Blog
Uncertainty meets its match
In brief Despite an upturn in the economic outlook, uncertainty remains ingrained into business operations today. As a result, most corporate treasuries are
Find out moreExplore key strategies to minimize non-modellable risk factors (NMRFs) under FRTB’s internal models approach, including enhancing data, creating proxies, and customizing bucketing, to manage your bank’s capital requirements more effectively.
Under the FRTB internal models approach (IMA), the capital calculation of risk factors is dependent on whether the risk factor is modellable. Insufficient data will result in more non-modellable risk factors (NMRFs), significantly increasing associated capital charges.
Risk factor modellability and NMRFs
The modellability of risk factors is a new concept which was introduced under FRTB and is based on the liquidity of each risk factor. Modellability is measured using the number of ‘real prices’ which are available for each risk factor. Real prices are transaction prices from the institution itself, verifiable prices for transactions between arms-length parties, prices from committed quotes, and prices from third party vendors.
For a risk factor to be classed as modellable, it must have a minimum of 24 real prices per year, no 90-day period with less than four prices, and a minimum of 100 real prices in the last 12 months (with a maximum of one real price per day). The Risk Factor Eligibility Test (RFET), outlined in FRTB, is the process which determines modellability and is performed quarterly. The results of the RFET determine, for each risk factor, whether the capital requirements are calculated by expected shortfall or stressed scenarios.
Consequences of NMRFs for banks
Modellable risk factors are capitalised via expected shortfall calculations which allow for diversification benefits. Conversely, capital for NMRFs is calculated via stressed scenarios which result in larger capital charges. This is due to longer liquidity horizons and more prudent assumptions used for aggregation. Although it is expected that a low proportion of risk factors will be classified as non-modellable, research shows that they can account for over 30% of total capital requirements.
There are multiple techniques that banks can use to reduce the number and impact of NMRFs, including the use of external data, developing proxies, and modifying the parameterisation of risk factor curves and surfaces. As well as focusing on reducing the number of NMRFs, banks will also need to develop early warning systems and automated reporting infrastructures to monitor the modellability of risk factors. These tools help to track and predict modellability issues, reducing the likelihood that risk factors will fail the RFET and increase capital requirements.
Banks should focus on reducing their NMRFs as they are associated with significantly higher capital charges. There are multiple approaches which can be taken to increase the likelihood that a risk factor passes the RFET and is classed as modellable.
Enhancing internal data
The simplest way for banks to reduce NMRFs is by increasing the amount of data available to them. Augmenting internal data with external data increases the number of real prices available for the RFET and reduces the likelihood of NMRFs. Banks can purchase additional data from external data vendors and data pooling services to increase the size and quality of datasets.
It is important for banks to initially investigate their internal data and understand where the gaps are. As data providers vary in which services and information they provide, banks should not only focus on the types and quantity of data available. For example, they should also consider data integrity, user interfaces, governance, and security. Many data providers also offer FRTB-specific metadata, such as flags for RFET liquidity passes or fails.
Finally, once a data provider has been chosen, additional effort will be required to resolve discrepancies between internal and external data and ensure that the external data follows the same internal standards.
Creating risk factor proxies
Proxies can be developed to reduce the number or magnitude of NMRFs, however, regulation states that their use must be limited. Proxies are developed using either statistical or rules-based approaches.
Rules-based approaches are simplistic, yet generally less accurate. They find the “closest fit” modellable risk factor using more qualitative methods, e.g. using the closest tenor on the interest rate curve. Alternatively, more accurate approaches model the relationship between the NMRF and modellable risk factors using statistical methods. Once a proxy is determined, it is classified as modellable and only the basis between it and the NMRF is required to be capitalised using stressed scenarios.
Determining proxies can be time-consuming as it requires exploratory work with uncertain outcomes. Additional ongoing effort will also be required by validation and monitoring units to ensure the relationship holds and the regulator is satisfied.
Developing own bucketing approach
Instead of using the prescribed bucketing approach, banks can use their own approach to maximise the number of real price observations for each risk factor.
For example, if a risk model requires a volatility surface to price, there are multiple ways this can be parametrised. One method could be to split the surface into a 5x5 grid, creating 25 buckets that would each require sufficient real price observations to be classified as modellable. Conversely, the bank could instead split the surface into a 2x2 grid, resulting in only four buckets. The same number of real price observations would then need to be allocated between significantly less buckets, decreasing the chances of a risk factor being a NMRF.
