Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 46

IFRS 9

Content,
Challenges and
Tools

25th February 2015


Your Contacts in KPMG

Murat Alsan
Partner
Head of Audit
Head of Financial Services

Tel +9 0216 681 90 02


Mobile +9 0533 276 21 69
malsan@kpmg.com

Jörg Hashagen Christoph Radermacher Dr. Jürgen Ringschmidt


Partner Partner Director, Financial Services
Financial Services Financial Services FRM, Head of Credit Analytics Team

Tel: +49 69 9587-2787 Tel +49 211 475-7212 Tel +49 69 9587-3420
Mobile: +49 172 6801769 Mobile +49 172 4514529 Mobile +49 173 6872067
joerghashagen@kpmg.com cradermacher@kpmg.com jringschmidt@kpmg.com

© 2015 KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All 2
rights reserved. The name KPMG, the logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks of KPMG International.
Agenda

A Brief Overview & Challenges & BRSA-IAS 39

IFRS 9 Impairment Introduction

IFRS 9 Impairment Details and Solutions

WRAP UP

© 2015 KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All 3
rights reserved. The name KPMG, the logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks of KPMG International.
A Brief Overview of IFRS 9
IFRS 9 issued July 27th 2014

The bumpy path to the final standard: No US GAAP convergence

Version Content
Carried over from FASB is, in parallel to IASB, reworking their
IAS 39 regime for the accounting of financial
IFRS 9 New accounting rules for the Rules for instruments.
(2009) Classification and recognition and
Measurement of financial derecognition of Attempts to converge accounting models in
assets and financial liabilities financial the area of impairment have finally been
IFRS 9 instruments; only abandoned
(2010) minor Users will have to comply with two
amendments.
conceptually different accounting models
IFRS 9 New rules for the use of
(2013) Hedge Accounting
Effective Date
IFRS 9 Amendments to the Entity shall apply IFRS 9 for annual periods
(Complete 2009/2010 draft regarding beginning on or after January 1, 2018.
Standard) Classification and
Measurement Early application permitted but generally
Introduction of new Expected requires application of all entire standard at
Loss Model for recognition the same time (exception: FVtPL)
and measurement of loan
No requirement regarding comparatives;
loss allowances
Provision: requires availability of reliable data
The new IFRS 9 standard also amends IFRS 7 „Financial
EU endorsement of IFRS 9 outstanding –
Instruments: Disclosures“ due to newly imposed disclosure
situation in Europe is also not finalized
requirements (esp. for Impairment)

■ Principle- instead of Rules-based Standard for the accounting of financial instruments


■ IASB Feedback to KPMG indicates that there will not be as much Implementation
guidance as requested by practitioners

© 2015 KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All 4
rights reserved. The name KPMG, the logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks of KPMG International.
A Brief Overview of IFRS 9
Phase 1: Classification and Measurement

Classification of Financial Instruments on the asset


Ongoing subjects of discussion
side

Equity Debt
 Significant level of judgment in the determination of
Derivatives
Instruments Instruments the business model classification of
 Classification at amortized cost is an explicit goal of
the majority of banks
Business Model Business Model Business Model  Amendments of IT-Systems and processes required
Non Holding Holding Mixed
to provide additional information product features as
no Cash Flow Cash Flow
basis for Classification and Measurement
Held for Trading
yes Criterion Criterion  Efficient Classification through operationalization of
Benchmark Test processes and IT support (tools)
ye yes
s
no Fair Value Fair Value
Option Option
Business Impacts
ye no no
no s
OCI Option OCI Option
 Documentation requirements in the classification
yes yes process
Fair Value Fair Value Fair Value Amortized Fair Value  Systemic review of current features on loan
through through Option Cost through agreements as well as their impact oriented
Other Profit and Other
Comprehens Loss Comprehens evaluation for the future business
ive Income ive Income  Review potential impact on pricing
 Higher P&L volatility as well as higher volatility in B/S
FVOCI FV FVO AC FVOCI and Regulatory Capital levels as a result of broader
Fair Value accounting.

© 2015 KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All 5
rights reserved. The name KPMG, the logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks of KPMG International.
A Brief Overview of IFRS 9
Phase 2: Impairment

Core Elements Key Topics


Credit Deterioration Model / 3 Stage Approach
 Decision on design and possible areas of discretion in:
 Relative transfer criteria
 Lifetime EL parameters
Stage 1 Significant increase in  Delineation of the use of the standard IFRS 9 model
EL PD, non-investment and separate rules for special cases (POCI)
Lifetime
grade  Significant changes required for the existing IT
1yr
systems in credit risk management
 Extensive disclosure requirements require increased
data quality and data availability
 Retrospective initialization of the new model for
Stage 2 existing business
EL Object evidence
Lifetime of impairment Business Impacts
1yr
 Opportunity to synergize IFRS 9 with risk
management processes, models and internal/external
reporting processes
Stage 3
 Increased provisioning levels reduce equity, which
EL
Lifetime
increased provisioning volatility and complicates
capital planning
1yr
 Implications for strategy including ideas for new
business, new products, pricing and other steering
mechanisms
 Opportunity to actively manage the IFRS 9
initialization effects
© 2015 KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All 6
rights reserved. The name KPMG, the logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks of KPMG International.
A Brief Overview of IFRS 9
Phase 3: Hedge Accounting

Hedge Accounting Model Key Topics

Hedged items and hedging instruments


 More direct interaction between hedge accounting
and risk management
 Room for interpretation through the loss of hedge
effectiveness bright lines and the option to rebalance
 Increased universe of permissible hedging
instruments and hedged items
 Increased hedging options through the use of non-
derivative instruments
 Necessity for process and IT changes to fulfil new
accounting and disclosure requirements

Disclosures
Business Impacts

 Review of existing and designation of new hedge


relationships
 Evaluation of new hedge accounting strategies for
example by analyzing risk components of non-
financial line items
 Integration of risk management and accounting
 Implementation of the rebalancing requirements

© 2015 KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All 7
rights reserved. The name KPMG, the logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks of KPMG International.
BDDK ve UFRS Karşılık Uygulamaları

UFRS anlatıldığı şekilde


ilke bazlı muhasebe
uygulamalarına BDDK UFRS
yöneldiği için, BDDK ve
•Kural Bazlı • İlke bazlı
UFRS uygulamaları
•Kural bazlı olması sonucunda tüm • İlke bazlı olmanın sonucunda Bankadan
Banka finansal tabloları
Bankaların aynı muhasebe politikası Bankaya değişecek olan muhasebe
üzerinde farklı etkiler uygulaması nedeniyle daha kolay politikalarının da etkisiyle
doğurmaktadır. Bu karşılaştırılabilir finansal tablolar karşılaştırılabilirliğin daha zor sağlanması
etkiler yandaki tabloda •Detaylı kurallar geliştirme düzenleme • Anlaşılabilir, basit uygulamalar
özetlenmiştir. sayısında fazlalığa ve düzenlemelerde • Düzenlemelerin özü ön plandadır
karmaşıklığa yol açmaktadır • İlkeler birbirinden farklı durumlara yanıt
•Kural bazlı düzenlemeler daha şekle verebilme ve esnek olabilme özelliğine
yönelik bir yapıdadır sahiptir
•Kural bazlı uygulamalar esnek değildir • İlke bazlı düzenleme yaklaşımı doğası
•Kural bazlı uygulamalarda düzenleme gereği bazı alanlarda düzenleme
boşluklarının doğma ihtimali daha azdır boşluklarının doğmasına neden
olabilmektedir

