates). 2 V S 2-14 Banks must have a sufficiently granular loss severity rating system Requirement to calibrate both LGD to group exposures with similar estimated loss severities or a YES YES  ELGD1,2,4 and process that assigns estimated ELGDs and LGDs to individual exposures. 2 V S 2-15 Rating criteria should be written, clear, consistently applied, and Inconsistent definition between include the specific qualitative and quantitative factors used inYES YES and Basel II disables1,2,4,5 NPR assigning ratings. consistent rating approach 2 V S 2-16 Risk ratings must be updated whenever new material information is Similar CRD requirement (Annex received, but in no instance less than annually. NO NO VII Part 4 1.4) 3 II S 3-1  d B e a f n a k u s lt   e m d u  r s e t t   a u i s l  e e  t x h p e o   s I u R r B e   s d .  efinition of default when identifying  YES YES  default definition1,2,4 NPR 3 II S 3-2 Banks must first place exposures into one of the three retail exposure subcategories (residential mortgage, QRE, and other NO NO retail). Banks must then separate exposures into segments with homogeneous risk characteristics. 3 II S 3-3 A retail segmentation system must produce segments that accurately and reliably differentiate risk and produce accurate andNO NO reliable estimates of the risk parameters. 3 II S 3-4 Banks shoul   d t   o c   l a e   a p r a l r y t   i d c e u f l i a n r e  r   e a t n a d il     d s o e c g u m m e e nt n . t the criteria for assigning  NO NO an exposure 3 II S 3-5 Banks should develop and document their policies to ensure that risk- driver information is sufficiently accurate and timely to track changes in underlying credit quality and that the updatedNO NO information is used to assign exposures to appropriate segments. 3 II S 3-6 The banks’ retail exposure segmentation system must provide for the review and update (as appropriate) of assignments of retail YES YES exposures to segments whenever the bank receives new material information, but no less frequently than quarterly.

US Guidelines issues for DB 070529.xls

1,2,4,5

Superequivalent to CRD requirement (annually)

29/05/2007

Basel II Supervisory Guidance - Appendix A IRB

Deutsche Bank

Page 4

Legend 1=Exempt non-US banks by introducing standardised approach option 2=Align NPR with Basel II 3=Align with CEBS guidance 4=Remove DB classification as core bank US Guideline Problem for? 5=Remove / ease requirement Chapter § Requirement all non-US banks Deutsche Bank Remedy Main reason 4 I §5 The bank should map each reference data set and each Burdensome yet unclear combination of risk characteristics used in any estimation model.NOYES5 requirement 4 I S 4-1 Banks should have a fully specified process covering all aspects of Documentation requirements on quantification (reference data, estimation, mapping, and YES YES 3 details going beyond CEBS CP10 application). The quantification process should be fully documented. 4 I S 4-2 Risk parameter estimates must be based on the IRB definition of NPR default definition default. At least annually, a bank must conduct a comprehensive review and analysis of reference data to determine the relevance of reference data to the banks’ exposures, quality of reference data toYES YES1,2,4 support risk parameter estimates, and consistency of reference data to the IRB definition of default. 4 I S 4-3 Banks must separately quantify wholesale risk parameter estimates before adjusting the estimates for the impact of eligible guaranteesNO and eligible credit derivatives. 4 I S 4-4 Banks may take into account the risk-reducing effects of §20 g E u L a G ra D n ,  t a e n es d     i L n  G s D u   p o p f  o t r h t  e o   f s   e re g t m ail e   n e t x .  posures when quantifying the PD,  YES Retail guarantees may affect PD… 4 I S 4-5 Banks may only reflect the risk-reducing benefits of tranched guarantees of multiple retail exposures by meeting the definitionNO and operational criteria for synthetic securitizations. 4 I S 4-6 At a minimum, the quantification process and the resulting risk parameters must be reviewed annually and updated as appropriate.NO 4 I S 4-7 Quantific accurate  a e t s i t o i n m  s at h i o o u n l   d o   f  b t e h   e b  r a i s s e k  d p  u ar p a o m n  e t t h e e r   s b . e   st available data for the  NO 4 I S 4-8  l T e h n e g   t s h a  fo m r p   l e e a   c p h e   r r i i o s d k     f p o a r  r t a h m e  e r t e e f r e   r b e y n  p ce o   rt d f a o t li a must meet the minimum  NO o. 4 I S 4-9 The reference data must include periods of economic downturn conditions, or the parameter estimates must be adjusted toNO compensate for the lack of data from such periods.

