United States: Revisions To Basel Securitisation Framework – Second Consultative Document

Keywords: revision, Basel securitisation framework, BCBS, credit risk, capital requirements

In December 2013 the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) published a second consultation paper (BCBS 269)1 on its proposed changes to the international model rules for banks' calculation of credit risk capital requirements for exposures to securitisation transactions (Revised Proposal). The Revised Proposal follows the BCBS's first consultative document on this subject (BCBS 236) published in December 2012 (First Proposal),2 and includes the proposed text of the revised securitisation framework. Comments on the Revised Proposal are due 21 March 2014.

The Revised Proposal carries forward the objectives and some basic elements of the First Proposal, including increasing risk weights for highly-rated securitisation exposures, decreasing risk weights for lower-rated securitisation exposures and varying risk weights according to tranche contractual maturity. However, BCBS has adjusted the modelling and calibration so that risk weights for high quality securitisation exposures, while higher than under the Basel II capital requirements framework as amended,3 would be significantly lower than under the First Proposal.

Highlights of the Revised Proposal are as follows:

  • BCBS proposes a simplified hierarchy of approaches under which banks would apply (depending on satisfaction of conditions described below):
    • an Internal Ratings-Based Approach (IRBA) based on the internal ratings-based approach (IRB) capital charge for the underlying securitised exposures (Kirb), in place of the modified supervisory formula approach (MSFA) in the First Proposal;
    • where permitted under the laws of the relevant jurisdiction, either an External Ratings-Based Approach (ERBA), which is a slightly simpler version of the Revised Ratings-Based Approach (RRBA) set out in the First Proposal, or, at the bank's option in the case of exposures to asset-backed commercial paper (ABCP) conduits, the Internal Assessments Approach (IAA) from the Basel II IRB; or
    • a Standardised Approach (SA), which is similar to the Simplified Supervisory Formula Approach (SSFA) set out in the First Proposal.

If the bank was not able to apply any of these approaches to a particular securitisation exposure, it would assign a 1250% risk weight to the exposure. The Revised Proposal does not include the backstop concentration ratio approach (BCRA) set out in the First Proposal.

  • Though the MSFA no longer appears in the hierarchy, an adjusted form of the MSFA was used to calibrate the IRBA and other approaches. BCBS adjusted the calibration and some of the assumptions of the MSFA based on comments received on the First Proposal and results of its related quantitative impact study (QIS).
  • Regardless of the approach used, the capital requirement for any securitisation exposure would be subject to a 15% risk weight floor. This compares to the 7% risk weight floor for a high quality, senior, granular securitisation position under the Basel II IRB and the 20% floor proposed in the First Proposal and already in effect in the US bank capital rules (US Rules)4 and under the Basel II SA.
  • Under both the IRBA and the ERBA, and as set out in the First Proposal under the MSFA and the RRBA, risk weights would vary according to maturity of the securitisation exposure, with a minimum of one year and a maximum of five years. For this purpose, the tranche maturity would be determined based on mandatory contractual cash flows of the securitisation tranche rather than contractual or expected cash flows of the underlying assets.
  • Based on the ERBA risk weights and other statements set out in the Second Proposal, risk weights under the revised framework for relatively high quality securitisation tranches (and especially those not having short contractual maturities) would still be substantially higher than under the Basel II IRB, but would also be significantly lower than under the First Proposal.
  • Operational conditions for use of the IRBA would incorporate the same flexibility allowed in relation to the supervisory formula approach (SFA) under Basel II as implemented, and the IRBA could be used under some conditions for "mixed pools" where the bank could determine KIRB for the predominant share but not all the exposures in the underlying pool. The Revised Proposal thus allows more flexibility than the First Proposal in application of the most advanced approach.
  • Following the Revised Proposal comment period and a second QIS, BCBS intends to publish the revised securitisation framework within an appropriate timeframe, providing enough time for implementation without grandfathering of existing positions.

Hierarchy of approaches

Under the Revised Proposal's hierarchy of approaches, for a bank to determine the risk weight of any securitisation exposure:

  • If the bank had supervisory permission and sufficient information to determine KIRB for the pool of underlying exposures, it would apply the IRBA. Banking supervisors would be allowed, however, to restrict or prohibit use of the IRBA for certain structures or transactions.5
  • If the bank could not use the IRBA, then, if permitted in the relevant jurisdiction, the bank would apply the ERBA (or, at the bank's option, the IAA for exposures to ABCP conduits).
  • If the bank was not able to apply the IRBA, the ERBA or the IAA, then it would apply the SA.
  • If the bank was not able to apply any of the IRBA, the ERBA or the IAA, or the SA, it would assign a risk weight of 1250%.

The Revised Proposal's modified risk weight methods are as follows:

Internal Ratings-Based Approach (IRBA)

The IRBA would use a formula similar to the SSFA to derive the capital requirement for a securitisation position based on KIRB for the underlying securitised exposures as well as the attachment point (A) and detachment point (D) of the securitisation position and other factors. A capital surcharge parameter (p) would determine the overall amount of capital required for positions above KIRB based on a number of variables, including tranche contractual maturity (M), loss given default (LGD), KIRB, number of loans (N), whether the position is in the most senior tranche and whether the underlying exposures are wholesale (and granular or non-granular) or retail.

