Trading and Capital-Markets Activities Manual
Activities: Investment Securities and End-User Activities (Continue)
EVALUATING MANAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC RISKS
Specific considerations in evaluating the key elements of sound risk-management systems as they relate to the credit, market, liquidity, operating, and legal risks involved in securities and derivative contracts for non-trading activities are described below.
Broadly defined, credit risk is the risk that an issuer or counterparty will fail to perform on an obligation to the institution. The policies of an institution should recognize credit risk as a significant risk posed by the institution's securities and derivative activities. Accordingly, policies should identify credit-risk constraints, risk tolerances, and limits at the appropriate instrument, portfolio, and institutional levels. In doing so, institutions should ensure that credit-risk constraints are clearly associated with specified objectives. For example, credit-risk constraints and guidelines should be defined for instruments used to meet pledging requirements, generate tax-advantaged income, hedge positions, generate temporary income, or meet any other specifically defined objective.
As a matter of general policy, an institution should not acquire securities or derivative contracts until it has assessed the creditworthiness of the issuer or counterparty and determined that the risk exposure conforms with its policies. The credit risk arising from these positions should be incorporated into the overall credit-risk profile of the institution to the fullest extent possible. Given the interconnectedness of the various risks facing the institution, organizations should also evaluate the effect of changes in issuer or counterparty credit standing on an instrument's market and liquidity risk. The board of directors and responsible senior management should be informed of the institution's total credit-risk exposures at least quarterly.
Selection of Securities Dealers
In managing their credit risk, institutions also should consider settlement and pre-settlement credit risk. The selection of dealers, investment bankers, and brokers is particularly important in managing these risks effectively. An institution's policies should identify criteria for selecting these organizations and list all approved firms. The management of a depository institution must have sufficient knowledge about the securities firms and personnel with whom they are doing business. A depository institution should not engage in securities transactions with any securities firm that is unwilling to provide complete and timely disclosure of its financial condition. Management should review the securities firm's financial statements and evaluate the firm's ability to honor its commitments both before entering into transactions with the firm and periodically thereafter. An inquiry into the general reputation of the dealer also is necessary. The board of directors or an appropriate committee of the board should periodically review and approve a list of securities firms with whom management is authorized to do business. The board or an appropriate committee thereof should also periodically review and approve limits on the amounts and types of transactions to be executed with each authorized securities firm. Limits to be considered should include dollar amounts of unsettled trades, safekeeping arrangements, repurchase transactions, securities lending and borrowing, other transactions with credit risk, and total credit risk with an individual dealer.
At a minimum, depository institutions should consider the following when selecting and retaining a securities firm:
• the ability of the securities dealer
and its subsidiaries or affiliates to fulfill commitments as evidenced
by their capital strength, liquidity, and operating results (this evidence
should be gathered from current financial data, annual reports, credit
reports, and other sources of financial information)
In addition, the board of directors (or an appropriate committee of the board) must ensure that the depository institution's management has established appropriate procedures to obtain and maintain possession or control of securities purchased. In this regard, purchased securities and repurchase-agreement collateral should only be left in safekeeping with selling dealers when (1) the board of directors or an appropriate committee thereof is completely satisfied as to the creditworthiness of the securities dealer and (2) the aggregate market value of securities held in safekeeping is within credit limitations that have been approved by the board of directors (or an appropriate committee of the board) for unsecured transactions (see the October 1985 FFIEC policy statement ''Repurchase Agreements of Depository Institutions with Securities Dealers and Others'').
State lending limits generally do not extend to the safekeeping arrangements described above. Notwithstanding this general principle, a bank's board of directors should establish prudent limits for safekeeping arrangements. These prudential limits generally involve a fiduciary relationship, which presents operational rather than credit risks.
To avoid concentrations of assets or other types of risk, banking organizations should, to the extent possible, try to diversify the firms they use for safekeeping arrangements. Further, while certain transactions with securities dealers and safekeeping custodians may entail only operational risks, other transactions with these parties may involve credit risk that could be subject to statutory lending limits, depending on applicable state laws. If certain transactions are deemed subject to a state's legal lending limit statute because of a particular safekeeping arrangement, the provisions of the state's statutes would, of course, control the extent to which the safekeeping arrangement complies with an individual state's legal lending limit.
An institution's credit policies should also include guidelines on the quality and quantity of each type of security that may be held. Policies should provide credit-risk diversification and concentration limits, which may define concentrations to a single or related issuer or counterparty, in a geographical area, or in obligations with similar characteristics. Policies should also include procedures such as increased monitoring and stop-loss limits, for addressing deterioration in credit quality.
