The global financial crisis brought counterparty credit risk and credit value adjustment (CVA) very much into the spotlight. The Basel III proposals first published in December 2009 introduced changes to the Basel II rules including a new capital charge against the volatility of CVA. As the Basel committee noted, two thirds of the counterparty risk related losses during the credit crisis were actually from CVA volatility rather than defaults. Not surprisingly then, the new CVA ‘VaR capital charge is quite punitive and worthy of focus.
One of the key shortcomings of the first two Basel Accords is that they approached the solvency of each institution independently. The recent crisis highlighted the additional ‘systemic’ risk that the failure of one large institution could cause the failure of one or more of its counterparties, which could trigger a chain reaction.
The measurement and management of counterparty risk is in the midst of a revolution. Within recent memory of most counterparty risk managers it all used to be so much simpler. Limits were set on the same basis as traditional lending, and exposure measured against those limits was quantified using simple add-on factors applied to the notional of each transaction. Regulatory capital was based on the simple methodology which has been specified under Basel I.
FRTB is intended to address the undercapitalisation of trading book exposures witnessed during the financial crisis. While the basic goals and ideas of FRTB are simple, it differs materially from the existing Market Risk regulations. FRTB is likely to have a substantial influence in the way firms are organised, and their approach to measuring and reporting risk. There will also be an overall business and operational impact. Banks need to decide whether the costs associated with operational and IT change is justified. Read More
This global financial institution wanted to gain a better understanding of the mechanics of CVA pricing, especially on transactions involving multiple currencies. The firm’s widening credit spread dramatically increased CVA charges levied by dealers. Therefore the client wanted more transparency and a second opinion on these CVA charges. Quantifi generated a matrix of CVA prices and then analysed the differences between its results and the dealer quotes to help the client better understand the pricing dynamics.
by Quantifi and Kauri Solutions
The Basel Committee’s overhaul of the market risk capital framework marks a major change to previous versions. FRTB is likely to have a substantial influence in the way firms are organised, and their approach to measuring and reporting risk. For example, at desk level there will be a requirement to monitor SA capital in addition to IMA. Banks need to decide whether the costs associated with operational and IT change is justified. Are more complex products likely to pay for themselves given the majority of the life of a trade will need to be calculated with SA as opposed to IMA? What is the impact of CVA charges?
Counterparty credit risk (CCR) is currently one of the most complex topics for financial institutions. This complexity comes from many different sources but is primarily related to the multiple definitions and uses of counterparty credit risk. Therefore, the first question to ask yourself before modeling counterparty credit risk is why do you want to measure it? Read More
The whitepaper explores how recent regulations are affecting the OTC derivative markets in complex and interrelated ways, which in turn have changed the way firms do business. Over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives markets continue to be impacted by regulatory changes. These changes are increasing clearing costs and consequently trading costs, to an extent that could not have been anticipated by the market, given the complexity of these regulatory reforms. read more
by Avadhut Naik, Quantifi and Michael Bryant, InteDelta
The measurement and management of counterparty risk is a rapidly evolving area. A range of new regulatory requirements is changing the way in which institutions view risk. This affects not only risk quantification but the whole commercial model of an institution. New regulations or risk measures can affect the commercial attractiveness of an institution’s existing product range or client profile. Against a backdrop of discipline in constant evolution, this whitepaper explores some of the key areas associated with the management and measurement of counterparty risk.
co-authored by Jon Gregory, Solum Financial Partners
The global financial crisis brought counterparty credit risk and CVA very much into the spotlight. The Basel III proposals first published in December 2009 introduced changes to the Basel II rules and the need for a new capital charge 'CVA VaR' against the volatility of CVA. There are two ways for banks to compute CVA VaR, so-called standardised and advanced methods, which depend on their current regulatory approval with respect to other aspects. Furthermore, there is the potential to reduce the capital charges via eligible hedges. This whitepaper explores the capital charges under the two regimes and the capital relief that can be achieved.