(iv) Additional Requirements
| 116. Derivatives cash outflows: the sum of all net cash outflows should receive a 100% factor. Banks should calculate, in accordance with their existing valuation methodologies, expected contractual derivative cash inflows and outflows. Cash flows may be calculated on a net basis (ie inflows can offset outflows) by counterparty, only where a valid master netting agreement exists. Banks should exclude from such calculations those liquidity requirements that would result from increased collateral needs due to market value movements or falls in value of collateral posted.48 Options should be assumed to be exercised when they are ‘in the money’ to the option buyer. | ||
| 117. Where derivative payments are collateralised by HQLA, cash outflows should be calculated net of any corresponding cash or collateral inflows that would result, all other things being equal, from contractual obligations for cash or collateral to be provided to the bank, if the bank is legally entitled and operationally capable to re-use the collateral in new cash raising transactions once the collateral is received. This is in line with the principle that banks should not double count liquidity inflows and outflows. | ||
| 118. Increased liquidity needs related to downgrade triggers embedded in financing transactions, derivatives and other contracts: (100% of the amount of collateral that would be posted for, or contractual cash outflows associated with, any downgrade up to and including a 3-notch downgrade). Often, contracts governing derivatives and other transactions have clauses that require the posting of additional collateral, drawdown of contingent facilities, or early repayment of existing liabilities upon the bank’s downgrade by a recognised credit rating organisation. The scenario therefore requires that for each contract in which “downgrade triggers” exist, the bank assumes that 100% of this additional collateral or cash outflow will have to be posted for any downgrade up to and including a 3-notch downgrade of the bank’s long-term credit rating. Triggers linked to a bank’s short-term rating should be assumed to be triggered at the corresponding long-term rating in accordance with published ratings criteria. The impact of the downgrade should consider impacts on all types of margin collateral and contractual triggers which change rehypothecation rights for non-segregated collateral. | ||
| 119. Increased liquidity needs related to the potential for valuation changes on posted collateral securing derivative and other transactions: (20% of the value of non-Level 1 posted collateral). Observation of market practices indicates that most counterparties to derivatives transactions typically are required to secure the mark-to-market valuation of their positions and that this is predominantly done using cash or sovereign, central bank, multilateral development banks, or PSE debt securities with a 0% risk weight under the Basel II standardised approach. When these Level 1 liquid asset securities are posted as collateral, the framework will not require that an additional stock of HQLA be maintained for potential valuation changes. If however, counterparties are securing mark-to-market exposures with other forms of collateral, to cover the potential loss of market value on those securities, 20% of the value of all such posted collateral, net of collateral received on a counterparty basis (provided that the collateral received is not subject to restrictions on reuse or rehypothecation) will be added to the stock of required HQLA by the bank posting such collateral. This 20% will be calculated based on the notional amount required to be posted as collateral after any other haircuts have been applied that may be applicable to the collateral category. Any collateral that is in a segregated margin account can only be used to offset outflows that are associated with payments that are eligible to be offset from that same account. | ||
| 120. Increased liquidity needs related to excess non-segregated collateral held by the bank that could contractually be called at any time by the counterparty: 100% of the non-segregated collateral that could contractually be recalled by the counterparty because the collateral is in excess of the counterparty’s current collateral requirements. | ||
| 121. Increased liquidity needs related to contractually required collateral on transactions for which the counterparty has not yet demanded the collateral be posted: 100% of the collateral that is contractually due but where the counterparty has not yet demanded the posting of such collateral. | ||
| 122. Increased liquidity needs related to contracts that allow collateral substitution to non-HQLA assets: 100% of the amount of HQLA collateral that can be substituted for non-HQLA assets without the bank’s consent that have been received to secure transactions that have not been segregated. | ||