© 2015 KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All 8
rights reserved. The name KPMG, the logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks of KPMG International.
BDDK ve UFRS Karşılık Uygulamaları

Nakdi krediler için ayrılan karşılıklar

Her raporlama dönemi sonunda, krediler için


BDDK Kredileri beş grup altında sınıflamıştır: Birçok
niteliksel koşulun yanında bu beş gruba UMS değer düşüklüğüne uğradığına dair tarafsız
göstergeler bulunup bulunmadığı
girmesi gereken kredileri tahsilatın gecikme
sürelerine göre belirlemiştir. Bu şekilde 39 değerlendirilir. Krediler değer düşüklüğüne
uğradıklarına ilişkin tarafsız bir göstergenin
sınıflandırılan kredi ve alacakların; (teminat
yapıları da dikkate alınarak) III. gruba alındığı bulunması durumunda, ilgili zararın tutarı,
tarihten itibaren en az yüzde yirmisi (%20), gelecekteki tahmini nakit akışlarının, kredinin
IV. gruba alındığı tarihten itibaren en az orijinal faiz oranı üzerinden iskonto edilerek
1 yüzde ellisi (%50), V. gruba alındığı tarihten 1 hesaplanan bugünkü değeri ile defter değeri
itibaren yüzde yüzü (%100), oranında özel arasındaki fark olarak ölçülür.
karşılık ayrılır. Bu hesaplama yapılırken her bir kredi
bireysel olarak değerlendirilir.

Önceki yıllarda gider yazılan fakat cari Önceki yıllarda gider yazılan fakat cari
dönemde iptal edilen özel karşılıklar dönemde iptal edilen özel karşılıklar
nedeniyle elde edilen gelirler, cari yıla ait
2 nedeniyle elde edilen gelirler, önceki yıllara
ait gelirler hesabında
2 karşılık giderleri hesabında net gösterilmek
muhasebeleştirilmektedir. suretiyle muhasebeleştirilmektedirler.

Teminatın nakde çevrilmesinin muhtemel


Teminat yapılarının dikkate alınmasında olup olmamasından bağımsız olarak, nakde
3 BDDK düzenlemeleri detaylı yönergeler çevirme eksi teminatı edinme ve satma
barındırmaktadır. Teminat gruplarına göre, 3 maliyetlerinden kaynaklanan nakit akışlarını
karşılık hesaplamasında dikkate alınma yansıtır. Kredi ve alacakları için yukarıda
oranları farklılık göstermektedir. anlatılan değer düşüklüğü hesaplamalarında
teminatlardan kaynaklanan bu nakit akışları
da dahil edilmektedir

Donuk alacak olarak kabul edilen kredi ve Donuk alacaklardan elde edilen faiz
diğer alacaklar değerlemeye tabi tutulmaz ve gelirlerine, gelecekteki nakit akışlarının ilgili
değer düşüklüğü zararının ölçülmesi
4 bunlar için faiz tahakkuku ve reeskontu
yapılmaz. Önceden yapılmış bulunanlar ise
4 amacıyla iskonto edilmelerinde kullanılan faiz
iptal edilir. oranı kullanılmak suretiyle
muhasebeleştirilmesine izin verilmektedir.

© 2015 KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All 9
rights reserved. The name KPMG, the logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks of KPMG International.
BDDK ve UFRS Karşılık Uygulamaları

Gayri nakdi krediler için ayrılan karşılıklar

BDDK “Tasfiye Olunacak Alacaklar Hesabı”na aktarma zorunluluğu,


gayrinakdi kredilerin tahsil edilmeyen, nakit krediye dönüşmüş ya
da tazmin edilmiş bedelleri için de geçerlidir.
Ancak, gayrinakdi kredinin nakde dönüştüğü andan itibaren, nakde
dönüşen tutarın tamamı donuk alacak olarak dikkate alınır.

UMS
39 UMS 39’da açık ve net olarak ifade edilmeyen gayrinakdi krediler için ayrılacak olan
karşılıklarda nakdi krediler bölümünde ifade edildiği gibi tarafsız göstergelerin varlığı halinde,
Bankaların şirketlerden olan nakdi ve gayrinakdi riskleri değer düşüklüğü için beraber
değerlendirilmelidir.
UMS 37 hükümleri gereği karşılık olarak finansal tablolara yansıtılacak tutara ilişkin
belirsizlikler koşullara bağlı olarak farklı açılardan ele alınmaktadır.
Değerleme konusu karşılığın çok sayıda kalemden oluştuğu durumda, ilgili yükümlülük her
türlü getiriyi bunlara ilişkin olasılıklara göre ağırlıklandırmak suretiyle tahmin edilir. Bankalar
bilanço dışı yükümlülükleri için karşılık ayırırken geçmiş tecrübelerine dayanarak “beklenen
değer” metodunu kullanabilmektedirler.

© 2015 KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All 10
rights reserved. The name KPMG, the logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks of KPMG International.
BDDK ve UFRS Karşılık Uygulamaları

Genel karşılıklar / Portföy karşılıkları

BDDK
Bankalar BDDK tarafından belirlenmiş oranlarda
standard ve yakın izlemedeki krediler için genel
karşılık hesaplamaktadır.

UMS UFRS’de ise kredi ve alacaklar için Yönetmelikte belirtilen yönergeler ile
hesaplanan bir genel karşılık bulunmamaktadır.
39 UFRS’ye göre Banka, öncelikle, değer düşüklüğüne ilişkin tarafsız
göstergenin bireysel olarak önemli olan kredi ve alacakları için bireysel bir
şekilde, bireysel olarak önemli olmayan kredi ve alacaklar için ise
bireysel veya toplu bir şekilde bulunup bulunmadığını değerlendirir.
İki yöntem sıklıkla kullanılmaktadır. Bu yöntemlerden ilki tarihsel istatistik
(Historic loss rate), ikincisi ise yaşlandırma (aging) metodudur.

© 2015 KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All 11
rights reserved. The name KPMG, the logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks of KPMG International.
A Brief Overview of IFRS 9
The challenges involve extensive technical requirements…

IFRS 9 – Hot Topics Consequences


 Final IFRS 9 standard in place
First Time  Entities are required to apply IFRS Trade off between flexibility in business
Adoption 9 for annual periods beginning on activities and the desired 'At Cost'
or after the 1st of January 2018 Measurement
 Implementation period of three Changes in bank steering, e.g. KPI, pricing
years expected models, treasury concepts, …
Time Frame
 IASB requires valuable and
complete implementation
SPPI Test requires input parameters which
are not yet captured in the loan systems
Adjustments concerning Accounting,
Involvement
Processes and IT required Increasing Full Fair Value Measurement
requires management of increasing P&L
volatility risks
Consideration of business model and
Phase 1:
product features in classification New Impairment rules require
C&M
decisions implementation of Lifetime Expected Loss
Model
Reshaping Impairment calculation Development of new processes,
Phase 2:
methods based on a 3-stage organizational changes and adjustments of
Impairment
Expected Loss Model IT-functionalities

Phase 3: Modification of Hedge Accounting Integration of IFRS 9 in existing project


Hedge framework and one-time exercising of portfolio
Accounting accounting choices

© 2015 KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All 12
rights reserved. The name KPMG, the logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks of KPMG International.
A Brief Overview of IFRS 9
…and implications for technical implementation

IFRS 9-Implications for the IT-Implementation Operative External data Client data
Division I Division II Division n
source (Insourcing)
Systems
 Implementation of new holding
categories in all level Transfer,
 Decision about automatic or manual Integration Conversion
Norm
Quality
Mgmt.
Data
Enrichment
Creation
Cash Flows
Splitting
Security
allocation

Phase 1: implementation of business model and


C&M SPPI-Tests in IT
 Decision about automatic or semi- Master
Data
Cash
Flows
Securities
Raw data
Measurem. Costs
Structure
Data
Central Data
automatic transfer of measurement Storage
&
derived
Data
History
Variable Business External Risk
data into the back office or general Data Partner
Exploitation
Data Data results

ledger
P&L
Accounting Risk Controlling
statement
 Examination whether current
Phase 2: Internal

allowance engines can be

Portfolio-Model
models

RORAC, etc

Market price
Methods

Credit Risk
.

