(a) Timing. (1) A Board-regulated institution that is described in § 217.100(b)(1)(i) and (ii) must adopt a written implementation plan no later than six months after the date the Board-regulated institution meets a criterion in that section. The implementation plan must incorporate an explicit start date no later than 36 months after the date the Board-regulated institution meets at least one criterion under § 217.100(b)(1)(i) and (ii). The Board may extend the start date.

(2) A Board-regulated institution that elects to be subject to this subpart under § 217.101(b)(1)(iii) must adopt a written implementation plan.

(b) Implementation plan. (1) The Board-regulated institution's implementation plan must address in detail how the Board-regulated institution complies, or plans to comply, with the qualification requirements in § 217.122. The Board-regulated institution also must maintain a comprehensive and sound planning and governance process to oversee the implementation efforts described in the plan. At a minimum, the plan must:

(i) Comprehensively address the qualification requirements in § 217.122 for the Board-regulated institution and each consolidated subsidiary (U.S. and foreign-based) of the Board-regulated institution with respect to all portfolios and exposures of the Board-regulated institution and each of its consolidated subsidiaries;

(ii) Justify and support any proposed temporary or permanent exclusion of business lines, portfolios, or exposures from the application of the advanced approaches in this subpart (which business lines, portfolios, and exposures must be, in the aggregate, immaterial to the Board-regulated institution);

(iii) Include the Board-regulated institution's self-assessment of:

(A) The Board-regulated institution's current status in meeting the qualification requirements in § 217.122; and

(B) The consistency of the Board-regulated institution's current practices with the Board's supervisory guidance on the qualification requirements;

(iv) Based on the Board-regulated institution's self-assessment, identify and describe the areas in which the Board-regulated institution proposes to undertake additional work to comply with the qualification requirements in § 217.122 or to improve the consistency of the Board-regulated institution's current practices with the Board's supervisory guidance on the qualification requirements (gap analysis);

(v) Describe what specific actions the Board-regulated institution will take to address the areas identified in the gap analysis required by paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of this section;

(vi) Identify objective, measurable milestones, including delivery dates and a date when the Board-regulated institution's implementation of the methodologies described in this subpart will be fully operational;

(vii) Describe resources that have been budgeted and are available to implement the plan; and

(viii) Receive approval of the Board-regulated institution's board of directors.

(2) The Board-regulated institution must submit the implementation plan, together with a copy of the minutes of the board of directors' approval, to the Board at least 60 days before the Board-regulated institution proposes to begin its parallel run, unless the Board waives prior notice.

(c) Parallel run. Before determining its risk-weighted assets under this subpart and following adoption of the implementation plan, the Board-regulated institution must conduct a satisfactory parallel run. A satisfactory parallel run is a period of no less than four consecutive calendar quarters during which the Board-regulated institution complies with the qualification requirements in § 217.122 to the satisfaction of the Board. During the parallel run, the Board-regulated institution must report to the Board on a calendar quarterly basis its risk-based capital ratios determined in accordance with § 217.10(b)(1) through (3) and § 217.10(d)(1) through (3). During this period, the Board-regulated institution's minimum risk-based capital ratios are determined as set forth in subpart D of this part.

(d) Approval to calculate risk-based capital requirements under this subpart. The Board will notify the Board-regulated institution of the date that the Board-regulated institution must begin to use this subpart for purposes of § 217.10 if the Board determines that:

(1) The Board-regulated institution fully complies with all the qualification requirements in § 217.122;

(2) The Board-regulated institution has conducted a satisfactory parallel run under paragraph (c) of this section; and

(3) The Board-regulated institution has an adequate process to ensure ongoing compliance with the qualification requirements in § 217.122.

(a) Process and systems requirements. (1) A Board-regulated institution must have a rigorous process for assessing its overall capital adequacy in relation to its risk profile and a comprehensive strategy for maintaining an appropriate level of capital.

(2) The systems and processes used by a Board-regulated institution for risk-based capital purposes under this subpart must be consistent with the Board-regulated institution's internal risk management processes and management information reporting systems.

