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.


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.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
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
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

*** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.