US GAAP
(Devel.,

RAROC,
Impairment

Liquidity
OP Risk
IFRS
HGB

Risk

Risk
Validation,

expanded or used further Calibration)

Raw and result data


Reporting Data (appropriate for the receiver/ aggregated)

Phase 3:  Examination of the possibility


Hedge to integrate risk management
Accounting data into accounting Reporting Divisional Executive Analysis/
External
Reporting/
Reporting
Planning/
Regulatory

application Reporting Management
Reporting

The planning approach is subject to the depth of the business and IT specifications

© 2015 KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All 13
rights reserved. The name KPMG, the logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks of KPMG International.
Implementation considerations
Key challenges

Cross-functional governance Focus on data standards Broadening control coverage

Strategy IT
?
Finance

FO
Risk
Finance
Risk

■ The current range of maturity ■ Most firms struggle with data ■ There are a range of
within the industry is varied. and ensuring that they can processes which will come
However, the main key success identify the correct data from within the audit scope –
criteria for more advanced firms the correct source system and granular credit rating systems,
seems to be an ability to being able to replicate the regulatory capital and
collaborate cross functionally information horizontally across economic forecasting may be
across traditional silos. different businesses. particularly challenging.

Alignment to wider regulatory and control developments

© 2015 KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All 14
rights reserved. The name KPMG, the logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks of KPMG International.
IFRS 9 poses a strategic challenge that has far reaching implications beyond just
accounting

■ KPI setup/scorecard
■ SPPI test
■ (Pre-)Pricing
■ Documentation product features
■ Validation business model
■ Adjust approval process Trading/ Business ■ Update portfolio structure
Lending management
Business
■ Expand ledger structure
■ Update accounting policies and guidelines ■ New Product Process
■ Adjust ICS processes Accounting/ ■ Update/Harmonize product catalogue
Reporting/ Classification
■ Additional Capital Requirements expected ■ Monitoring individual agreements
Governance Business Processes
■ Market communication

■ Expand data model


■ Expand calculation model People Systems
■ Adjust data transfer
■ Increase data history Impairment Data feeds
■ functional data harmonization (e.g. use of
■ Validate basic parameter (e.g. lifetime
Basel parameters for Impairment
expected credit loss)
calculation)
Fair Value/
Credit Validation
■ Capital allocation
management ■ Adjust methods & master data
■ Fair Value management
■ Expand data history
■ Credit treasury
■ Implement Fair Value measurement loans
■ Adjust hedge accounting strategy

The extensive impacts of IFRS 9 require a coordinated approach and proven solutions to minimize risks and
maximize potential

■ Business areas have to be involved up from the beginning


■ Adjustment of product design and portfolio management in 2015 reduces effects in 2018
■ Total effect on equity capital requires an integrated view in accounting & risk
© 2015 KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All 15
rights reserved. The name KPMG, the logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks of KPMG International.
In particular, IFRS 9 Impairment has many implications on regulatory areas

■ Available regulatory capital ■ Product pricing


o Reduction of CET11 via decreased retained earnings o Long-term business may tie up more capital depending on
o IRBA EL/CRA2-comparison increase surplus or reduce product and client segment
shortfall; gen. CRA in STA3 may increase Tier 2 capital o Pricing scheme to be reviewed
o Increase of Deferred Tax Assets due to mismatch o Check of strategic options for long-term business
with tax B/S - DTA lead to increased earnings, (like co-operation with insurance)
but RW4 100% or 250% or capital deduction ■ CRA Volatility
■ Capital requirements o requires more sophisticated planning
o Reduced Exposure Value in STA by and steering methods/processes
specific CRA; no change in IRBA ■ Risk-taking capacity
o Basically reduced core capital

IFRS 9
■ Leverage Ratio (LR)
Impairment ■ FINREP
o Implications on both input quantities o Adaption of formal FINREP
■ Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR) template structure
o Direct implications most possible o Interdependencies regarding
reporting frequency and processes
■ Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR)
■ CRR Disclosure
o No direct implications
o Qualitative and quantitative
modifications
■ Large loan exposure limits
o will be reduced due to decrease in capital

1 Common Equity Tier 1 (regulatory „core capital“) 2Credit Risk Adjustments 3Stdandardized Approach 4 Risk Weight
© 2015 KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All 16
rights reserved. The name KPMG, the logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks of KPMG International.
Basel III Solvability

Reduction of CET1 Increase of Deferred Tax Assets


via decreased retained earnings due to mismatch with tax B/S
 Additional CRA will increase expenses in accounting  Higher earnings in tax accounting compared to IFRS
will lead to (additional) deferred tax assets (DTA)
 This will immediately reduce retained earnings which
are part of the CET1  Economically, this would mean bank pays to much tax
given that IFRS valuing is the “true” value, which will
 Thus CET1 will decrease by the increase of CRA on
be most likely compensated on future realization of this
introduction of IFRS 9 impairment
“true” value
 But with increased CRA due to IFRS 9, this would only
be valid in crisis situations, because risk (CRA) in
stage 2 will be overstated in non-crisis situations
IAS 39

compared to fair value


Retained CET1  Basically, DTA will increase retained earnings
CRA earnings
 However, DTA itself will be either part of RWA or be
even deducted from CET1 depending on the
classification of the DTA (reliance on future profitability,
CRR Art. 38)

Add. DTA
IFRS 9

CRA mult. by
tax rate
CRA CRA
Retained CET1
earnings
additional CRA partly offset by DTA

© 2015 KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All 17
rights reserved. The name KPMG, the logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks of KPMG International.
Basel III Solvability (cont’d)

IRBA EL/CRA1-comparison General CRA in Standardized Approach


increase surplus or reduce shortfall may increase Tier 2 capital
 Comparison is done separately for defaulted and non-  In Standardized Approach, only general CRA (or
defaulted assets (no compensation between them) GLLP) will effect the capital site
 As CRA may increase in stage 1 (possibly due to LIP  Additional general CRA will increase Tier 2 capital, but
factor) and increases in stage 2 the comparison of non- capped at 1.25 % of RWA in Standardized Approach
defaulted assets will mainly change
 In the most likely event of having a future surplus,
additional CRA will transform into Tier 2 capital, but
capped by 0.6 % of RWA
Main Focus of increase
in stage 1 and 2 !