(3) Each Board-regulated institution must have an appropriate infrastructure with risk measurement and management processes that meet the qualification requirements of this section and are appropriate given the Board-regulated institution's size and level of complexity. Regardless of whether the systems and models that generate the risk parameters necessary for calculating a Board-regulated institution's risk-based capital requirements are located at any affiliate of the Board-regulated institution, the Board-regulated institution itself must ensure that the risk parameters and reference data used to determine its risk-based capital requirements are representative of long run experience with respect to its own credit risk and operational risk exposures.

(b) Risk rating and segmentation systems for wholesale and retail exposures. (1)(i) A Board-regulated institution must have an internal risk rating and segmentation system that accurately, reliably, and meaningfully differentiates among degrees of credit risk for the Board-regulated institution's wholesale and retail exposures. When assigning an internal risk rating, a Board-regulated institution may consider a third-party assessment of credit risk, provided that the Board-regulated institution's internal risk rating assignment does not rely solely on the external assessment.

(ii) If a Board-regulated institution uses multiple rating or segmentation systems, the Board-regulated institution's rationale for assigning an obligor or exposure to a particular system must be documented and applied in a manner that best reflects the obligor or exposure's level of risk. A Board-regulated institution must not inappropriately allocate obligors or exposures across systems to minimize regulatory capital requirements.

(iii) In assigning ratings to wholesale obligors and exposures, including loss severity ratings grades to wholesale exposures, and assigning retail exposures to retail segments, a Board-regulated institution must use all relevant and material information and ensure that the information is current.

(iv) When assigning an obligor to a PD rating or retail exposure to a PD segment, a Board-regulated institution must assess the obligor or retail borrower's ability and willingness to contractually perform, taking a conservative view of projected information.

(2) For wholesale exposures:

(i) A Board-regulated institution must have an internal risk rating system that accurately and reliably assigns each obligor to a single rating grade (reflecting the obligor's likelihood of default). A Board-regulated institution may elect, however, not to assign to a rating grade an obligor to whom the Board-regulated institution extends credit based solely on the financial strength of a guarantor, provided that all of the Board-regulated institution's exposures to the obligor are fully covered by eligible guarantees, the Board-regulated institution applies the PD substitution approach in § 217.134(c)(1) to all exposures to that obligor, and the Board-regulated institution immediately assigns the obligor to a rating grade if a guarantee can no longer be recognized under this part. The Board-regulated institution's wholesale obligor rating system must have at least seven discrete rating grades for non-defaulted obligors and at least one rating grade for defaulted obligors.

(ii) Unless the Board-regulated institution has chosen to directly assign LGD estimates to each wholesale exposure, the Board-regulated institution must have an internal risk rating system that accurately and reliably assigns each wholesale exposure to a loss severity rating grade (reflecting the Board-regulated institution's estimate of the LGD of the exposure). A Board-regulated institution employing loss severity rating grades must have a sufficiently granular loss severity grading system to avoid grouping together exposures with widely ranging LGDs.

(iii) A Board-regulated institution must have an effective process to obtain and update in a timely manner relevant and material information on obligor and exposure characteristics that affect PD, LGD and EAD.

(3) For retail exposures:

(i) A Board-regulated institution must have an internal system that groups retail exposures into the appropriate retail exposure subcategory and groups the retail exposures in each retail exposure subcategory into separate segments with homogeneous risk characteristics that provide a meaningful differentiation of risk. The Board-regulated institution's system must identify and group in separate segments by subcategories exposures identified in § 217.131(c)(2)(ii) and (iii).

(ii) A Board-regulated institution must have an internal system that captures all relevant exposure risk characteristics, including borrower credit score, product and collateral types, as well as exposure delinquencies, and must consider cross-collateral provisions, where present.

(iii) The Board-regulated institution must review and, if appropriate, update assignments of individual retail exposures to segments and the loss characteristics and delinquency status of each identified risk segment. These reviews must occur whenever the Board-regulated institution receives new material information, but generally no less frequently than quarterly, and, in all cases, at least annually.

(4) The Board-regulated institution's internal risk rating policy for wholesale exposures must describe the Board-regulated institution's rating philosophy (that is, must describe how wholesale obligor rating assignments are affected by the Board-regulated institution's choice of the range of economic, business, and industry conditions that are considered in the obligor rating process).

