The final answer to EBA Q&A 2023_6962 states that when capping the exposure value of a margined netting set at the exposure value of the same netting set not subject to any form of margin agreement “The term NICA, included in the formula set out in Article 275(1) and defined in Article 272(12a), does not include the variation margin posted or received.”

We believe that this is an incorrect reading and could lead to significant under estimation of RWAs whenever the institution is posting significant excess collateral to its client. This can happen particularly when trades with a large MTM unwind at maturity and the collateral balance is exchange back only on T+1 basis.

Take the following example scenario. If calculating the EAD per the margined methodology the variation margin posted to the client offsets some of the MTM of the derivatives and the add-on is fully added to EAD as the multiplier remains 1. 

However under the unmargined methodology if I disregard the posted collateral then the negative current replacement cost works to significantly offset the add-on and can actually result in an EAD below the EAD incurred on only the actual replacement cost/current exposure (in this example 140).

Our understanding is that the wording in Article 274(3) which says “the exposure value of a netting set that is subject to a contractual margin agreement shall be capped at the exposure value of the same netting set not subject to any form of margin agreement” instead of meaning that there is no variation margin and hence this should be completely removed in the unmargined cap calculation should actually be read in conjunction with Article 272(12a) to define that in the absence of a margin agreement there can be nothing classed as “variation margin” and therefore all collateral is part of NICA – “NICA means the sum of the volatility-adjusted value of net collateral received or posted, as applicable, to the netting set other than variation margin”.

If we follow the previous Q&A answer then we will see significant reductions in RWA which we feel are unwarranted vs the counterparty risk for netting sets which exhibit the same portfolio dynamic as in the example above. The purpose of the cap is only to ignore exposure from large threshold amounts and not to avoid exposure from large amounts of posted collateral which are still owed back