It should be noted that the choice of bucketing approach affects other aspects of FRTB. Profit and Loss Attribution (PLA) uses the same buckets of risk factors as chosen for the RFET. Increasing the number of buckets may increase the chances of passing PLA, however, also increases the likelihood of risk factors failing the RFET and being classed as NMRFs.
In this article, we have described several potential methods for reducing the number of NMRFs. Although some of the suggested methods may be more cost effective or easier to implement than others, banks will most likely, in practice, need to implement a combination of these strategies in parallel. The modellability of risk factors is clearly an important part of the FRTB regulation for banks as it has a direct impact on required capital. Banks should begin to develop strategies for reducing the number of NMRFs as early as possible if they are to minimise the required capital when FRTB goes live.
In brief Despite an upturn in the economic outlook, uncertainty remains ingrained into business operations today. As a result, most corporate treasuries are
Find out moreAfter a long period of negative policy rates within Europe, the past two years marked a period with multiple hikes of the overnight rate by central banks in Europe, such as the European
Find out moreOn the 22nd of August, SAP and Zanders hosted a webinar on the topic of optimizing your treasury processes with SAP S/4HANA, with the focus on how the benefit from S/4HANA for the cash &
Find out moreIn the high-stakes world of private equity, where the pressure to deliver exceptional returns is relentless, the playbook is evolving. Gone are the days when financial engineering—relying
Find out moreThe Basel IV reforms, which are set to be implemented on 1 January 2025 via amendments to the EU Capital Requirement Regulation, have introduced changes to the Standardized Approach for
Find out moreWith the introduction of the updated Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR3), which has entered into force on 9 July 2024, the European Union's financial landscape is poised for significant
Find out moreThe heightened fluctuations observed in the commodity and energy markets from 2021 to 2022 have brought Treasury's role in managing these risks into sharper focus. While commodity prices
Find out moreVaR has been one of the most widely used risk measures in banks for decades. However, due to the non-additive nature of VaR, explaining the causes of changes to VaR has always been
Find out moreThe Covid-19 pandemic triggered unprecedented market volatility, causing widespread failures in banks' internal risk models. These backtesting failures threatened to increase capital
Find out moreChallenges with backtesting Expected Shortfall Recent regulations are increasingly moving toward the use of Expected Shortfall (ES) as a measure to capture risk. Although ES fixes many
Find out moreAcross the whole of Europe, banks apply different techniques to model their IFRS9 Expected Credit Losses on a best estimate basis. The diverse spectrum of modelling techniques raises the
Find out moreAs organizations continue to adapt to the rapidly changing business landscape, one of the most pivotal shifts is the migration of enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems to the cloud.
Find out moreWhile many business and SAP users are familiar with its core functionalities, such as limit management applying different limit types and the core functionality of attributable amount
Find out moreIn brief: Prevailing uncertainty in geopolitical, economic and regulatory environments demands a more dynamic approach to default modelling. Traditional methods such as logistic
Find out moreThe recent periods of commodity price volatility have brought commodity risk management to the spotlight in numerous companies, where commodities constitute a substantial component of the
Find out moreIn brief Prepayment modelling can help institutions successfully prepare for and navigate a rise in prepayments due to changes in the financial landscape. Two important prepayment
Find out moreThe corporate landscape is continuously reshaped by strategic realignments such as mergers, divestments, and other M&A activities, wherein a company divests a portion of its business
Find out moreThe evolving economic landscape has placed a spotlight on the critical role of treasury in value creation. Our latest roundtable, themed ‘Treasury’s Role in Value Creation,’ delved
Find out moreThis article highlights key points mentioned in our whitepaper: Treasury 4.x - The age of productivity, performance and steering. You can download the full whitepaper here. Summary:
Find out moreWhether a corporate operates through a decentralized model, shared service center or even global business services model, identifying which invoices a customer has paid and in some cases,
Find out moreIn a continued effort to ensure we offer our customers the very best in knowledge and skills, Zanders has acquired Fintegral.
In a continued effort to ensure we offer our customers the very best in knowledge and skills, Zanders has acquired Optimum Prime.
You need to load content from reCAPTCHA to submit the form. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
More Information