Response to discussion on the simplification and assessment of the credit risk framework
Go back
Q1. For the purpose of reporting under CRR Article 430a, which definition of loss should be used?
Please see attached PDF.
Q2. Should the loss data (CRR Article 430a) be used for the assessment of RWs of real estate exposures under CRR Article 126(4) and CRR Article 465(11)?
Please see attached PDF.
Q3. Which elements of the real estate framework should be further simplified?
Please see attached PDF.
Q4. Which other clarifications do you consider necessary to apply the new ECAI framework?
Please see attached PDF.
Q5. Should the consolidation of regulatory products for credit risk be a priority or should the regulatory stability be preferable instead? Have you identified any redundancies in IRB products?
Please see attached PDF.
Q6. Do you consider that the integration of environmental and social risks into the credit risk framework could be further enhanced without undermining its simplicity? Which areas, if any, would you prioritise for further work or clarification?
Please see attached PDF.
Q7. Which requirements should apply in relation to the measurement of the performance of continuous models (e.g. Back-testing)? How could testing requirements be facilitated and enhanced for continuous models that are compliant with CRR, Part three, Title II, Chapter 3, Section 6 (Requirements for the IRB approach)?
Please see attached PDF.
Q8. Which requirements should apply in the application phase of continuous models (e.g. overrides)?
Please see attached PDF.
Q9. Which challenges have you encountered in implementing the new CRR definition of facility?
Please see attached PDF.
Q10. Should a consistent and single facility definition be applied across all risk parameters?
Please see attached PDF.
Q11. Are adjustments proposed in the representativeness requirement for the CCF parameter also suited for PD and LGD risk parameters? Which amendments would be needed to accommodate PD and LGD specificities?
Please see attached PDF.
Q12: Do you consider further simplification of the representativeness requirement, as proposed for the CCF parameter, as necessary for PD and LGD and if so, what kind of simplification?
Please see attached PDF.
Q13. Should these simplifications be pursued? Do you have any preferred approaches with respect to these simplifications?
Please see attached PDF.
Q14. Do you have any comments and suggestions with reference to the calibration of the fall back approaches?
Please see attached PDF.
Q15. Do you see other potential simplification areas where the modelling burden is not commensurate to the gain in risk sensitivity?
Please see attached PDF.
Q16. What do you perceive as challenges in your capacity to collect appropriate data, in particular in relation to indirect costs?
Please see attached PDF.
Q17. Do you agree with the approach proposed by EBA? Do you see further measures as necessary?
Please see attached PDF.