(5) The Board-regulated institution's internal risk rating system for wholesale exposures must provide for the review and update (as appropriate) of each obligor rating and (if applicable) each loss severity rating whenever the Board-regulated institution obtains relevant and material information on the obligor or exposure that affects PD, LGD and EAD, but no less frequently than annually.

(c) Quantification of risk parameters for wholesale and retail exposures. (1) The Board-regulated institution must have a comprehensive risk parameter quantification process that produces accurate, timely, and reliable estimates of the risk parameters on a consistent basis for the Board-regulated institution's wholesale and retail exposures.

(2) A Board-regulated institution's estimates of PD, LGD, and EAD must incorporate all relevant, material, and available data that is reflective of the Board-regulated institution's actual wholesale and retail exposures and of sufficient quality to support the determination of risk-based capital requirements for the exposures. In particular, the population of exposures in the data used for estimation purposes, the lending standards in use when the data were generated, and other relevant characteristics, should closely match or be comparable to the Board-regulated institution's exposures and standards. In addition, a Board-regulated institution must:

(i) Demonstrate that its estimates are representative of long run experience, including periods of economic downturn conditions, whether internal or external data are used;

(ii) Take into account any changes in lending practice or the process for pursuing recoveries over the observation period;

(iii) Promptly reflect technical advances, new data, and other information as they become available;

(iv) Demonstrate that the data used to estimate risk parameters support the accuracy and robustness of those estimates; and

(v) Demonstrate that its estimation technique performs well in out-of-sample tests whenever possible.

(3) The Board-regulated institution's risk parameter quantification process must produce appropriately conservative risk parameter estimates where the Board-regulated institution has limited relevant data, and any adjustments that are part of the quantification process must not result in a pattern of bias toward lower risk parameter estimates.

(4) The Board-regulated institution's risk parameter estimation process should not rely on the possibility of U.S. government financial assistance, except for the financial assistance that the U.S. government has a legally binding commitment to provide.

(5) The Board-regulated institution must be able to demonstrate which variables have been found to be statistically significant with regard to EAD. The Board-regulated institution's EAD estimates must reflect its specific policies and strategies with regard to account management, including account monitoring and payment processing, and its ability and willingness to prevent further drawdowns in circumstances short of payment default. The Board-regulated institution must have adequate systems and procedures in place to monitor current outstanding amounts against committed lines, and changes in outstanding amounts per obligor and obligor rating grade and per retail segment. The Board-regulated institution must be able to monitor outstanding amounts on a daily basis.

(6) At a minimum, PD estimates for wholesale obligors and retail segments must be based on at least five years of default data. LGD estimates for wholesale exposures must be based on at least seven years of loss severity data, and LGD estimates for retail segments must be based on at least five years of loss severity data. EAD estimates for wholesale exposures must be based on at least seven years of exposure amount data, and EAD estimates for retail segments must be based on at least five years of exposure amount data. If the Board-regulated institution has relevant and material reference data that span a longer period of time than the minimum time periods specified above, the Board-regulated institution must incorporate such data in its estimates, provided that it does not place undue weight on periods of favorable or benign economic conditions relative to periods of economic downturn conditions.

(7) Default, loss severity, and exposure amount data must include periods of economic downturn conditions, or the Board-regulated institution must adjust its estimates of risk parameters to compensate for the lack of data from periods of economic downturn conditions.

(8) The Board-regulated institution's PD, LGD, and EAD estimates must be based on the definition of default in § 217.101.

(9) If a Board-regulated institution uses internal data obtained prior to becoming subject to this subpart E or external data to arrive at PD, LGD, or EAD estimates, the Board-regulated institution must demonstrate to the Board that the Board-regulated institution has made appropriate adjustments if necessary to be consistent with the definition of default in § 217.101. Internal data obtained after the Board-regulated institution becomes subject to this subpart E must be consistent with the definition of default in § 217.101.

(10) The Board-regulated institution must review and update (as appropriate) its risk parameters and its risk parameter quantification process at least annually.

(11) The Board-regulated institution must, at least annually, conduct a comprehensive review and analysis of reference data to determine relevance of the reference data to the Board-regulated institution's exposures, quality of reference data to support PD, LGD, and EAD estimates, and consistency of reference data to the definition of default in § 217.101.

