Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
REPRINT PAGE 2
disinvestment options, and a reduced level of lazy capital caused by inaccurate loan-loss provisioning i.e. capital not providing an optimal return to the shareholder. And, of course, in this era of focus on international banking regulation, Facility Risk Ratings are a cornerstone of the dual rating requirement of the Advanced Internal Ratings Based Approach of the Basel II proposal. Facility Risk Ratings provide banks with more precise loan-loss provisioning methodologies with a more accurate estimate of the cost of credit. Under accrual accounting systems, the loan-loss provision impacts the income statement and unused provisions are held in the loss reserve account on the banks balance sheet, says Kearns. These loan-loss provisions are typically set using the banks internal ratings which should reflect the banks expectations for the future cost of credit. Using expected loss to calculate loan-loss provisioning increases its accuracy allowing it to be attributed to individual loans, borrowers or larger aggregations. And such dynamic budgeting can be refined as portfolio credit quality changes. I know a number of banks who are internally adopting IRB measures while officially adopting the Standardized (Continued on Page 3)
Facility Risk Rating Systems: The Key To Complete Credit Risk Assessment
Combining advanced techniques for deriving Probability of Default and Loss Given Default estimates allows banks to create complete internal risk rating systems.
FACILITY RISK RATING SYSTEMS - PART I
As global head of Credit Risk Services for Standard & Poors Risk Solutions, Gary Kearns talks with a lot of banks. Yet he is surprised by the similarity of responses to the problems posed by calculating credit risk on loan portfolios. Bankers clearly understand the critical importance of the building blocks of credit risk PD and LGD in determining expected loss on individual facilities and portfolios, says Kearns. However, many banks around the world are using a blunt instrument starting with an obligor risk rating and then notching for the facility risk dimension and as a result their risk pricing and economic capital calculations lack precision. Whether banks are adopting the Internal Ratings Based Approach (Advanced or Foundation), or using the Standardized Approach, under Basel II, Kearns believes that all banks need to separately measure PD and LGD. An internal ratings system cannot accurately reflect risk if it does not go beyond borrower credit quality to examine the collateral supporting a loan, says Kearns. High probability of default on the borrower does not necessarily translate into a high expected loss. Collateral supporting such a facility can in fact give it a low expected loss. But if the rating scale only looks at probability of default, it will fail to reflect this. (see chart below) Facility Risk Ratings allow for a more effective discrimination of risk, more precise loan pricing, more accurate loss forecasting, optimal portfolio management, better evaluation of investment and
AAA
HIGH RISK
REPRINT PAGE 3
Analyzing Risk/Return patterns allows banks to develop "portfolio improvement action plans" and measure their progress against these plans.
HIGH Who are these customers? Why are they producing above average returns?
RETURN
Who are these customers? Why are they producing below average returns? LOW LOW
RISK
HIGH
creative in helping banks find data, whether from workout units or more unusual places, like bank leasing units that have rich residual value data that can support the process, he notes. Where the time or cost of collecting data is prohibitive, we have led data consortia around the world and in numerous asset classes to provide benchmark data.
and capital management, whether youre one of the largest banks in the world or a small community lender, says Kearns. Banks should adopt dual rating systems for obligors and facilities as a matter of prudent practice, so that they can effectively price loans reflective of all risks. In most markets around the world, its usually the bank with the weakest rating system that sets the ceiling for loan pricing, Kearns says. If the other banks want to play along, at least they will know how much they are subsidizing the borrower, or how much they need to cross-sell to achieve their target ROE.
REPRINT PAGE 4
Portfolio Risk
Facility Rating
Regulatory Capital
Loss Reserves
Borrower Rating
Trade or Hold Lend / No Lend Decisions Pricing Decisions
decisions from limit and pricing setting to portfolio management and economic capital requirements. (See chart above, A Business Management Tool.) If internal rating systems are the microscope used to examine risk, it is necessary that they focus at the correct levels first the obligors risk of default, which will have an impact on all the various obligations of that borrower, and second, the unique characteristics of each facility and the
protection afforded the lender. This accounts for the actual risk factors that make up LGD, varying from facility to facility, even for the same borrower. Varying risk factors require specific forms of measurement and management, meaning a Facility Risk Ratings System (FRR) is necessary. This focus on facility-specific estimates allows for the use of dual ratings scales that account for both the risks attached to the obligor (PD) and those surrounding recovery prospects
REPRINT PAGE 5
established immediately and fairly simply by most institutions. The degree of sophistication and detail added into the basic framework, and the granularity of its results, can be geared to the amount of information and data available. Furthermore, even if the institution does not initially have detailed information on particular questions, the framework itself can be used to gather and organize data going forward, permitting more sophistication and precision to be added in an incremental manner.