US Guidelines issues for DB 070529.xls

NO YES NO NO NO NO NO

5

Assuming "guarantee" refers to   third party but not parental guarantee. Cf. S 2-11. Disallowed under Basel II (BCBS 2005 §438)

29/05/2007

Basel II Supervisory Guidance - Appendix A IRB

Deutsche Bank

Page 5

Legend 1=Exempt non-US banks by introducing standardised approach option 2=Align NPR with Basel II 3=Align with CEBS guidance 4=Remove DB classification as core bank US Guideline Problem for? 5=Remove / ease requirement Chapter § Requirement all non-US banks Deutsche Bank Remedy Main reason 4 I S 4-10 Banks should clearly document how they adjust for the absence of significant data elements in either the reference data set or theNO NO existing portfolio. 4 I S 4-11 Judgmental adjustments to risk parameter estimates, either upward or downward, may be an appropriate part of the quantification NO NO process, but must not result in an overall bias toward lower risk parameter estimates. 4 I S 4-12 Risk parameter estimates should incorporate a degree of conservatism that is appropriate for the overall rigor of theNO NO quantification process. 4 I S 4-13 Mapping should be based on a comparison of available data elements that are common to the existing portfolio and eachNO NO reference data set. 4 I S 4-14 A mapping process should be established for each reference data set and for each estimation model.NOYES 4 I S 4-15 Banks that combine estimates from internal and external data or that use multiple estimation methods should have a clear policy NOYES governing the combination process and should examine the sensitivity of the results to alternative combinations. 4 I S 4-16 The aggregation of risk parameter estimates from individual exposures within rating grades or segments should be governed by a clear and well-documented policy.NOYES

4 II S 4-17 PD estimates must be empirically based and must represent a long- run average. 4 II §66 If the bank made no adjustment for the missing defaults, its practice would not be acceptable. 4 II S 4-18 Effects of seasoning, when material, must be considered in the PD estimates for retail portfolios.

US Guidelines issues for DB 070529.xls

NO NO YES

NO YES YES

5 5 5

1,2,4,5 2,5

Burdensome yet unclear requirement (related but not identical to Ch. 4 §5) A general "clear policy" does not make sense as any data combination process is specific to the underlying problem Unclear requirement - aggregation of risk parameter estimates with rating grades is questionable and not common practice in DB DB's PD masterscale is build to match EU definition of default. Adjustments for US NPR definition are infeasible. Proposing time-dependent PDs - not in line with CRD. Potential double-counting with maturity adjustment

29/05/2007

Basel II Supervisory Guidance - Appendix A IRB

Deutsche Bank

Page 6

Legend 1=Exempt non-US banks by introducing standardised approach option 2=Align NPR with Basel II 3=Align with CEBS guidance 4=Remove DB classification as core bank US Guideline Problem for? 5=Remove / ease requirement Chapter § Requirement all non-US banks Deutsche Bank Remedy Main reason 4 II C §§77 - 86Examples for mappings mostly not relevant for DBNO NO - 4 II D §§87 - 89Examples for PD use - mostly not relevant for DBNO NO 4 III §96 All cash flow data should include dollar amounts and dates. (Burdensome) change of reference YES YES  may yield other result5 currency contaminated by FX rates. Not in CRD - competitive YES YES idnaatasvdb na   s 5 k  d e e g w t o    ll oS a U   ate both LGD NOYES ndaGLE  D 1,2,4  Requieremtnt  oacilrb Burdensome separation of costs within one unit YES YES3,5 ELGD is not a Basel II parameter YES YES1,2,4 ELGD is not a Basel II parameter YES YES1,2,4 and thus not officially calibrated in DB "Downturn process" not required by CRD YES YES1,2,4,5 NO NO Alternative methods not allowed in CEBS CP10 - competitive YES YES  to US banks 5 disadvantage YES YES ,2 5 RC D ,1 eq rreuiesdoot n CC -n  sF wod rutn NO NO

4 III §98 Banks are not required to truncate the loss severity data used to derive ELGD and LGD parameter estimates. 4 III S 4-19 ELGD and LGD estimates must be empirically based and must reflect the concept of e“ conomic loss.” 4 III S 4-24 Collection and workout departments, however, may cover services not 100 percent attributable to defaulted exposures. <..> The expenses for these functions should be differentiated to allocate only collection expenses attributable to defaulted exposures. 4 III S 4-20 ELGD estimates must reflect the expected default-weighted average economic loss rate over a mix of economic conditions, including economic downturn conditions. 4 III S 4-21 LGD estimates must reflect expected loss severities for exposures that default during economic downturn conditions, and must be greater than or equal to ELGD estimates. 4 III S 4-22 A bank may use internal estimates of LGD only if supervisors have previously determined that the bank has a rigorous and well- documented process for assessing the effects of economic downturn conditions on loss severities and for producing LGD estimates consistent with downturn conditions. 4 III §§124 - 129Examples for mappings - mostly not relevant for DB 4 IV §137 A number of methods can be used to estimate EAD. One common approach is based on loan equivalent exposure (L“ EQ”), which is typically expressed as a percentage of the current total committed but undrawn amount. 4 IV S 4-23 Estimates of additional drawdowns must reflect net additional draws expected during economic downturn periods. 4 IV S 4-24 Estimates of additional drawdowns prior to default for individual wholesale exposures or retail segments must not be negative.

US Guidelines issues for DB 070529.xls

29/05/2007