Credit risk mitigation - CRR Provision

Credit risk mitigation is defined, rather airily, inArticle 4(57) of the 575/2013/ (EUR Lex) as: 4(57) credit risk mitigation means a technique used by an institution to reduce the credit risk associated with an exposure or exposures which that institution continues to hold;

— Section 4(57), CRR

View Template

The concept-t of credit risk mitigation techniques originates in the Basel regulatory framework, which is in turn implemented by CRR. Basel is a little more specific, but still has a bit of the “Brexit means Brexit” about it. CRM techniques under the Basel Standardised Approach to Credit Risk framework are broken down as follows:

• Collateralised transactions: A bank has a credit exposure which it hedges in whole or in part by collateral posted by a counterparty or a credit support provider. (Often there is no more than a fag paper between a TTCA and an on-balance sheet netting arrangement).
• On-balance sheet netting: Legally enforceable close-out netting arrangements covering multiple transactions with offsetting mark-to-market values.
• Guarantees and credit derivatives: Guarantees provided by third parties (whose credit risk isn't materially correlated to the counterparty’s) or credit derivative transactions.

Now note a fundamental difference between legally enforceable netting arrangements and Guarantees: In a netting arrangement the full value of the offsetting transaction fully and automatically cancels out the corresponding exposure. There are no contingencies. By contrast, collateral arrangements that don’t amount to enforceable netting arrangements, guarantees and CDS transactions all depend for their effectiveness on the solvency of the person providing the credit mitigation – if the credit support provider fails, so does the credit mitigation and the exposure remains.

Credit risk mitigation against exposure negation

Note the difference between techniques which mitigate a credit risk that you nonetheless have — as above — and those which negate the credit exposure in the first place.

So, par example:

• A title-transfer collateral arrangement whereby a bank transfers collateral to a counterparty outright may, as part of a valid netting agreement, mitigate that collateral but it will leave an exposure for the return of any excess collateral should the MTM move (or any margin haircut); however
• A pledged collateral arrangement — at least to the exent that the bank doesn’t surrender legal title to the collateral at all — will leave the bank with no counterparty credit exposure at all to the haircut or excess, seeing as it remains the bank’s, and if the counterparty goes bust, the bank does not have to claim it from the counterparty’s insolvent estate.

Article 193 of CRD IV:

Regulatory Capital Anatomy™ The JC’s untutored thoughts on how bank capital works. →Go uptown {{{2}}} Capital Requirements Regulation: 575/2013/ (EUR Lex) | BIS publications: BIS capital requirements for bank exposures to central counterparties | leverage ratio | RWA | portfolio risk | systemic riskIndex: Click ᐅ to expand: Regulatory Capital Tell me more Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.