Data Collection
The ability of the FRR to produce accurate estimates is ultimately tied directly to the quality and quantity of the data which the institution can gather regarding both exposure and recovery, Chambers says. This extends beyond the level of exposures and subsequent losses or recoveries, but also to the risk drivers behind these results. What, for example, determines the level of drawdowns against a revolving facility? For a retailer financing inventories, the drawdowns may be closely correlated with seasonality, but for other borrowers different dynamics may apply. Is there a borrowing base covenant in place that regulates (Continued on Page 6)
REPRINT PAGE 6
economic loss which will be incurred as a result of a default. For immediate sales in a secondary market, the differences between nominal and real loss values tend to be very minor. For workout situations, however, the loss estimates must incorporate estimates, implicit or explicit, of the time lag between default and recovery, and determination of an appropriate discount rate to bring future receipts back to a net present value. To accomplish this objective, data must be collected across a wide range of relevant fields to allow for its use rating future facilities including facility type level of exposure, terms, maturity and repayment profile, collateral, guarantees and covenants, seniority of the debt, and recovery method. This data must also be tied to the borrowers characteristics, since many of those features will also affect and drive the recovery/loss estimate. For example, if recovery takes the form of equity or debt in a reorganized entity, knowledge about the reorganized entitys business will be key in the estimation of loss. But few, if any, institutions in the world currently have sufficient data to be able to estimate LGD properly on a significant portion of their portfolios. This has prompted substantial data (Continued on Page 7)
Recovery Potential
Collateral Unsecured Recovery Estimate
+
Additional Draws Value Change / Add-Ons
Haircut(s) Applicable To Each Collateral Type Allocate Collateral to Supported Facilities Eligible Financial Collateral Other Eligible Collateral
=
Exposure at Default
=
Adjusted Exposure
Recovery Drivers
One of the primary elements of the analysis centers on the process by which a lender recovers value subsequent to a default, says Chambers. Does it immediately try to sell the exposure on the secondary market, or does it initiate a workout process whereby some ultimate value
is recovered after an extended period of time? For traded assets, recovery can be measured according to market pricing including estimating future distressed pricing. Although the choice between workout and sale will usually be determined by circumstance including the portfolio management aims of the bank and the importance attached to the lending relationship there are also intrinsic pros and cons affecting such a decision. Distressed sales may mean immediate recovery
and (relatively) fixed costs, but the liquidity premium required may mean taking an unnecessarily large haircut on recovered value. By contrast, workouts may bring a higher overall recovery for any distressed asset but mean higher costs, more uncertainty and a longer recovery time (with the attendant higher discount rate this implies). Best industry practice, as well as the Basel II requirements, dictates that the bank estimates of the real
REPRINT PAGE 7
of accounting, loan-loss provisions have an impact on the banks income statement, with unused provisions being held in the loss reserve account on the banks balance sheet. Given that loan-loss provisions are typically set using future expectations of the cost of credit, basing calculations on a finer and more variable set of risk parameters increases their accuracy. Indeed, attributing expected loss to individual loans, borrowers or larger aggregations creates a much greater potential for dynamic loan-loss budgeting, along with ongoing refinement as portfolio credit quality changes, concludes Chambers.
An Evolving System
There is clearly the need for an interim approach from both data and system design perspectives to
EUROPE
Paul Waterhouse Managing Director Standard & Poors Risk Solutions 20 Canada Square, Canary Wharf London E14 5LH UK Tel +44 (0)20 7176 3718 Fax +44 (0)20 7176 3565 E-mail:
ASIA / PACIFIC
Corinne Neale Managing Director Standard & Poors Risk Solutions Prudential Tower, Floor 17 Singapore 049712 Tel: +(65) 6 239 6313 Fax: +(65) 6 438 2320 E-mail:
bill_chambers@standardandpoors.com
paul_waterhouse@standardandpoors.com
corinne_neale@standardandpoors.com