(d) Counterparty credit risk model. A Board-regulated institution must obtain the prior written approval of the Board under § 217.132 to use the internal models methodology for counterparty credit risk and the advanced CVA approach for the CVA capital requirement.

(e) Double default treatment. A Board-regulated institution must obtain the prior written approval of the Board under § 217.135 to use the double default treatment.

(f) Equity exposures model. A Board-regulated institution must obtain the prior written approval of the Board under § 217.153 to use the internal models approach for equity exposures.

(g) Operational risk. (1) Operational risk management processes. A Board-regulated institution must:

(i) Have an operational risk management function that:

(A) Is independent of business line management; and

(B) Is responsible for designing, implementing, and overseeing the Board-regulated institution's operational risk data and assessment systems, operational risk quantification systems, and related processes;

(ii) Have and document a process (which must capture business environment and internal control factors affecting the Board-regulated institution's operational risk profile) to identify, measure, monitor, and control operational risk in the Board-regulated institution's products, activities, processes, and systems; and

(iii) Report operational risk exposures, operational loss events, and other relevant operational risk information to business unit management, senior management, and the board of directors (or a designated committee of the board).

(2) Operational risk data and assessment systems. A Board-regulated institution must have operational risk data and assessment systems that capture operational risks to which the Board-regulated institution is exposed. The Board-regulated institution's operational risk data and assessment systems must:

(i) Be structured in a manner consistent with the Board-regulated institution's current business activities, risk profile, technological processes, and risk management processes; and

(ii) Include credible, transparent, systematic, and verifiable processes that incorporate the following elements on an ongoing basis:

(A) Internal operational loss event data. The Board-regulated institution must have a systematic process for capturing and using internal operational loss event data in its operational risk data and assessment systems.

(1) The Board-regulated institution's operational risk data and assessment systems must include a historical observation period of at least five years for internal operational loss event data (or such shorter period approved by the Board to address transitional situations, such as integrating a new business line).

(2) The Board-regulated institution must be able to map its internal operational loss event data into the seven operational loss event type categories.

(3) The Board-regulated institution may refrain from collecting internal operational loss event data for individual operational losses below established dollar threshold amounts if the Board-regulated institution can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Board that the thresholds are reasonable, do not exclude important internal operational loss event data, and permit the Board-regulated institution to capture substantially all the dollar value of the Board-regulated institution's operational losses.

(B) External operational loss event data. The Board-regulated institution must have a systematic process for determining its methodologies for incorporating external operational loss event data into its operational risk data and assessment systems.

(C) Scenario analysis. The Board-regulated institution must have a systematic process for determining its methodologies for incorporating scenario analysis into its operational risk data and assessment systems.

(D) Business environment and internal control factors. The Board-regulated institution must incorporate business environment and internal control factors into its operational risk data and assessment systems. The Board-regulated institution must also periodically compare the results of its prior business environment and internal control factor assessments against its actual operational losses incurred in the intervening period.

(3) Operational risk quantification systems. (i) The Board-regulated institution's operational risk quantification systems:

(A) Must generate estimates of the Board-regulated institution's operational risk exposure using its operational risk data and assessment systems;

(B) Must employ a unit of measure that is appropriate for the Board-regulated institution's range of business activities and the variety of operational loss events to which it is exposed, and that does not combine business activities or operational loss events with demonstrably different risk profiles within the same loss distribution;

(C) Must include a credible, transparent, systematic, and verifiable approach for weighting each of the four elements, described in paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this section, that a Board-regulated institution is required to incorporate into its operational risk data and assessment systems;

(D) May use internal estimates of dependence among operational losses across and within units of measure if the Board-regulated institution can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Board that its process for estimating dependence is sound, robust to a variety of scenarios, and implemented with integrity, and allows for uncertainty surrounding the estimates. If the Board-regulated institution has not made such a demonstration, it must sum operational risk exposure estimates across units of measure to calculate its total operational risk exposure; and

(E) Must be reviewed and updated (as appropriate) whenever the Board-regulated institution becomes aware of information that may have a material effect on the Board-regulated institution's estimate of operational risk exposure, but the review and update must occur no less frequently than annually.