Cap Reduced Exposure Value


Surplus

Basically,
increases Tier 2 in STA by specific CRA
capital, but capped
by 0.6 % of RWA! CRA  In Standardized Approach, specific CRA (or GLLP) will
EL be deducted from the accounting value (and result into
the so-called exposure value)
 Additional CRA will decrease the exposure value and
shortfall

consequently also the associated RWA


Reduces CET1
EL
deductions!  In case of defaulted assets, additionally there would be
CRA also a reduction of RW (not of big relevance, because
major changes in stage 1 and 2)
defaulted non-defaulted

© 2015 KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All 18
rights reserved. The name KPMG, the logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks of KPMG International.
Basel III Ratios

Leverage Ratio (LR)

Tier 1 Capital
Leverage Ratio = >3%
Exposure Value Exposure Value effect only for STA

Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR)

Available stable funding


Driven by negative effect of reduced
NSFR =  100 % capital on available funding
Required stable funding

Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR)

Liquid high quality assets


LCR =  100 %
Net liquidity outflow (30 days stress)

© 2015 KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All 19
rights reserved. The name KPMG, the logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks of KPMG International.
FINREP and CRR Disclosure

FINREP CRR Disclosure

 Current FINREP reporting structure is based on IAS  Due to changed definitions with IFRS 9 compared to
39 IAS 39, extensions and adjustments of the disclosure
scheme more than likely
 The FINREP reporting structure will need for
integration of IFRS 9 specific information  Higher volatility of CRA due to migration effects and
consequential higher volatility of capital will require
 There may be interaction between the forborne status
comprehensive explanation in disclosure report
with rating and stage migration, especially with change
of loan conditions  Structural changes due to IFRS 9 possibly require
adjustments of data supply
 FINREP reporting frequency is quarterly and thus,
CRA information is needed at least quarterly
Depending on the reporting level, the relevant forms will be prescribed by
the ECB
Downgrade level Setting up of the relevant reporting forms*

5 Classification 18 Performing
8 Classification 11 Derivatives
1 Balance 2 Income of the loans 10 Derivatives and non- 19 Forborne
financial - hedge
Data sheet statement and
liabilities - trade accounting
performing exposures
borrowings exposures
Points

4 Classification financial 9 Loan commitments, financial guarantee 12 Report on impairment of loans and 14 FV hierarchy: Financial
Over- assets and other commitments equity capital instruments instruments on FV
Simplified

6 Loans / 16 Classification 17 Reconciliation


13 Received
borrowings selected balance accounting and 20 Geographic outline
pursuant to securities and sheet / income supervisory basis of 40 Group structure
Simplified guarantees
NACE statement items consolidation
FINREP

3 Statement of 7 Adjusted financial assets that are cancelled or 15 Derecognition and liabilities connected to transferred
comprehensive income impaired assets

21 Tangible and intangible assets; assets within 22 Asset management and other service 30 Off-balance-sheet business: interest from non-
operating lease functions consolidated struct. comp.

31 Affiliated companies 42 Tangible and intangible assets: carrying amount


41 Fair Value 43 Provisions
according to val. method

44 Pension plan and social security payments 45 Classification of selected balance sheet and 46 Setup of changes in the equity capital
Full income statement items
FINREP

© 2015 KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All 20
rights reserved. The name KPMG, the logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks of KPMG International.
A most recent message from the Basel Committee on IFRS 9 Impairment

Guidance on accounting for expected credit losses


 Completely revised issue (consultation document) of the “guidance
on sound credit risk assessment and valuation for loans” (SCRAVL,
2006) which gave guidance to the implementation of IAS 39
 Consultation period ends at 30th April 2015
 Detailed provisions on how IFRS banks shall implement IFRS 9
impairment
 Specification of concrete dos and don’ts for banks especially in the
context that banks are leader in credit risk measurement and IFRS
9 is written for all industry segments
 Structured in 11 principles with emphasis on responsibility of senior
mgmt., need for validation, robust consideration of forward looking
information and the following
 Fundamental requirements and procedures, including appropriate
tools to identify, assess and price credit risk appropriately, are to be
met by the banks
 Expectation that banks maximally use and leverage existing data,
models and processes
 No specific details or explicit hint on the calibration of the transfer
criterion included, but change of credit risk over expected life of loan
is to be considered
 Expectation that more sophisticated banks shall not use definite
simplifications in IFRS 9 Impairment, however a proportionality
principle for banks is assumed
 Document claims not to undermine and redefine accounting rules

© 2015 KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All 21
rights reserved. The name KPMG, the logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks of KPMG International.
Involvement of stakeholders of all Functional Building Blocks required

No. Concept
0 Design Framework Functional Building Blocks overall 23 24 25 26 27 28
1 Design Framework C&M
2 Design BM & Portfolio Management
Commercial Business Front Office 1 2 10 30 Trading Business Front Office 1 2 10

Special Topic: Fraud Prev. and


3 SPPI Test & NPP-Adjustments

Front-Office
4 Fair Value Measurement
Deposit Commission
5 Reporting & Chart of Accounts Lending Own Interest-FX- Credit Other
Banking and Fee- Payment Equity/ FX
6 Booking Engines & Posting Rules Business Issues Business Derivatives Commercial
Business earning Transactions Trade

Security
7 Internal Reporting Business Business
1 3 4 20 1 3 Business 1 3 4 20 23 20 20 3
8 Reclassification
9 Initial Application & Migration
10 Disclosure/Notes 2 3
Market and Master Data for Commercial Business 29
Business Management 2
Market and Master Data for Trading Business 3
11 Fair Value & Performance Management
12 Framework Impairment Settlement Settlement of Settlement Settlement Settlement Settlement
13 Bucket Allocation & Transfer Logic Lendings of Payment Settlement
Back-Office of Deposits Commission & Settlement of of Interest- of Credit of other
14 EL Methodology Settlement and Transactions of Security
Banking Fee-earn-ing own Issues earning Derivatives Commercial
15 Credit-impaired Assets Back Office Transactions
Transactions Business Operations business Business
16 Interest Income Recognition
17 First Time Adoption Impairment Group Internal Provider Management Retained Organisation External Provider Management
18 Disclosures / Notes Impairment

Special Topic:
Posting Rules & Reconciliation
5 1 4 5

Compliance
19 Impairment Banking Book Sub Ledger 6 8 Trading Book Sub Ledger 5 6 8
20 Internal Reporting Impairment
7 8 10
21 Hedge Accounting
28 General Ledger 5 6 8 18
Disclosures / Notes for Hedge
13 14 15
Accounting
Controlling

22 Accounting
23 Selective Topics/Professional Opinions Accounting Data Management 8
16 17 18
24 Scenario Analysis
Business Int. and ext.
25 Tax Implications Accounting
Commercial Trading Business Regulatory Financial 19 20 29
26 Harmonisation of Methods Standards and Investment
Accounting Accounting IT Reporting Controlling Tax
27 Training & Communication Financial Controlling
28 Bank Management, Planning & 3 5 7 8 3 5 7 Accounting 20 5 7 17 19 7 10 19 29 24 26
Budgeting
29 GAAP Reconciliation

Special Topic:
28 General Bank Management 1 2 4 10 29 Risk Strategy 20 10

HR Issues
Risk Mngmt.

