Article 291

1. For the purposes of this Article:

(a) ‘General Wrong-Way risk’ arises when the likelihood of default by counterparties is positively correlated with general market risk factors;

(b) ‘Specific Wrong-Way risk’ arises when future exposure to a specific counterparty is positively correlated with the counterparty's PD due to the nature of the transactions with the counterparty. An institution shall be considered to be exposed to Specific Wrong-Way risk if the future exposure to a specific counterparty is expected to be high when the counterparty's probability of a default is also high.

2. An institution shall give due consideration to exposures that give rise to a significant degree of Specific and General Wrong-Way risk.

3. In order to identify General Wrong-Way risk, an institution shall design stress testing and scenario analyses to stress risk factors that are adversely related to counterparty creditworthiness. Such testing shall address the possibility of severe shocks occurring when relationships between risk factors have changed. An institution shall monitor General Wrong Way risk by product, by region, by industry, or by other categories that are relevant to the business.

4. An institution shall maintain procedures to identify, monitor and control cases of Specific Wrong-Way risk for each legal entity, beginning at the inception of a transaction and continuing through the life of the transaction.

5. Institutions shall calculate the own funds requirements for CCR in relation to transactions where Specific Wrong-Way risk has been identified and where there exists a legal connection between the counterparty and the issuer of the underlying of the OTC derivative or the underlying of the transactions referred to in points (b), (c) and (d) of Article 273(2)), in accordance with the following principles:

(a) the instruments where Specific Wrong-Way risk exists shall not be included in the same netting set as other transactions with the counterparty, and shall each be treated as a separate netting set;

(b) within any such separate netting set, for single-name credit default swaps the exposure value equals the full expected loss in the value of the remaining fair value of the underlying instruments based on the assumption that the underlying issuer is in liquidation;

(c) LGD for an institution using the approach set out in Chapter 3 shall be 100 % for such swap transactions;

(d) for an institution using the approach set out in Chapter 2, the applicable risk weight shall be that of an unsecured transaction;

(e) for all other transactions referencing a single name in any such separate netting set, the calculation of the exposure value shall be consistent with the assumption of a jump-to-default of those underlying obligations where the issuer is legally connected with the counterparty. For transactions referencing a basket of names or index, the jump-to-default of the respective underlying obligations where the issuer is legally connected with the counterparty, shall be applied, if material;

(f) to the extent that this uses existing market risk calculations for own funds requirements for incremental default and migration risk as set out in Title IV, Chapter 5, Section 4 that already contain an LGD assumption, the LGD in the formula used shall be 100 %.

6. Institutions shall provide senior management and the appropriate committee of the management body with regular reports on both Specific and General Wrong-Way risks and the steps being taken to manage those risks.