Sound credit-risk management requires that credit limits be developed by personnel who are independent of the acquisition function. In authorizing issuer and counterparty credit lines, these personnel should use standards that are consistent with those used for other activities conducted within the institution and with the organization's overall policies and consolidated exposures. To assess the creditworthiness of other organizations, institutions should not rely solely on outside sources, such as standardized ratings provided by independent rating agencies, but should perform their own analysis of a counterparty's or issuer's financial strength. In addition, examiners should review the credit-approval process to ensure that the credit risks of specific products are adequately identified and that credit-approval procedures are followed for all transactions.
For most cash instruments, credit exposure is measured as the current carrying value. In the case of many derivative contracts, especially those traded in OTC markets, credit exposure is measured as the replacement cost of the position, plus an estimate of the institution's potential future exposure to changes in the replacement value of that position in response to market price changes. Replacement costs of derivative contracts should be determined using current market prices or generally accepted approaches for estimating the present value of future payments required under each contract, at current market rates.
The measurement of potential future credit-risk exposure for derivative contracts is more subjective than the measurement of current exposure and is primarily a function of the time remaining to maturity; the number of exchanges of principal; and the expected volatility of the price, rate, or index underlying the contract. Potential future exposure can be measured using an institution's own simulations or, more simply, by using add-ons such as those included in the Federal Reserve's risk-based capital guidelines. Regardless of the method an institution uses, examiners should evaluate the reasonableness of the assumptions underlying the institution's risk measure.
For derivative contracts and certain types of cash transactions, master agreements (including netting agreements) and various credit enhancements (such as collateral or third-party guarantees) can reduce settlement, issuer, and counterparty credit risk. In such cases, an institution's credit exposures should reflect these risk-reducing features only to the extent that the agreements and recourse provisions are legally enforceable in all relevant jurisdictions. This legal enforceability should extend to any insolvency proceedings of the counterparty. Institutions should be prepared to demonstrate sufficient due diligence in evaluating the enforceability of these contracts.
In reviewing credit exposures, examiners should consider the extent to which positions exceed credit limits and whether exceptions are resolved according to the institution's adopted policies and procedures. Examiners should also evaluate whether the institution's reports adequately provide all personnel involved in the acquisition and management of financial instruments with relevant, accurate, and timely information about the credit exposures and approved credit lines.
Market risk is the exposure of an institution's financial condition to adverse movements in the market rates or prices of its holdings before such holdings can be liquidated or expeditiously offset. It is measured by assessing the effect of changing rates or prices on the earnings or economic value of an individual instrument, a portfolio, or the entire institution. Although many banking institutions focus on carrying values and reported earnings when assessing market risk at the institutional level, other measures focusing on total returns and changes in economic or fair values better reflect the potential market-risk exposure of institutions, portfolios, and individual instruments. Changes in fair values and total returns directly measure the effect of market movements on the economic value of an institution's capital and provide significant insights into their ultimate effects on the institution's long-term earnings. Institutions should manage and control their market risks using both an earnings and an economic-value approach, and at least on an economic or fair-value basis.
When evaluating capital adequacy, examiners should consider the effect of changes in market rates and prices on the economic value of the institution by evaluating any unrealized losses in an institution's securities or derivative positions. This evaluation should assess the ability of the institution to hold its positions and function as a going concern if recognition of unrealized losses would significantly affect the institution's capital ratios. Examiners also should consider the impact that liquidating positions with unrealized losses may have on the institution's prompt correctiveaction capital category.
Market-risk limits should be established for both the acquisition and ongoing management of an institution's securities and derivative holdings and, as appropriate, should address exposures for individual instruments, instrument types, and portfolios. These limits should be integrated fully with limits established for the entire institution. At the institutional level, the board of directors should approve market-risk exposure limits. Such limits may be expressed as specific percentage changes in the economic value of capital and, when applicable, in the projected earnings of the institution under various market scenarios. Similar and complementary limits on the volatility of prices or fair value should be established at the appropriate instrument, product-type, and portfolio levels, based on the institution's willingness to accept market risk. Limits on the variability of effective maturities may also be desirable for certain types of instruments or portfolios.
The scenarios an institution specifies for assessing the market risk of its securities and derivative products should be sufficiently rigorous to capture all meaningful effects of any options. For example, in assessing interest-rate risk, scenarios such as 100-, 200-, and 300-basispoint parallel shifts in yield curves should be considered as well as appropriate nonparallel shifts in structure to evaluate potential basis, volatility, and yield curve risks. Accurately measuring an institution's market risk requires timely information about the current carrying and market values of its securities and derivative holdings.