(ii) With the prior written approval of the Board, a state member bank may generate an estimate of its operational risk exposure using an alternative approach to that specified in paragraph (g)(3)(i) of this section. A state member bank proposing to use such an alternative operational risk quantification system must submit a proposal to the Board. In determining whether to approve a state member bank's proposal to use an alternative operational risk quantification system, the Board will consider the following principles:

(A) Use of the alternative operational risk quantification system will be allowed only on an exception basis, considering the size, complexity, and risk profile of the state member bank;

(B) The state member bank must demonstrate that its estimate of its operational risk exposure generated under the alternative operational risk quantification system is appropriate and can be supported empirically; and

(C) A state member bank must not use an allocation of operational risk capital requirements that includes entities other than depository institutions or the benefits of diversification across entities.

(h) Data management and maintenance. (1) A Board-regulated institution must have data management and maintenance systems that adequately support all aspects of its advanced systems and the timely and accurate reporting of risk-based capital requirements.

(2) A Board-regulated institution must retain data using an electronic format that allows timely retrieval of data for analysis, validation, reporting, and disclosure purposes.

(3) A Board-regulated institution must retain sufficient data elements related to key risk drivers to permit adequate monitoring, validation, and refinement of its advanced systems.

(i) Control, oversight, and validation mechanisms. (1) The Board-regulated institution's senior management must ensure that all components of the Board-regulated institution's advanced systems function effectively and comply with the qualification requirements in this section.

(2) The Board-regulated institution's board of directors (or a designated committee of the board) must at least annually review the effectiveness of, and approve, the Board-regulated institution's advanced systems.

(3) A Board-regulated institution must have an effective system of controls and oversight that:

(i) Ensures ongoing compliance with the qualification requirements in this section;

(ii) Maintains the integrity, reliability, and accuracy of the Board-regulated institution's advanced systems; and

(iii) Includes adequate governance and project management processes.

(4) The Board-regulated institution must validate, on an ongoing basis, its advanced systems. The Board-regulated institution's validation process must be independent of the advanced systems' development, implementation, and operation, or the validation process must be subjected to an independent review of its adequacy and effectiveness. Validation must include:

(i) An evaluation of the conceptual soundness of (including developmental evidence supporting) the advanced systems;

(ii) An ongoing monitoring process that includes verification of processes and benchmarking; and

(iii) An outcomes analysis process that includes backtesting.

(5) The Board-regulated institution must have an internal audit function or equivalent function that is independent of business-line management that at least annually:

(i) Reviews the Board-regulated institution's advanced systems and associated operations, including the operations of its credit function and estimations of PD, LGD, and EAD;

(ii) Assesses the effectiveness of the controls supporting the Board-regulated institution's advanced systems; and

(iii) Documents and reports its findings to the Board-regulated institution's board of directors (or a committee thereof).

(6) The Board-regulated institution must periodically stress test its advanced systems. The stress testing must include a consideration of how economic cycles, especially downturns, affect risk-based capital requirements (including migration across rating grades and segments and the credit risk mitigation benefits of double default treatment).

(j) Documentation. The Board-regulated institution must adequately document all material aspects of its advanced systems.

(a) Changes to advanced systems. A Board-regulated institution must meet all the qualification requirements in § 217.122 on an ongoing basis. A Board-regulated institution must notify the Board when the Board-regulated institution makes any change to an advanced system that would result in a material change in the Board-regulated institution's advanced approaches total risk-weighted asset amount for an exposure type or when the Board-regulated institution makes any significant change to its modeling assumptions.

(b) Failure to comply with qualification requirements. (1) If the Board determines that a Board-regulated institution that uses this subpart and that has conducted a satisfactory parallel run fails to comply with the qualification requirements in § 217.122, the Board will notify the Board-regulated institution in writing of the Board-regulated institution's failure to comply.

(2) The Board-regulated institution must establish and submit a plan satisfactory to the Board to return to compliance with the qualification requirements.

(3) In addition, if the Board determines that the Board-regulated institution's advanced approaches total risk-weighted assets are not commensurate with the Board-regulated institution's credit, market, operational, or other risks, the Board may require such a Board-regulated institution to calculate its advanced approaches total risk-weighted assets with any modifications provided by the Board.