4 11 12
Risk Controlling Data Management4
13 14 15
ALM
Controlling 16 17 18
Credit Risk Market Risk Controlling
Market Risk Determination Operational
Controlling Controlling Other Risks
Risks 20
1 2 10 20 4

 IFRS 9 is not only a pure accounting project in fact the involvement of stakeholders from all areas of the bank
is required

© 2015 KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All 22
rights reserved. The name KPMG, the logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks of KPMG International.
Implementation considerations
Overview timeline

Q2-15: Q3-15:
■Provide insight into both ■Establish BAU
Q1-15: the one-off and annual governance
Q4 2014:
■Business model impact on financial structure
■ Validate plan for
documentation reporting, regulatory ■Final decision on
Phase 2 and
completed requirements and tax accounting
secure resources
■Senior ■Mock-up disclosures policies and Q3-15:
■ Set up the PMO
stakeholder designed and accounting hedging strategy Implementation plan
and governance
communication manuals updated and senior
■ Mobilise
plan agreed stakeholder
resources
communication
completed
PHASE 1: PHASE 2: PHASE 3:
Assess Detailed analysis and design Implement

Q2-15: Q2-15:
Cash flow ■Refresh of impact analysis Q3-15:
Q3-14: characteristic following finalised ■Transfer criteria and risk parameters
Initial insight on tests standard signed-off
the potential completed ■Completion of impact ■ Skills matrices detailing current and
impact, key analysis required skill profiles developed
focus areas and ■Initial design of models, ■Existing credit policies reviewed and
required Q1-15: data flows and enhancements to align with IFRS 9
resources Hedging feasibility architecture completed made
study and review of ■Design specifications
existing hedging for data sourcing, systems, models,
strategies completed controls and processes completed
2014 2015

© 2015 KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All 23
rights reserved. The name KPMG, the logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks of KPMG International.
Implementation considerations
Overview timeline (continued)
1 January
2017: 1 January 2018:
Q4-16:
Q1-16: IFRS 9 go-live IFRS 9 effective
Q3-15: IFRS 9 tools, applications,
Final credit (Parallel run date
■ Resources secured for Q2-16: processes, controls,
risk policies begins)
implementation Hedge knowledge and Q1-17:
■ System changes and reviewed and governance structure
documentation Remainder
timing agreed based on signed off successfully implemented
and effectiveness of IFRS 9
system specifications testing templates handed
ready Q3-16: over from
System changes programme
tested to BAU

PHASE 3: PHASE 4:
Implement Sustain

Q4-15: Q2-16:
Valuation solution built Q2-16: System
for fair value and ■Solutions to changes built
amortised cost implement ECL and configured Q1-18:
measurements model rolled Q1- 17: First IFRS
out Post 9
■Pro-forma implementa compliant
financial tion tests financial
statements and completed statement
disclosures s
drafted

2015 2016 2017 2018

© 2015 KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All 24
rights reserved. The name KPMG, the logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks of KPMG International.
Overview Toolkit

Classification Classification Identification new Impairment – Impairment –


Securities Portfolio Loan Portfolio disclosure requirements Quantitative Analysis Qualitative Analysis
iRADAR* Lending Tool* Data Dictionary* Impairment Calculator* gCLAS**

KPMG Database with Automated decision trees & Standalone tool for Scenario tool to support the
identification of data and quantitative analysis KPMG template for an
Scope numerous market and questionnaires to speed up
data flows required for efficient definition of
product information. the portfolio screening and regarding the changes in
IFRS 9 compliant qualitative impairment
Enables KPMG iRADAR the individual decision impairment processes and
quantitative disclosures requirements and
team to produce a regarding the individual methods
documentation of status quo
classification suggestion of classification of loans
the securities portfolio with
LENDING TOOL
minimal effort

Gap-Analyse IFRS 9 Impairment

I Pe rspektive Nr. Soll-Anforderung IFRS 9 Ist-Ausprä gung Identifizie rtes Ga p Erfüllungsgra d 1 2 3 4 5 Erforderliche Anpassungen en /Betroe und A

1 ….. ….. ….. [auswählen]     


Methodik
2 ….. ….. ….. [auswählen]     

3 ….. ….. ….. [auswählen]     


Da ten-ve rfügba rkeit

Ke rne lem e nt 1
4 ….. ….. ….. [auswählen]     

5 ….. ….. ….. [auswählen]     


Proze sse
5 ….. ….. ….. [auswählen]     

7 ….. ….. ….. [auswählen]     


IT-Funktionalitäten
8 …… …… …… [auswählen]     

■ Rapid analysis of ■ Structured workflow for ■ Reporting and accounting ■ Quick availability of initial ■ Efficient determination of
Your
securities portfolio loan portfolio analysis data mapped to IFRS 9 IFRS 9 impacts on loan gaps between status quo
Value
disclosure requirements impairment and target scenario
■ Enlarged master data ■ Documentation of
incl. KPMG add-ons classification decisions at ■ Identification of disclosure ■ Available for use in daily ■ Enables effective and
deal level requirements that need work after correct project and
■ Complete documentation
interpretation, calculation implementation project resource planning
of classification decisions ■ Available for use during
and after implementation and /or judgment
■ Available for use during
and after implementation project
project
■ For local and global use

*) Tools for IFRS 9 projects


**) Software

© 2015 KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All 25
rights reserved. The name KPMG, the logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks of KPMG International.
Agenda

A Brief Overview & Challenges

IFRS 9 Impairment Introduction

IFRS 9 Impairment Details and Solutions

WRAP UP

© 2015 KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All 26
rights reserved. The name KPMG, the logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks of KPMG International.
Expected Credit Losses
Approach

Scope of ■ The proposed Expected Credit Losses (ECL) model uses a dual measurement approach depending on the extent of credit deterioration New:
changes since initial recognition:
Calculate Lifetime
− Stage 1: ‘12 months’ expected credit losses’ if the credit risk has NOT increased significantly since initial recognition; and
Expected Losses in
− Stage 2/3: ‘Lifetime expected credit losses’ would be recognised if the credit risk has increased significantly since initial recognition
a new stage 2
■ Extensive new disclosures – e.g. effects of deteriorations and improvements in credit quality and the critical judgments made in measuring
the ECL accounts.

Change in credit risk since initial recognition


Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
Performing Underperforming Non-performing

Transfer
If the credit risk on the financial
asset has increased significantly
since initial recognition

Move back
If transfer conditions above is no
longer met

■ No significant deterioration in credit quality ■ Significant increase in credit risk ■ Credit-impaired financial assets (includes
purchased and originated credit-impaired
■ 12 month expected credit losses - The portion of lifetime ■ Change relates to probability of default rather than assets)
expected credit losses that represent the ECLs that result from changes in LGD
default events occurring within the 12 months after the reporting
date, weighted by the probability of that default occurring. ■ Rebuttable presumption that the criterion for
lifetime expected credit losses is met if payment
New: are more than 30 days past due (but cf. BCBS
CAECL!)
Implement transfer
criterion from stage
Interest revenue
1 to 2 based on LtPD
Gross basis Net basis
■ Interest is calculated by applying the EIR to the gross carrying amount (i.e. before the loss allowance) ■ Interest is calculated on amortised cost (i.e. net of
loss allowance). Consistent with the amount IAS
39 requirement for all financial assets and
financial liabilities

© 2015 KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All 27
rights reserved. The name KPMG, the logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks of KPMG International.
Expected Credit Losses
Technical accounting/risk – Key issues and trends

Transfer criteria: What deterioration in credit quality is considered ‘significant’?

Expected loss
 Selection of transfer criteria and indicators are required (e.g. types of downgrades and where the boundary of low risk lies).
drivers (e.g.  Transfer criteria should incorporate current conditions and forecasts/forward looking information.
PD/ LGD)
 More than 30 days past due rebuttable presumption to serve as a backstop, to identify financial instruments that have
Transfer experienced significant increase in credit risk, if no other forward looking, borrower-specific information available.
criteria Discount
Technical rates  Assessment based on the change in the risk of a default occurring in the next 12 months permitted unless a lifetime
considerations assessment is necessary.
 Assessment can be performed at counterparty level if the objectives of the expected loss model can be met.