Accordingly, institutions should have market-risk measurement systems commensurate with the size and nature of their holdings. Institutions with significant holdings of highly complex instruments should ensure that they have independent means to value their positions. Institutions using internal models to measure risk should have adequate procedures to validate the models and periodically review all elements of the modeling process, including its assumptions and risk-measurement techniques.
Institutions relying on third parties for market-risk-measurement systems and analyses should fully understand the assumptions and techniques used by the third party. Institutions should evaluate the market-risk exposures of their securities and derivative positions and report this information to their boards of directors regularly, not less frequently than each quarter. These evaluations should assess trends in aggregate market-risk exposure and the performance of portfolios relative to their established objectives and risk constraints. They also should identify compliance with board-approved limits and identify any exceptions to established standards. Examiners should ensure that institutions have mechanisms to detect and adequately address exceptions to limits and guidelines. Examiners should also determine that management reporting on market risk appropriately addresses potential exposures to basis risk, yield curve changes, and other factors pertinent to the institution's holdings. In this connection, examiners should assess an institution's compliance with broader guidance for managing interest rate risk in a consolidated organization.
Complex and illiquid instruments often involve greater market risk than broadly traded, more liquid securities. Frequently, this higher potential market risk arising from illiquidity is not captured by standardized financial-modeling techniques. This type of risk is particularly acute for instruments that are highly leveraged or that are designed to benefit from specific, narrowly defined market shifts. If market prices or rates do not move as expected, the demand for these instruments can evaporate. When examiners encounter such instruments, they should review how adequately the institution has assessed its potential market risks. If the risks from these instruments are material, the institution should have a well-documented process for stress testing their value and liquidity assumptions under a variety of market scenarios.
Banks face two types of liquidity risk in their securities and derivative activities: risks related to specific products or markets and risks related to the general funding of their activities. The former, market-liquidity risk, is the risk that an institution cannot easily unwind or offset a particular position at or near the previous market price because of inadequate market depth or disruptions in the marketplace. The second, funding-liquidity risk, is the risk that the bank will be unable to meet its payment obligations on settlement dates. Since neither type of liquidity risk is unique to securities and derivative activities, management should evaluate these risks in the broader context of the institution's overall liquidity.
When specifying permissible securities and derivative instruments to accomplish established objectives, institutions should take into account the size, depth, and liquidity of the markets for specific instruments, and the effect these characteristics may have on achieving an objective. The market liquidity of certain types of instruments may make them entirely inappropriate for achieving certain objectives. Moreover, institutions should consider the effects that market risk can have on the liquidity of different types of instruments. For example, some government agency securities may have embedded options that make them highly illiquid during periods of market volatility and stress, despite their high credit rating. Accordingly, institutions should clearly articulate the market-liquidity characteristics of instruments to be used in accomplishing institutional objectives.
The funding risk of an institution becomes a more important consideration when its unrealized losses are material; therefore, this risk should be a factor in evaluating capital adequacy. Institutions with weak liquidity positions are more likely to be forced to recognize these losses and suffer declines in their accounting and regulatory capital. In extreme cases, these effects could force supervisors to take prompt corrective actions.
Examiners should assess whether the institution adequately considers the potential liquidity risks associated with the liquidation of securities or the early termination of derivative contracts. Many forms of standardized contracts for derivative transactions allow counterparties to request collateral or terminate their contracts early if the institution experiences an adverse credit event or a deterioration in its financial condition. In addition, under situations of market stress, customers may ask for the early termination of some contracts within the context of the dealer's market-making activities. In these circumstances, an institution that owes money on derivative transactions may be required to deliver collateral or settle a contract early; possibly at a time when the institution may face other funding and liquidity pressures. Early terminations may also open additional, unintended market positions. Management and directors should be aware of these potential liquidity risks and address them in the institution's liquidity plan and in the broader context of the institution's liquidity-management process. In their reviews, examiners should consider the extent to which such potential obligations could present liquidity risks to the institution.
Operating and Legal Risks
Operating risk is the risk that deficiencies
in information systems or internal controls will result in unexpected
loss. Some specific sources of operating risk include inadequate procedures,
human error, system failure, or fraud. Inaccurately assessing or controlling
operating risks is one of the more likely sources of problems facing institutions
involved in securities and derivative activities.
Institutions should have approved policies, consistent with legal requirements and internal policies, that specify documentation requirements for transactions and formal procedures for saving and safeguarding important documents. Relevant personnel should fully understand these requirements. Examiners should also consider the extent to which institutions evaluate and control operating risks through internal audits, stress testing, contingency planning, and other managerial and analytical techniques.