(a) Mergers and acquisitions of companies without advanced systems. If a Board-regulated institution merges with or acquires a company that does not calculate its risk-based capital requirements using advanced systems, the Board-regulated institution may use subpart D of this part to determine the risk-weighted asset amounts for the merged or acquired company's exposures for up to 24 months after the calendar quarter during which the merger or acquisition consummates. The Board may extend this transition period for up to an additional 12 months. Within 90 days of consummating the merger or acquisition, the Board-regulated institution must submit to the Board an implementation plan for using its advanced systems for the acquired company. During the period in which subpart D of this part applies to the merged or acquired company, any ALLL or AACL, as applicable, net of allocated transfer risk reserves established pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 3904, associated with the merged or acquired company's exposures may be included in the acquiring Board-regulated institution's tier 2 capital up to 1.25 percent of the acquired company's risk-weighted assets. All general allowances of the merged or acquired company must be excluded from the Board-regulated institution's eligible credit reserves. In addition, the risk-weighted assets of the merged or acquired company are not included in the Board-regulated institution's credit-risk-weighted assets but are included in total risk-weighted assets. If a Board-regulated institution relies on this paragraph (a), the Board-regulated institution must disclose publicly the amounts of risk-weighted assets and qualifying capital calculated under this subpart for the acquiring Board-regulated institution and under subpart D of this part for the acquired company.

(b) Mergers and acquisitions of companies with advanced systems. (1) If a Board-regulated institution merges with or acquires a company that calculates its risk-based capital requirements using advanced systems, the Board-regulated institution may use the acquired company's advanced systems to determine total risk-weighted assets for the merged or acquired company's exposures for up to 24 months after the calendar quarter during which the acquisition or merger consummates. The Board may extend this transition period for up to an additional 12 months. Within 90 days of consummating the merger or acquisition, the Board-regulated institution must submit to the Board an implementation plan for using its advanced systems for the merged or acquired company.

(2) If the acquiring Board-regulated institution is not subject to the advanced approaches in this subpart at the time of acquisition or merger, during the period when subpart D of this part applies to the acquiring Board-regulated institution, the ALLL or AACL, as applicable, associated with the exposures of the merged or acquired company may not be directly included in tier 2 capital. Rather, any excess eligible credit reserves associated with the merged or acquired company's exposures may be included in the Board-regulated institution's tier 2 capital up to 0.6 percent of the credit-risk-weighted assets associated with those exposures.

(a) Purpose. This subpart E establishes:

(1) Minimum qualifying criteria for Board-regulated institutions using institution-specific internal risk measurement and management processes for calculating risk-based capital requirements; and

(2) Methodologies for such Board-regulated institutions to calculate their total risk-weighted assets.

(b) Applicability. (1) This subpart applies to:

(i) A top-tier bank holding company or savings and loan holding company domiciled in the United States that:

(A) Is not a consolidated subsidiary of another bank holding company or savings and loan holding company that uses this subpart to calculate its risk-based capital requirements; and

(B) That:

(1) Is identified as a global systemically important BHC pursuant to § 217.402;

(2) Is identified as a Category II banking organization pursuant to 12 CFR 252.5 or 12 CFR 238.10; or

(3) Has a subsidiary depository institution that is required, or has elected, to use 12 CFR part 3, subpart E (OCC), this subpart (Board), or 12 CFR part 324, subpart E (FDIC), to calculate its risk-based capital requirements;

(ii) A state member bank that:

(A) Is a subsidiary of a global systemically important BHC;

(B) Is a Category II Board-regulated institution;

(C) Is a subsidiary of a depository institution that uses 12 CFR part 3, subpart E (OCC), this subpart (Board), or 12 CFR part 324, subpart E (FDIC), to calculate its risk-based capital requirements; or

(D) Is a subsidiary of a bank holding company or savings and loan holding company that uses this subpart to calculate its risk-based capital requirements; or

(iii) Any Board-regulated institution that elects to use this subpart to calculate its risk-based capital requirements.

(2) A market risk Board-regulated institution must exclude from its calculation of risk-weighted assets under this subpart the risk-weighted asset amounts of all covered positions, as defined in subpart F of this part (except foreign exchange positions that are not trading positions, over-the-counter derivative positions, cleared transactions, and unsettled transactions).