Definition of  Assessment of significant increase in credit risk on an individual vs. collective basis
Maturity
default
 Flexibility of using a variety of information. Assessment can also be based on a combination of a specific internal credit rating
category; and qualitative factors that are not captured through the internal credit ratings process , if both information are
relevant.
 For financial assets at FVOCI (e.g. treasury securities), the expected losses should reflect management’s expectations of
Most firms are considering the credit losses. When considering ‘best available information’, the observable market information about credit risk should be
statement about undue cost and considered.
effort to justify their choices in
estimating expected credit losses. Specific issues/trends
However, they are also conscious
of the reaction from the regulators  Some firms have opted a PD based threshold and downgrade criteria; others have opted to use a their watch list/ stressed
and how they will explain any process as a way to segregate the portfolio.
differences in approach.  The retail method of calculating days in arrears is usually different from commercial exposures. Firms should consider whether
a unified definition is appropriate or how to disclose differences in definitions across portfolios.
 In light of the 30 days past due continues to be stressed as a backstop, a robust approach should be established to ensure
earlier position will be picked up when recognising lifetime expected credit losses.

© 2015 KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All 28
rights reserved. The name KPMG, the logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks of KPMG International.
Expected Credit Losses
Technical accounting/risk – Key issues and trends

Low credit risk Probability of default (PD) Loss given default (LGD)
Expected loss
drivers (e.g.
PD/ LGD)  Practical expedient - A financial There is a difference between Similarly, LGD as defined by IFRS 9
instrument has not significantly expected losses as defined by IFRS 9 and Basel III are different:
Transfer increased in credit risk if it has low and Basel III for firms leveraging off
criteria Discount credit risk at the end of the reporting Basel regulatory expected losses,: ■ Point-in-time versus downturn
Technical rates period. LGDs
considerations ■ Point-in-time versus through-the-
 The low credit risk notion is not a cycle PDs
bright-line trigger for lifetime ECL
■ Forward-looking information would
Definition of  Not required to be externally rated, need to be considered in
Maturity
default however, low credit risk equates to a assessing lifetime expected losses
global credit rating definition of
‘investment grade’, as an example.
Specific issues/trends
Specific issues/trends
Most firms recognised the need to be
Specific issues/trends as point in time PD estimates to Most firms have applied a simplistic
quantify expected credit losses .This is assumption for the assessment of
more pronounced for treasury assets expected credit losses by LGD
While this may offer some degree of segments which measure the
where in most cases market prices
operational simplification, firms economic loss incurred on a credit
and rating agency views are the main
should: exposure in the event of default.
source of information
■ Establish a credit risk framework to
define and justify their threshold of Implementation and governance over
low credit risk; forward looking measures will be
challenging
■ Implement monitoring mechanism
to track the credit risk movement of Term structures for less sophisticated
those low credit risk instruments. firms using standardised approach for
assessment of regulatory capital are
normally based on external data

© 2015 KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All 29
rights reserved. The name KPMG, the logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks of KPMG International.
Expected Credit Losses
Technical accounting/risk – Key issues and trends (cont.)

Discount rate Maturity Definition of default


Expected loss
drivers (e.g.
PD/ LGD)  The expected credit losses should The maximum period for the  Rebuttable presumption that default
be discounted at the effective measurement of ECL is the maximum does not occur later than 90 days
Transfer interest rate (EIR) at initial contractual period (including past due.
criteria Discount recognition or an approximation extension options) over which the
Technical rates
thereof (current EIR for variable rate entity is exposed to credit risk, except  Definition of default should be
considerations loans) for revolving credit facilities where the consistent with credit risk
measurement period is based on the management practices.
 Applies to both drawn and undrawn
behavioral life.  Qualitative indicators of default
balance of loan commitments,
Maturity Definition of should be considered when
default
financial guarantee contracts and
revolving credit facilities. appropriate (e.g. covenants).

Specific issues/trends Specific issues/trends


Specific issues/trends
Specific issues/ Trends
Some firms indicated the challenge in
generating original EIR across all or Most firms have used behavioral Varying definitions between portfolios
some portfolios. maturity for revolving credit portfolios (retail versus corporate books)
(e.g. credit cards) where this is more
prudent, and contractual period for all Most firms have opted to use
other financial instruments. regulatory definition of default
consistent with the Basel II definition
of default that underpins their PD
models. However, firms should re-
assess their definition of default to
take into account the 90 days past due
rebuttable presumptions for default
and other qualitative indicators.

© 2015 KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All 30
rights reserved. The name KPMG, the logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks of KPMG International.
Expected Credit Losses
Technical accounting/risk – Key issues and trends (cont.)

Assets modification
Expected loss
drivers (e.g.  The modification requirements apply to all modifications or renegotiations of contractual cash flows, regardless of
PD/ LGD)
the reason for the modification.
Transfer  Modified financial assets are subject to the same assessment of significant increase in credit risk as unmodified
criteria Discount financial instruments and the same ‘symmetrical’ treatment, i.e. could revert back to 12-month expected losses.
Technical rates
considerations  The credit risk on a financial asset would not automatically improve merely because the contractual cash flows
have been modified.
 To assess whether there has been a significant increase in the credit risk of a modified asset, compare the risk of
Maturity Definition of default occurring at the reporting date based on the modified contractual terms and the risk of a default occurring
default at initial recognition based on the original, unmodified contractual terms.

Specific issues/trends

Appropriate modification policy and monitoring mechanisms should be established, in particular setting specific
conditions to assess whether the credit risk of the modified financial instruments has improved and whether the
criteria for the recognition of lifetime expected credit losses are no longer met. Examples of conditions to consider
are:
• an analysis of the financial condition of the borrower showing it no longer meet the criteria for recognition of
lifetime expected credit losses.
• establish a minimum period to monitor whether the credit risk of the modified financial instrument has improved
• regular payments of principal and interest amount have been made during the minimum period
• none of the exposures to the borrower is more than 30 days past-due at the end of the minimum period.

© 2015 KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All 31
rights reserved. The name KPMG, the logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks of KPMG International.
Expected Credit Losses
Operational – Key issues and trends

Financial reporting controls Cross functional collaboration Governance over data


IT
Strategy Evaluating governance and framework IFRS 9 implementation demands Ownership of data and quality issues
of controls around the Credit Losses skilled resources across the firm that are likely to emerge though the
process (including all relevant data are similar to other large scale change reconciliation of risk and finance data
flows, modeling and appropriate programme including Finance, Risk
documentation) to ensure they are and IT collaboration.
Finance robust for financial reporting purposes
and SOX-compliant.
What is your track record Risk
for cross functional
collaboration?