| 123. Increased liquidity needs related to market valuation changes on derivative or other transactions: As market practice requires collateralisation of mark-to-market exposures on derivative and other transactions, banks face potentially substantial liquidity risk exposures to these valuation changes. Inflows and outflows of transactions executed under the same master netting agreement can be treated on a net basis. Any outflow generated by increased needs related to market valuation changes should be included in the LCR calculated by identifying the largest absolute net 30-day collateral flow realised during the preceding 24 months. The absolute net collateral flow is based on both realised outflows and inflows. Supervisors may adjust the treatment flexibly according to circumstances. | ||
| 124. Loss of funding on asset-backed securities,49 covered bonds and other structured financing instruments: The scenario assumes the outflow of 100% of the funding transaction maturing within the 30-day period, when these instruments are issued by the bank itself (as this assumes that the re-financing market will not exist). | ||
| 125. Loss of funding on asset-backed commercial paper, conduits, securities investment vehicles and other such financing facilities: (100% of maturing amount and 100% of returnable assets). Banks having structured financing facilities that include the issuance of short-term debt instruments, such as asset backed commercial paper, should fully consider the potential liquidity risk arising from these structures. These risks include, but are not limited to, (i) the inability to refinance maturing debt, and (ii) the existence of derivatives or derivative-like components contractually written into the documentation associated with the structure that would allow the “return” of assets in a financing arrangement, or that require the original asset transferor to provide liquidity, effectively ending the financing arrangement (“liquidity puts”) within the 30-day period. Where the structured financing activities of a bank are conducted through a special purpose entity50 (such as a special purpose vehicle, conduit or structured investment vehicle - SIV), the bank should, in determining the HQLA requirements, look through to the maturity of the debt instruments issued by the entity and any embedded options in financing arrangements that may potentially trigger the “return” of assets or the need for liquidity, irrespective of whether or not the SPV is consolidated. |
| Potential Risk Element | HQLA Required |
Debt maturing within the calculation period Embedded options in financing arrangements that allow for the return of assets or potential liquidity support | 100% of maturing amount 100% of the amount of assets that could potentially be returned, or the liquidity required |
| 126. Drawdowns on committed credit and liquidity facilities: For the purpose of the standard, credit and liquidity facilities are defined as explicit contractual agreements or obligations to extend funds at a future date to retail or wholesale counterparties. For the purpose of the standard, these facilities only include contractually irrevocable (“committed”) or conditionally revocable agreements to extend funds in the future. Unconditionally revocable facilities that are unconditionally cancellable by the bank (in particular, those without a precondition of a material change in the credit condition of the borrower) are excluded from this section and included in “Other Contingent Funding Liabilities”. These off- balance sheet facilities or funding commitments can have long or short-term maturities, with short-term facilities frequently renewing or automatically rolling-over. In a stressed environment, it will likely be difficult for customers drawing on facilities of any maturity, even short-term maturities, to be able to quickly pay back the borrowings. Therefore, for purposes of this standard, all facilities that are assumed to be drawn (as outlined in the paragraphs below) will remain outstanding at the amounts assigned throughout the duration of the test, regardless of maturity. | ||
| 127. For the purposes of this standard, the currently undrawn portion of these facilities is calculated net of any HQLA eligible for the stock of HQLA, if the HQLA have already been posted as collateral by the counterparty to secure the facilities or that are contractually obliged to be posted when the counterparty will draw down the facility (eg a liquidity facility structured as a repo facility), if the bank is legally entitled and operationally capable to re-use the collateral in new cash raising transactions once the facility is drawn, and there is no undue correlation between the probability of drawing the facility and the market value of the collateral. The collateral can be netted against the outstanding amount of the facility to the extent that this collateral is not already counted in the stock of HQLA, in line with the principle in paragraph 72 that items cannot be double-counted in the standard. | ||
| 128. A liquidity facility is defined as any committed, undrawn back-up facility that would be utilised to refinance the debt obligations of a customer in situations where such a customer is unable to rollover that debt in financial markets (eg pursuant to a commercial paper programme, secured financing transactions, obligations to redeem units, etc). For the purpose of this standard, the amount of the commitment to be treated as a liquidity facility is the amount of the currently outstanding debt issued by the customer (or proportionate share, if a syndicated facility) maturing within a 30 day period that is backstopped by the facility. The portion of a liquidity facility that is backing debt that does not mature within the 30-day window is excluded from the scope of the definition of a facility. Any additional capacity of the facility (ie the remaining commitment) would be treated as a committed credit facility with its associated drawdown rate as specified in paragraph 131. General working capital facilities for corporate entities (eg revolving credit facilities in place for general corporate or working capital purposes) will not be classified as liquidity facilities, but as credit facilities. | ||