An institution's operating policies should establish appropriate procedures to obtain and maintain possession or control of instruments purchased. Institutions should ensure that transactions consummated orally are confirmed as soon as possible. As noted earlier in this section, banking organizations should, to the extent possible, seek to diversify the firms they use for their safekeeping arrangements to avoid concentrations of assets or other types of risk.
Legal risk is the risk that the contracts an institution enters into are not legally enforceable or documented correctly. This risk should be limited and managed through policies developed by the institution's legal counsel. At a minimum, guidelines and processes should be in place to ensure the enforceability of counterparty agreements. Examiners should determine whether an institution is adequately evaluating the enforceability of its agreements before individual transactions are consummated. Institutions should also ensure that a counterparty has sufficient authority to enter into the proposed transaction and that the terms of the agreement are legally sound. Institutions should further ascertain that their netting agreements are adequately documented, have been executed properly, and are enforceable in all relevant jurisdictions. Institutions should know about relevant tax laws and interpretations governing the use of netting instruments.
An institution's policies should also provide conflict-of-interest guidelines for employees who are directly involved in purchasing securities from and selling securities to securities dealers on behalf of their institution. These guidelines should ensure that all directors, officers, and employees act in the best interest of the institution. The board of directors may wish to adopt policies prohibiting these employees from engaging in personal securities transactions with these same securities firms without the specific prior approval of the board. The board of directors may also wish to adopt a policy applicable to directors, officers, and employees that restricts or prohibits them from receiving gifts, gratuities, or travel expenses from approved securities dealer firms and their personnel.
The same types of instruments exist in international banking as in domestic banking. Securities and derivative contracts may be acquired by a bank's international division and overseas branches, and foreign equity investments may be held by the bank directly or through Edge Act corporations. The investments held by most international divisions are predominately securities issued by various governmental entities of the countries in which the bank's foreign branches are located. These investments are held for a variety of purposes:
• They are required by various local
The examiner should be familiar with the applicable sections of Regulation K (12 CFR 211) governing a member bank's international investment holdings, as well as other regulations discussed in this section. Because of the mandatory investment requirements of some countries, securities held cannot always be as ''liquid'' and ''readily marketable'' as required in domestic banking. However, the amount of a bank's ''mandatory'' international holdings will normally be a relatively small amount of its total investments or capital funds.
A bank's international division may also hold securities strictly for investment purposes; these are expected to provide a reasonable rate of return commensurate with safety considerations. As with domestic investment securities, the bank's safety must take precedence, followed by liquidity and marketability requirements: Securities held by international divisions are considered to be liquid if they are readily convertible into cash at their approximate carrying value. They are marketable if they can be sold in a very short time at a price commensurate with yield and quality. Speculation in marginal foreign securities to generate more favorable yields is an unsound banking practice and should be discouraged.
Banks are generally prohibited from investing in stocks. However, a number of exceptions (detailed earlier in this section) are often applicable to the international division. For example, the bank may, under section 24A of the Federal Reserve Act (12 USC 371d), hold stock in overseas corporations that hold title to foreign bank premises. Both stock and other securities holdings as required by various laws of a particular country in which the bank maintains a branch may be permitted, with the permission of the Board, in unlimited amounts under section 211.3 of Regulation K-Foreign Branches of Member Banks (12 CFR 211). Other sections of Regulation K permit the bank to make equity investments in Edge Act and agreement corporations and in foreign banks, subject to certain limitations.
Standard & Poor's, Moody's, and other publications from U.S. rating services rate Canadian and other selected foreign securities that are authorized for U.S. commercial bank investment purposes under 12 USC 24(7). However, in many other countries, securities-rating services are limited or nonexistent. When they do exist, the ratings are only indicative and should be supplemented with additional information on legality, credit soundness, marketability, and foreign-exchange and country-risk factors. The opinions of local attorneys are often the best source of determining whether a particular foreign security has the full faith and credit backing of a country's government.
Sufficient analytical data must be provided to the bank's board of directors and senior management so they can make informed judgments about the effectiveness of the international division's investment policy and procedures. The institution's international securities and derivative contracts should be included on all board and management reports detailing domestic securities and derivative contracts. These reports should be timely and sufficiently detailed to allow the board of directors and senior management to understand and assess the credit, market, and liquidity risks facing the institution and its securities and derivative positions.
Continue to UNSUITABLE INVESTMENT PRACTICES
Back to Activities Manual Index