Like the current SFA, the IRBA could be used only by banks having an IRB risk weight model approved by their banking supervisors, as well as information sufficient to determine Kirb for the underlying pool exposures. In calculating KIRB, banks would need to apply the minimum standards set out in the Basel II IRB framework, but could also use practices and standards currently in place, and BCBS expresses the intention that supervisors and banks take a flexible approach such that IRBA can be applied to all asset classes (other than re-securitisations). Where a bank could determine IRB parameters for the predominant share but not all of the underlying pool of exposures, it could apply the IRBA provided that it assigned a risk weight of 1250% to those exposures for which it could not apply the IRB.

External Ratings-Based Approach (ERBA)

The ERBA is a slightly simplified version of the RRBA set out in the First Proposal. Like the RRBA and the Basel II IRB ratings-based approach (RBA), it would assign risk weights to rated securitisation exposures based in part on qualifying credit rating agency (CRA) ratings. Like the RRBA and unlike the Basel II RBA, the ERBA would take into account not only the exposure's credit rating and whether the exposure was in the most senior tranche, but also the exposure's thickness (in the case of a non-senior tranche, the ratio of the tranche amount to the sum of all tranches in the securitisation) and its maturity (between one and five years as in the IRBA), and would make no distinction between granular and non-granular exposures. Under the ERBA, unlike the RRBA, due to some simplifications, rather than using a set of tables and equations, banks would use a single look-up table, together with interpolation for tranche maturities between one and five years and adjustment for thickness of non-senior tranches, to determine risk weights. Banks would use the same ERBA whether they used the SA or the IRB to determine risk weights for the underlying exposures.

BCBS has also dropped the proposal (set out in the First Proposal) to require at least two qualifying CRA ratings for ERBA. In the case of an unrated exposure that was senior to a rated exposure, a bank (whether it used the SA or the IRB for the underlying exposures) could use an inferred rating under the same conditions as in the Basel II IRB.

The lowest risk weight under the ERBA, as under the revised framework generally, would be 15%, rather than 7% as under the Basel II RBA or the controversial 20% floor under the First Proposal. As in the First Proposal, but to a lesser degree, risk weights would be higher for tranches with longer tenors (for example, 25% for a senior AAA-rated tranche with maturity of five years or more, rather than 15% for a one-year maturity under the Revised Proposal and 58% for a five-year maturity under the First Proposal). For lower-rated positions, the decrease in risk weights from the First Proposal's RRBA to the Revised Proposal's ERBA is less dramatic, but, for positions rated below investment grade and not below "CCC-", the ERBA, like RRBA, would give lower risk weights than those in the Basel II RBA.

Standardised Approach (SA)

The SA is similar to the SSFA included in the US Rules and the First Proposal. It would determine the risk weight of a securitisation exposure using a formula based on the weighted average capital charge determined under the SA for the underlying exposures (KSA), the ratio of delinquent underlying exposures to their ending balance (w), the attachment point of the securitisation exposure (at which losses would first be allocated to the exposure), its detachment point (at which the exposure would be a total loss), and a supervisory calibration parameter (p). BCBS proposes to set the parameter p at 1.0, which would result in higher capital requirements than in the US capital rules (in which p equals 0.5 for ordinary securitisation exposures and 1.5 for re-securitisation) but lower than in the First Proposal (in which p was set at 1.5 for ordinary securitisation exposures). BCBS says the SA is designed and calibrated to produce capital requirements broadly in line with those of the ERBA.6

For re-securitisation exposures, none of the other methods would apply, and capital requirements would have to be determined according to the SA except that (a) they would be based on risk weights determined under the revised securitisation framework (which would not have separate SA and IRB rules for securitisation risk weights), (b) delinquencies (w) of underlying securitisation exposures would be treated as zero, and (c) the factor p would equal 1.5 rather than 1.0.

Other changes and clarifications

The Revised Proposal also includes the following further changes and clarifications carried over from the First Proposal:

  • The IRBA and ERBA would take into account maturity (M) of a securitisation exposure based on contractual cash flows of that exposure and not according to performance of (or contractual cash flows of) the underlying assets. For a pass-through tranche, M would equal the legal final maturity (but not less than one year nor more than five years). For committed facilities related to a securitisation exposure, M would equal the term of the commitment plus the maturity of the exposure. For certain types of credit enhancement facilities that are exposed to losses only during the stated commitment period, M would be the commitment period.
  • The revised framework would eliminate certain special provisions of the Basel II securitisation framework, namely the SA look-through approach for second loss positions in ABCP programmes,7 the IRB limited look-through for ABCP liquidity facilities,8 the SA 50% conversion factor for "eligible" liquidity facilities,9 and the early amortisation provisions for revolving credit pools10 (which the framework would treat as non-securitised).
  • Write-downs and purchase discounts would be addressed by using the carrying value rather than the notional amount of an exposure as the amount to be risk-weighted, but would not be deducted directly from a bank's capital requirement.

