Article 325bf

1. For the purposes of this Article, an ‘overshooting’ means a one-day change in the value of a portfolio composed of all the positions assigned to the trading desk that exceeds the related value-at-risk number calculated on the basis of the institution's alternative internal model in accordance with the following requirements:

(a) the calculation of the value at risk shall be subject to a one-day holding period;

(b) scenarios of future shocks shall apply to the risk factors of the trading desk's positions referred to in Article 325bg(3) and which are considered modellable in accordance with Article 325be;

(c) data inputs used to determine the scenarios of future shocks applied to the modellable risk factors shall be calibrated to historical data referred to in point (c) of Article 325bc(4);

(d) unless stated otherwise in this Article, the institution's alternative internal model shall be based on the same modelling assumptions as those used for the calculation of the expected shortfall risk measure referred to in point (a) of Article 325ba(1).

2. Institutions shall count daily overshootings on the basis of back-testing of the hypothetical and actual changes in the value of the portfolio composed of all the positions assigned to the trading desk.

3. An institution's trading desk shall be deemed to meet the back-testing requirements where the number of overshootings for that trading desk that occurred over the most recent 250 business days does not exceed any of the following:

(a) 12 overshootings for the value-at-risk number, calculated at a 99th percentile one tailed-confidence interval on the basis of back-testing of the hypothetical changes in the value of the portfolio;

(b) 12 overshootings for the value-at-risk number, calculated at a 99th percentile one tailed-confidence interval on the basis of back-testing of the actual changes in the value of the portfolio;

(c) 30 overshootings for the value-at-risk number, calculated at a 97,5th percentile one tailed-confidence interval on the basis of back-testing of the hypothetical changes in the value of the portfolio;

(d) 30 overshootings for the value-at-risk number, calculated at a 97,5th percentile one tailed-confidence interval on the basis of back-testing of the actual changes in the value of the portfolio.

4. Institutions shall count daily overshootings in accordance with the following:

(a) the back-testing of hypothetical changes in the value of the portfolio shall be based on a comparison between the end-of-day value of the portfolio and, assuming unchanged positions, the value of the portfolio at the end of the subsequent day;

(b) the back-testing of actual changes in the value of the portfolio shall be based on a comparison between the end-of-day value of the portfolio and its actual value at the end of the subsequent day, excluding fees and commissions;

(c) an overshooting shall be counted for each business day for which the institution is not able to assess the value of the portfolio or is not able to calculate the value-at-risk number referred to in paragraph 3.

5. An institution shall calculate, in accordance with paragraphs 6 and 7 of this Article, the multiplication factor (m_c) referred to in Article 325ba for the portfolio of all the positions assigned to the trading desks for which it has been granted permission to use alternative internal models as referred to in Article 325az(2).

6. The multiplication factor (m_c) shall be the sum of the value of 1,5 and an add-on between 0 and 0,5 in accordance with Table 3. For the portfolio referred to in paragraph 5, that add-on shall be calculated on the basis of the number of overshootings that occurred over the most recent 250 business days as evidenced by the institution's back-testing of the value-at-risk number calculated in accordance with point (a) of this subparagraph. The calculation of the add-on shall be subject to the following requirements:

(a) an overshooting shall be a one-day change in the portfolio's value that exceeds the related value-at-risk number calculated by the institution's internal model in accordance with the following:

(i) a one-day holding period;

(ii) a 99th percentile, one tailed confidence interval;

(iii) scenarios of future shocks shall apply to the risk factors of the trading desks' positions referred to in Article 325bg(3) and which are considered modellable in accordance with Article 325be;

(iv) the data inputs used to determine the scenarios of future shocks applied to the modellable risk factors shall be calibrated to historical data referred to in point (c) of Article 325bc(4);

(v) unless stated otherwise in this Article, the institution's internal model shall be based on the same modelling assumptions as those used for the calculation of the expected shortfall risk measure referred to in point (a) of Article 325ba(1);

(b) the number of overshootings shall be equal to the greater of the number of overshootings under hypothetical and the actual changes in the value of the portfolio.

In extraordinary circumstances, competent authorities may limit the add-on to that resulting from overshootings under back-testing hypothetical changes where the number of overshootings under back-testing actual changes does not result from deficiencies in the internal model.

7. Competent authorities shall monitor the appropriateness of the multiplication factor referred to in paragraph 5 and the compliance of trading desks with the back-testing requirements referred to in paragraph 3. Institutions shall promptly notify, the competent authorities of overshootings that result from their back-testing programme and provide an explanation for those overshootings, and in any case shall notify the competent authorities thereof no later than within five business days after the occurrence of an overshooting.

8. By way of derogation from paragraphs 2 and 6 of this Article, competent authorities may permit an institution not to count an overshooting where a one-day change in the value of its portfolio that exceeds the related value-at-risk number calculated by that institution's internal model is attributable to a non-modellable risk factor. To do so, the institution shall demonstrate to its competent authority that the stress scenario risk measure calculated in accordance with Article 325bk for that non-modellable risk factor is higher than the positive difference between the change in the value of the institution's portfolio and the related value-at-risk number.

9. EBA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the technical elements to be included in the actual and hypothetical changes to the value of the portfolio of an institution for the purposes of this Article.

EBA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 28 March 2020.

Power is delegated to the Commission to supplement this Regulation by adopting the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.