| 129. Notwithstanding the above, any facilities provided to hedge funds, money market funds and special purpose funding vehicles, for example SPEs (as defined in paragraph 125) or conduits, or other vehicles used to finance the banks own assets, should be captured in their entirety as a liquidity facility to other legal entities. | ||
| 130. For that portion of financing programs that are captured in paragraphs 124 and 125 (ie are maturing or have liquidity puts that may be exercised in the 30-day horizon), banks that are providers of associated liquidity facilities do not need to double count the maturing financing instrument and the liquidity facility for consolidated programs. | ||
| 131. Any contractual loan drawdowns from committed facilities51 and estimated drawdowns from revocable facilities within the 30-day period should be fully reflected as outflows. | ||
| (a) | Committed credit and liquidity facilities to retail and small business customers: Banks should assume a 5% drawdown of the undrawn portion of these facilities. | |
| (b) | Committed credit facilities to non-financial corporates, sovereigns and central banks, PSEs and multilateral development banks: Banks should assume a 10% drawdown of the undrawn portion of these credit facilities. | |
| (c) | Committed liquidity facilities to non-financial corporates, sovereigns and central banks, PSEs, and multilateral development banks: Banks should assume a 30% drawdown of the undrawn portion of these liquidity facilities. | |
| (d) | Committed credit and liquidity facilities extended to banks subject to prudential supervision: Banks should assume a 40% drawdown of the undrawn portion of these facilities. | |
| (e) | Committed credit facilities to other financial institutions including securities firms, insurance companies, fiduciaries,52 and beneficiaries53 Banks should assume a 40% drawdown of the undrawn portion of these credit facilities. | |
| (f) | Committed liquidity facilities to other financial institutions including securities firms, insurance companies, fiduciaries, and beneficiaries: Banks should assume a 100% drawdown of the undrawn portion of these liquidity facilities. | |
| (g) | Committed credit and liquidity facilities to other legal entities (including SPEs (as defined on paragraph 125), conduits and special purpose vehicles,54 and other entities not included in the prior categories): Banks should assume a 100% drawdown of the undrawn portion of these facilities. | |
| 132. Contractual obligations to extend funds within a 30-day period. Any contractual lending obligations to financial institutions not captured elsewhere in this standard should be captured here at a 100% outflow rate. | ||
| 133. If the total of all contractual obligations to extend funds to retail and non-financial corporate clients within the next 30 calendar days (not captured in the prior categories) exceeds 50% of the total contractual inflows due in the next 30 calendar days from these clients, the difference should be reported as a 100% outflow. | ||
| 134. Other contingent funding obligations: (run-off rates at national discretion). National supervisors will work with supervised institutions in their jurisdictions to determine the liquidity risk impact of these contingent liabilities and the resulting stock of HQLA that should accordingly be maintained. Supervisors should disclose the run-off rates they assign to each category publicly. | ||
| 135. These contingent funding obligations may be either contractual or non-contractual and are not lending commitments. Non-contractual contingent funding obligations include associations with, or sponsorship of, products sold or services provided that may require the support or extension of funds in the future under stressed conditions. Non-contractual obligations may be embedded in financial products and instruments sold, sponsored, or originated by the institution that can give rise to unplanned balance sheet growth arising from support given for reputational risk considerations. These include products and instruments for which the customer or holder has specific expectations regarding the liquidity and marketability of the product or instrument and for which failure to satisfy customer expectations in a commercially reasonable manner would likely cause material reputational damage to the institution or otherwise impair ongoing viability. | ||
| 136. Some of these contingent funding obligations are explicitly contingent upon a credit or other event that is not always related to the liquidity events simulated in the stress scenario, but may nevertheless have the potential to cause significant liquidity drains in times of stress. For this standard, each supervisor and bank should consider which of these “other contingent funding obligations” may materialise under the assumed stress events. The potential liquidity exposures to these contingent funding obligations are to be treated as a nationally determined behavioural assumption where it is up to the supervisor to determine whether and to what extent these contingent outflows are to be included in the LCR. All identified contractual and non-contractual contingent liabilities and their assumptions should be reported, along with their related triggers. Supervisors and banks should, at a minimum, use historical behaviour in determining appropriate outflows. | ||
| 137. Non contractual contingent funding obligations related to potential liquidity draws from joint ventures or minority investments in entities, which are not consolidated per paragraph 164 should be captured where there is the expectation that the bank will be the main liquidity provider when the entity is in need of liquidity. The amount included should be calculated in accordance with the methodology agreed by the bank’s supervisor. | ||
| 138. In the case of contingent funding obligations stemming from trade finance instruments, national authorities can apply a relatively low run-off rate (eg 5% or less). Trade finance instruments consist of trade-related obligations directly underpinned by the movement of goods or the provision of services, such as: | ||
| • | documentary trade letters of credit, documentary and clean collection, import bills, and export bills; and | |
| • | guarantees directly related to trade finance obligations, such as shipping guarantees. | |
| 139. Lending commitments, such as direct import or export financing for non-financial corporate firms, are excluded from this treatment and banks will apply the draw-down rates specified in paragraph 131. | ||
| 140. National authorities should determine the run-off rates for the other contingent funding obligations listed below in accordance with paragraph 134. Other contingent funding obligations include products and instruments such as: | ||
| • | unconditionally revocable "uncommitted" credit and liquidity facilities; | |
| • | guarantees and letters of credit unrelated to trade finance obligations (as described in paragraph 138); | |
| • | non-contractual obligations such as: | |
| - | potential requests for debt repurchases of the bank's own debt or that of related conduits, securities investment vehicles and other such financing facilities; | |
| - | structured products where customers anticipate ready marketability, such as adjustable rate notes and variable rate demand notes (VRDNs); and | |
| - | managed funds that are marketed with the objective of maintaining a stable value such as money market mutual funds or other types of stable value collective investment funds etc. | |
| • | For issuers with an affiliated dealer or market maker, there may be a need to include an amount of the outstanding debt securities (unsecured and secured, term as well as short-term) having maturities greater than 30 calendar days, to cover the potential repurchase of such outstanding securities. | |
| • | Non contractual obligations where customer short positions are covered by other customers’ collateral: A minimum 50% run-off factor of the contingent obligations should be applied where banks have internally matched client assets against other clients’ short positions where the collateral does not qualify as Level 1 or Level 2, and the bank may be obligated to find additional sources of funding for these positions in the event of client withdrawals. | |
| 141. Other contractual cash outflows: (100%). Any other contractual cash outflows within the next 30 calendar days should be captured in this standard, such as outflows to cover unsecured collateral borrowings, uncovered short positions, dividends or contractual interest payments, with explanation given as to what comprises this bucket. Outflows related to operating costs, however, are not included in this standard. | ||
48 These risks are captured in paragraphs 119 and 123, respectively.
49 To the extent that sponsored conduits/SPVs are required to be consolidated under liquidity requirements, their assets and liabilities will be taken into account. Supervisors need to be aware of other possible sources of liquidity risk beyond that arising from debt maturing within 30 days.
50 A special purpose entity (SPE) is defined in the Basel II Framework (paragraph 552) as a corporation, trust, or other entity organised for a specific purpose, the activities of which are limited to those appropriate to accomplish the purpose of the SPE, and the structure of which is intended to isolate the SPE from the credit risk of an originator or seller of exposures. SPEs are commonly used as financing vehicles in which exposures are sold to a trust or similar entity in exchange for cash or other assets funded by debt issued by the trust.
51 Committed facilities refer to those which are irrevocable.
52 Refer to footnote 43 for definition.
53 Refer to footnote 44 for definition.
54 The potential liquidity risks associated with the bank's own structured financing facilities should be treated according to paragraphs 124 and 125 of this document (100% of maturing amount and 100% of returnable assets are included as outflows).