The Revised Proposal also includes the following relatively favourable changes carried over from the First Proposal:

  • A bank's capital requirement for a retained securitisation exposure will not be higher than the amount of capital it would be required to maintain if it held all the underlying exposures directly. As under the First Proposal, this maximum capital requirement rule would apply not only (as under the Basel II IRB11) to banks using the IRB when acting as originators, sponsors or investors, but also to banks using the SA when acting as originators or sponsors (but not when acting as investors). BCBS is also considering whether to allow banks to apply the capital cap on a proportional basis, based on the largest percentage of any tranche that the bank holds in the securitisation.12
  • For a senior securitisation exposure, a bank could apply a look-through approach to determine the maximum risk weight based on the weighted average risk weight of the underlying exposures. While this look-through exists in the Basel II SA,13 under the revised framework it would apply to rated as well as unrated securitisation exposures, and whether the risk weights of the underlying exposures were calculated under the IRB or the SA.
  • Where either the capital requirements cap or the risk weight cap applies, if the risk weight resulting from the cap is lower than the 15% risk weight floor, the lower risk weight resulting from the cap should be used.
  • Any bank (whether it used the SA or the IRB to determine risk weights of underlying exposures) could use inferred ratings (credit ratings of a junior rated tranche)14 to determine the risk weight of a more senior unrated securitisation exposure.
  • An originator would no longer be required (as under the Basel II SA)15 in all cases to deduct below-investment-grade retained exposures.

Assumptions and calibration

BCBS stated that it revised the calibration and certain assumptions in the MSFA which was used to calibrate the IRBA and other approaches in the Second Proposal.16 However, apparently BCBS does not intend to publish a technical paper (as it did for the First Proposal) explaining the adjustments in detail. The adjustments are summarised as follows:

  • BCBS relaxed its initial assumption that no future margin income (excess spread) would be available to cover expected losses beyond one year. In particular, for senior tranches, the model recognises 80% of future income.17
  • BCBS introduced an intra-pool risk factor which characterises asset correlations among exposures within a pool and effectively reallocates pool capital between senior and junior tranches.18
  • BCBS changed the risk metric from expected shortfall19 back to value-at-risk, which provides greater consistency with the IRB approach.
  • To simplify the modelling, BCBS adjusted the model to assume that loan defaults in a securitisation occur at maturity of the securitisation, rather than after one year and at maturity.20

Consultation and QIS to follow

Beginning during the comment period for the Revised Proposal, BCBS will conduct a second QIS, including the collection of loan level data for securitisation positions, to assess the effects of proposed changes to calibrations in the Revised Proposal. Following the comment period and QIS, BCBS intends to publish the final revised framework in an appropriate timeframe, allowing time for implementation without grandfathering of existing positions.

Footnotes

1. BCBS, Revisions to the Basel Securitisation Framework – Consultative Document (Dec. 2013), available at http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs269.pdf.

2. BCBS, Revisions to the Basel Securitisation Framework – Consultative Document (Dec. 2012), available at http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs236.pdf. Our summary of the First Proposal is available at http://www.mayerbrown.com/revisions-basel-framework/.

3. BCBS, Basel II: International Convergence of Capital Measurement and Capital Standards: A Revised Framework – Comprehensive Version (Jun. 2006), available at http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs128.pdf (BCBS 128); BCBS, Enhancements to the Basel II framework (Jul. 2009), available at http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs157.pdf (BCBS 157) ; BCBS, Revisions to the Basel II market risk framework – final version (Jul. 2009), available at http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs158.pdf (BCBS 158).

4. The US Rules were adopted by the Department of the Treasury, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB), 78 Fed. Reg. 62018-62291 (Oct. 11, 2013; OCC and FRB rules published jointly, to be codified separately in CFR), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-10-11/pdf/2013-21653.pdf , and by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), 78 Fed. Reg. 55340-55598 (interim final rule Sep. 10, 2013), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-10/pdf/2013- 20536.pdf, with substantially similar texts. Our legal update on the securitization provisions of the US Rules is available at http://www.mayerbrown.com/Securitization-Provisions-Contained-in-Final-Rule-to-Implement-Basel-III-Regulatory-Capital-Framework-in-the-United-States-07-23-2013/.

5 BCBS 269 footnote 9.

6. BCBS 269 page 17.

7. Basel II paras. 574-75.

8. Basel II para. 639.

9. Basel II paras. 576, 579.

10. Basel II paras. 590-605.

11. Basel II para. 610.

12. BCBS 269 pages 18-19 footnote 20 and accompanying text and Question 3.

13. Basel II paras. 572-73.

14. Basel II paras. 617-18.

15. Basel II paras. 569-70.

16. BCBS 269 page 10.

17. BCBS 269 page 10 footnote 17 and accompanying text.

18. BCBS 269 page 10 footnote 18 and accompanying text.

19. See BCBS, Foundations of the Proposed Modified Supervisory Formula Approach – Working Paper No. 22 (Jan. 2013), available at http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs_wp22.pdf.

20. Cf. WP 22 page 16 para. 44.

Originally published on 22 January 2014

Visit us at mayerbrown.com

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions