Measurement and Management of Counterparty Risk
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 simplier. Limits were set on the same basis as traditional lending, and the 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 specified under Basel I.

The wave of change started as institutions, led by the banks, began to improve their internal measurement of counterparty risk. Simplistic add-on approaches were replaced by more sophisticated add-on methodologies, which were able to take into account portfolio effects and close-out netting. Many leading institutions went a step further and replaced the sophisticated add-on methodologies with Monte Carlo simulation. However, not all institutions deemed it necessary to move this far, and for many a more simplistic approach may still be appropriate (see InteDelta’s publication – Counterparty exposure: sometimes simple is good enough).

Basel II replaced the previous simplistic rules for the calculation of regulatory capital and gave banks the option of using their own internally built models to calculate regulatory capital. This can lead to significant capital savings but requires banks to invest heavily in new systems, processes and quantitative personnel.

Request A Copy

RELATED INSIGHTS

Whitepapers

A First View on the New CVA Risk Capital Charge

In July 2015, the Basel Committee of Banking Supervision (BCBS) published a consultative paper on credit valuation adjustment (CVA) risk to improve the current regulatory framework. In February 2016, first improvements of this framework have been introduced within the QIS instructions for the QIS based on December 2015 results.

Whitepapers

Measurement and Management of Counterparty Risk

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 simplier. Limits were set on the same basis as traditional lending, and the 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 specified under Basel I.

Whitepapers

Challenges in Implementing a Counterparty Risk Management Process

Most banks are in the process of setting up counterparty risk management processes or improving existing ones. Unlike market risk, which can be effectively managed by individual trading desks or traders, counterparty risk is increasingly being priced and managed by a central CVA desk or risk control group since the exposure tends to span multiple asset classes and business lines. Moreover, aggregated counterparty exposure may be significantly impacted by collateral and cross-product netting agreements.

Let's Talk!

Schedule a personalised demo today

Loading...