The current range of maturity Specific issues/ Trends Specific issues/ Trends Specific issues/ Trends
within the industry is varied.
However, the main key success Relevant data flows are unknown or More advanced firms in this space
poorly mapped. The issues and trends in this space
criteria for more advanced firms have clear management buy-in seem to be bifurcated between firms
seems to be an ability to between the CFO and CRO
Data sources and systems have not that have a centralised data model
collaborate cross functionally versus firms that have a more
been subject to the same amount of
across traditional silos Some firms have set up overarching federated approach.
rigor as those used for financial
reporting program management to look over
various change projects to leverage By far the majority of issues lies with
Risk documentation for provisioning other projects federated systems and their
methodology is improving across the reconciliation horizontally across silos.
industry but is generally not at the
level required for financial reporting Credit risk and accounting teams have
found it difficult to speak the same For firms more advanced in
language and this potentially leads to implementation, the focus has been
multiple policy rewrites at one firm on consistency with regulatory
reporting

© 2015 KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All 32
rights reserved. The name KPMG, the logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks of KPMG International.
Expected Credit Losses
Implementation – Specific challenges and trends

Data quality and integrity Portfolio coverage Modeling choices

Data quality across the industry is a Many firms have identified specific Most firms with IRB risk models

?
known issue and many firms are portfolios as a pilot before rolling embedded are leveraging these
Finance
addressing these concerns through implementation out more widely. models in implementing IFRS9
specific IT projects to manage and primarily to evaluate migration across
FO maintain a single customer view rating grades.
Risk across secured and unsecured
lending products.

Most firms struggle with their


internal data architecture and
getting one version of the truth Specific issues/trends Specific issues/trends Specific issues/trends

Many firms encountered problems Some firms consider an integrated


Some firms have experienced
with unpacking top level portfolio framework for capital and expected credit
In terms of implementation, difficulties in ensuring the
adjustments into deal level loss assessment which link but do not
most firms struggle with data and completeness of population of loans
adjustments constrain migration across rating grades
ensuring that they can identify the within the entity.
and defaults.
correct data from the correct Data for most firms were sourced from
source system and being able to a combination of risk, finance and Many firms encountered issues with Most firms are planning to use a mixed
replicate the information front office systems. Many firms had portfolios where IRB models do not methodology such as a combination of
horizontally across different issues with reconciliation between currently exist (e.g. standardised leveraging existing Basel expected loss
businesses these systems portfolios) model and building new models for more
complex portfolios.
Challenges also exist in overcoming
capability limitations such as data Models used for regulatory capital
management problems and calculations often have conservatism
constraints imposed by legacy embedded within them
systems across the organisation

© 2015 KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All 33
rights reserved. The name KPMG, the logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks of KPMG International.
Agenda

A Brief Overview & Challenges

IFRS 9 Impairment Introduction

IFRS 9 Impairment Details and Solutions

WRAP UP

© 2015 KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All 34
rights reserved. The name KPMG, the logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks of KPMG International.
The basic idea of IFRS 9 Impairment explains some counter-intuitive behavior with
respect to the transfer criterion

Case study as example Consequences within IFRS 9 Impairment framework


 One obligor with 2 loans originated at different dates with different  However, the transfer criterion does not rely on LtEL
obligor ratings but on Lifetime PD (“Significant increase in credit
 Assumption: bank gets the needed risk margin for such an EL over risk”), so a sole decrease in collateral value e.g. may
lifetime of each loan via the adequate pricing at origination date not trigger a transfer from stage 1 to 2
 In case of significant deviation of currently needed LtEL from the  Although this is the basic idea, the standard does not
LtEL originally calculated at origination, the bank does not even obey this idea comprehensively (e.g. revolving credit
closely cover the currently anticipated LtEL via the original price with right to increase price must be considered via
behavioral life)
Obligor Rating BBB BB B CCC  Comparison of LtPD must be done on matchable time
frames:
Loan D Dt0 Dt1 Comparison of forward
transfered to stage 2 cumulative PD at initial
recognition with current LtPD

Comparison of Cumulative PD
risk margins
1,5 %

Loan E Ct0 Ct1


2,5 %
remains in stage 1 t0 t1 t2

Nota bene:
Comparison of
risk margins  Book value minus LtEL is basically lower than the Fair
Value because the latter allow for “offsetting” the
Timeline T0 T1 T2 increased EL for each period of lifetime with the
original risk-adequate margin as part of the cash flows
risk margin needed at origination risk margin needed at reporting (only increase of LtEL effectively driving the decrease
given the rating at origination and date Tx given the rating at Tx and in FV)
the corresponding Lifetime EL the corresponding Lifetime EL

© 2015 KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All 35
rights reserved. The name KPMG, the logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks of KPMG International.
The transfer criterion has to be applied on Lifetime-PD level so that a quantile-based
approach basically is most reasonable

Box plot Lifetime PD evolution

x
LtPD

x
x
x

x Expected remaining LtPD at t=0


t
Threshold at 75% quantile

When implementing a LtPD-based transfer criteria, a


threshold defined by a quantile of the distribution of
expected LtPDs at the reporting dates is a reasonable
approach

© 2015 KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All 36
rights reserved. The name KPMG, the logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks of KPMG International.
Calculating and recognizing expected credit losses the
most significant change compared to IAS 39

Transfer of individual assets when Transfer of individual assets from stage 2 to


■ No longer Investment Grade and stage 3 when impairment triggers are
■ Significant increase in PD since origination observed

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3


Status: not deteriorated Status: deteriorated Status: credit impaired
Provision: 1 year ECL Provision: Lifetime ECL Provision: Lifetime ECL

1 2 3
Provisioning Cliff Effect

Source: KPMG's 2014 IFRS 9


Transfer of individual assets back to stage 1 when Transfer of individual assets back to stage 2
criteria above are no longer met (symmetric model) when asset has recovered from default*

* Assets that are credit-impaired at acquisition or origination remain in stage 3 until maturity

The accounting treatment is decided by the IFRS 9 stage, which is a function of credit quality and deterioration

© 2015 KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All 37
rights reserved. The name KPMG, the logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks of KPMG International.
Determining the IFRS 9 stage depends on a number of factors and can require significant
amounts of historical data

PD-Threshold Definition
(Non-investment grade) “Credit-impaired” 1yr ECL
Stage 1

Stage 2
Ft0 Ft1 Lifetime ECL
“Assets with low credit risk” Stage 3

Dt0 Dt1 Loan X at origination


Xt0 (t0)

Loan X at the end of


Ct0 Ct1 Xt1 the first period (t1)

Bt0 Bt1 Insignificant


Et1 deterioration
Significant
At0 At1 Et0 deterioration

Investment Grade Non Investment Grade Default PD

Source: KPMG's 2014 IFRS 9

■ IFRS 9 requires different levels of provisioning for different assets depending on whether or not there has been
significant deterioration in the past
■ Determining the correct stage requires knowledge of the current and original credit risk levels, which is information
not readily available in typical front office and risk systems

Allocating the assets to stages and providing historical information for disclosures is a new challenge that is not
possible in legacy systems and requires an extended data warehouse

© 2015 KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All 38
rights reserved. The name KPMG, the logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks of KPMG International.
The idea of expected credit losses is nothing new, but the Basel environment is typically
limited to a 12 month horizon

ECL = PD x LGD x EAD

■ Expected credit loss is a ■ Probability of default for ■ Loss given default based ■ Exposure at default
statistical measure used an asset or class of on losses resulting from represents the amount a
to reflect expectations of assets over the next year defaults over the next 12 bank stands to lose in the
future losses based on months event of a default event
■ PD represents an average
historical data
expectation over the ■ Ideally the LGD will be ■ For a 12 month horizon,
■ The three primary course of an entire separated for secured and the EAD is defined as the
components are derived business cycle (through- unsecured portions of an current exposure without
based on observation, the-cycle) as opposed to exposure considering payments
empirical evidence and specific current
■ LGD is a prudent ■ Undrawn commitments
expert judgment expectations (point-in-
parameter based on an are factored in using
time)
■ The objective is to assumed downturn in the statistical probabilities of
quantify loss expectations economic conditions drawing
over a 12 month forecast

