Skip to main content

Banks tout alternative to calculate CCP default fund capital charge

Dealers push for a more risk-sensitive model, but regulators may opt to incorporate a new non-internal modelled approach into the existing hypothetical capital method

Concept image representing boardroom risk

Derivatives dealers will today urge regulators to consider an alternative model to calculate the capital that banks must hold against their central counterparty (CCP) default fund exposures. The model is based on the incremental risk charge (IRC), introduced as part of Basel 2.5 to credit risk in the trading book, and will capture the risk of multiple clearing member defaults – something missing

Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.

To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe

You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.

Sorry, our subscription options are not loading right now

Please try again later. Get in touch with our customer services team if this issue persists.

New to Risk.net? View our subscription options

Want to know what’s included in our free membership? Click here

Show password
Hide password

The wild world of credit models

The Covid-19 pandemic has induced a kind of schizophrenia in loan-loss models. When the pandemic hit, banks overprovisioned for credit losses on the assumption that the economy would head south. But when government stimulus packages put wads of cash in…

Most read articles loading...

You need to sign in to use this feature. If you don’t have a Risk.net account, please register for a trial.

Sign in
You are currently on corporate access.

To use this feature you will need an individual account. If you have one already please sign in.

Sign in.

Alternatively you can request an individual account here