Changes to existing models are necessary to comply with lifetime expected credit loss (LECL) requirements

© 2015 KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All 39
rights reserved. The name KPMG, the logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks of KPMG International.
Extensive extensions are required to the Basel parameters to extend to a lifetime
expected credit loss

■ Use of best available (internal and


■ Marginal PDs over the ■ On b/s portion: Estimationof cash flow structure
external) information* for making
remaining expected lifetime over the lifetime, based on IFRS Book Value
forward-looking loss estimations
of the asset ■ Separate EL estimation for off b/s items:
that is reasonably available,
■ Consideration of cures/re- Estimation of usage behaviour over the lifetime of
including information about:
aging (after default) the loan commitment or financial guarantee
 past events
■ Point-in-time PD required
 current conditions
IFRS 9  reasonable and supportable
Require- forecasts of future events and ■ Marginal LGD over the lifetime of the asset
ments economic conditions ■ Point-in-time view required; no downturn scenario
■ EL is defined as a probability-
weighted expected value
T
■ EL includes losses on both,
principal and interest on a
discounted basis
EL  t 1
PD t  LGD t  EAD t Dt
■ Validation / backtesting required Discount factor:
■ On-b/s items: EIR
■ EL-estimations may consist of a ■ Off-b/s items: Current market rate
combination of
■ short-term estimations and
Note
■ extrapolation of projections from
General requirements:
available, detailed information
■ Consideration of macroeconomic forecasts
for periods far in the future
■ Point-in-time analysis required (Through-the-cycle averages not adequate)

* Cost-Benefit Consideration: ■ Consider correlations between the parameters PD, LGD and EAD
Information (fulfilling the requirements above) should be used if it ■ All assumptions must be validated (conservative assumptions are not allowed)
is available “without undue cost and effort”

Extrapolating parameters and accurately forecasting cash flows are the main challenges of implementation for a
financial institution of any size

© 2015 KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All 40
rights reserved. The name KPMG, the logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks of KPMG International.
How models should be extended or be built up in the most efficient way

 Lifetime parameters or all the other needed Example: S&P Default Study

preliminaries for this may be already in the bank for


From/To AAA AA A BBB BB B CCC/C D
One-
year

several reasons
AAA 90,23% 8,99% 0,56% 0,05% 0,08% 0,03% 0,05% 0,00%
AA 0,56% 89,94% 8,71% 0,59% 0,06% 0,08% 0,02% 0,02%
A 0,03% 1,95% 91,58% 5,80% 0,38% 0,16% 0,02% 0,07%
BBB 0,01% 0,13% 3,78% 90,90% 4,14% 0,65% 0,15% 0,24%

 Lifetime models should maximally make use of existing BB


B
CCC/C
0,02%
0,00%
0,00%
0,04%
0,03%
0,00%
0,17%
0,12%
0,19%
5,74%
0,26%
0,28%
84,31%
6,14%
0,85%
7,97%
83,61%
16,00%
0,80%
4,98%
0,95%
4,85%
51,30% 31,38%

data, models and parameters D 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 100,00%

 Lifetime models should not have unnecessary ballast Realized CPDs (dashed) vs.
CPDs calculated by 1 yr. MMX (solid) per rating class
and must be robust under the necessary validation to 100 %

be applied in future (migration matrices e.g. may not


fulfill this requirement for definite business models)
 It is most likely, that additional models will be needed in
the bank for IFRS 9 purposes 0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

 Provided simplifications of IFRS 9


Impairment may not be usable for banks
(cf. “Guidance on accounting for
expected credit losses” by BCBS 2015,
Feb.)

© 2015 KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All 41
rights reserved. The name KPMG, the logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks of KPMG International.
Overview on (lifetime) parameter estimation for IFRS 9 Impairment based on
Advanced IRB Basel II parameters

Where sources for this


Basel II/CRR What additionally is needed could be found
 only 12 months PDs!  marginal PDs for future periods  Pre-calculation/pricing
 Should be more like PIT for usage needed (may be derived from  FV calculation (e.g. IFRS13)
Lt-PD without adjustment forward/conditional PDs)  Migration Risk within CPM/CVaR-
 not directly derivable from Basel II PD calculation

 only LGDs based on EAD of reporting  re-calculation for future periods:  concept to deal with collateral market
date!  e.g. with a structural model: include value fluctuations, econ. depreciations
Lt-LGD  For IFRS purposes need to use EIR, expected change of collateral market  Extension of LGD model
excl. internal costs & downturn add-on! value and exposure over time  Pre-calc./Pricing/FV/CPM

 only exposure at reporting date  Roll-out cash flows, derive run-down  Liquidity risk modelling
available EAD for each future period  Pre-calc./Pricing/FV/CPM
Lt-EAD  account for embedded options,
prolongation rights etc.

 no corresponding requirement (M in A-  lifetime basically implicitly by Lt-EAD  s. above


Lifetime IRB is different)  Revolving loans via behavioural Life

 no equivalent requirement  historical data of loan origin with Lt-PD  data history of rating and pricing
Transfer-  must be basically grounded on lifetime-  for incomplete data approximations
criterion PDs necessary
 e.g. transformation model Lifetime/12M

Future  no equivalent requirement  some adequate add-on (layer) for  Stress-testing bases cases
economic  may be already integrated in models models to integrate future economic  research of economic department
conditions via macro-eco. input-parameters outlook for a couple of next years

© 2015 KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All 42
rights reserved. The name KPMG, the logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks of KPMG International.
KPMG offers an efficient and value-added solution to the challenges posed by IFRS 9

KPMG’s Global Credit Loss Accounting Solution (“gCLAS”) is a full service impairment accounting solution that functions as a modular
add-on to existing accounting systems and processes. Our multi-phase delivery process provides for effective integration of the system
within the business.

The core functionality of the system includes:


 Combine loan data directly from the core banking
system and risk data into a central model
 Create transition matrices based on rating information
or delinquency data or import matrices based on
external risk models
 Roll out cash flows over the lifetime of individual assets
including modeling of prepayments using industry-
standard models and calculating effective interest rates
 Measure expected credit losses based on predicted
cash shortfalls on a one-year or remaining lifetime basis
 Manage stage allocation based on user settings and
generate journal vouchers to accommodate changes in
provisioning levels over time
 Generate journal vouchers for stage 3 accounting
 Extensive reporting and analytics capabilities including
all disclosure requirements

gCLAS provides a solution to the challenges posed by IFRS 9 impairment

© 2015 KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All 43
rights reserved. The name KPMG, the logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks of KPMG International.
Agenda

A Brief Overview & Challenges

IFRS 9 Impairment Introduction

IFRS 9 Impairment Details and Solutions

WRAP UP

© 2015 KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All 44
rights reserved. The name KPMG, the logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks of KPMG International.
WRAP Up

 BDDK`nin karari ve aksiyon plani

 IAS39 mu? IFRS9 mu?

 Sayisal Etki

 2 yil uyun bir süre mi?

 Ön calisma

© 2015 KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All 45
rights reserved. The name KPMG, the logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks of KPMG International.
© 2015 KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a member firm of
the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG
International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All
rights reserved. The name KPMG, the logo and “cutting through
complexity” are registered trademarks of KPMG International.

Вам также может понравиться