(c) Principle of conservatism. Notwithstanding the requirements of this subpart, a Board-regulated institution may choose not to apply a provision of this subpart to one or more exposures provided that:

(1) The Board-regulated institution can demonstrate on an ongoing basis to the satisfaction of the Board that not applying the provision would, in all circumstances, unambiguously generate a risk-based capital requirement for each such exposure greater than that which would otherwise be required under this subpart;

(2) The Board-regulated institution appropriately manages the risk of each such exposure;

(3) The Board-regulated institution notifies the Board in writing prior to applying this principle to each such exposure; and

(4) The exposures to which the Board-regulated institution applies this principle are not, in the aggregate, material to the Board-regulated institution.

(a) Terms that are set forth in § 217.2 and used in this subpart have the definitions assigned thereto in § 217.2.

(b) For the purposes of this subpart, the following terms are defined as follows:

Advanced internal ratings-based (IRB) systems means an advanced approaches Board-regulated institution's internal risk rating and segmentation system; risk parameter quantification system; data management and maintenance system; and control, oversight, and validation system for credit risk of wholesale and retail exposures.

Advanced systems means an advanced approaches Board-regulated institution's advanced IRB systems, operational risk management processes, operational risk data and assessment systems, operational risk quantification systems, and, to the extent used by the Board-regulated institution, the internal models methodology, advanced CVA approach, double default excessive correlation detection process, and internal models approach (IMA) for equity exposures.

Backtesting means the comparison of a Board-regulated institution's internal estimates with actual outcomes during a sample period not used in model development. In this context, backtesting is one form of out-of-sample testing.

Benchmarking means the comparison of a Board-regulated institution's internal estimates with relevant internal and external data or with estimates based on other estimation techniques.

Bond option contract means a bond option, bond future, or any other instrument linked to a bond that gives rise to similar counterparty credit risk.

Business environment and internal control factors means the indicators of a Board-regulated institution's operational risk profile that reflect a current and forward-looking assessment of the Board-regulated institution's underlying business risk factors and internal control environment.

Credit default swap (CDS) means a financial contract executed under standard industry documentation that allows one party (the protection purchaser) to transfer the credit risk of one or more exposures (reference exposure(s)) to another party (the protection provider) for a certain period of time.

Credit valuation adjustment (CVA) means the fair value adjustment to reflect counterparty credit risk in valuation of OTC derivative contracts.

Default—For the purposes of calculating capital requirements under this subpart:

(1) Retail. (i) A retail exposure of a Board-regulated institution is in default if:

(A) The exposure is 180 days past due, in the case of a residential mortgage exposure or revolving exposure;

(B) The exposure is 120 days past due, in the case of retail exposures that are not residential mortgage exposures or revolving exposures; or

(C) The Board-regulated institution has taken a full or partial charge-off, write-down of principal, or material negative fair value adjustment of principal on the exposure for credit-related reasons.

(ii) Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(i) of this definition, for a retail exposure held by a non-U.S. subsidiary of the Board-regulated institution that is subject to an internal ratings-based approach to capital adequacy consistent with the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision's “International Convergence of Capital Measurement and Capital Standards: A Revised Framework” in a non-U.S. jurisdiction, the Board-regulated institution may elect to use the definition of default that is used in that jurisdiction, provided that the Board-regulated institution has obtained prior approval from the Board to use the definition of default in that jurisdiction.

(iii) A retail exposure in default remains in default until the Board-regulated institution has reasonable assurance of repayment and performance for all contractual principal and interest payments on the exposure.

(2) Wholesale. (i) A Board-regulated institution's wholesale obligor is in default if:

(A) The Board-regulated institution determines that the obligor is unlikely to pay its credit obligations to the Board-regulated institution in full, without recourse by the Board-regulated institution to actions such as realizing collateral (if held); or

(B) The obligor is past due more than 90 days on any material credit obligation(s) to the Board-regulated institution. 29

(ii) An obligor in default remains in default until the Board-regulated institution has reasonable assurance of repayment and performance for all contractual principal and interest payments on all exposures of the Board-regulated institution to the obligor (other than exposures that have been fully written-down or charged-off).

Dependence means a measure of the association among operational losses across and within units of measure.

Economic downturn conditions means, with respect to an exposure held by the Board-regulated institution, those conditions in which the aggregate default rates for that exposure's wholesale or retail exposure subcategory (or subdivision of such subcategory selected by the Board-regulated institution) in the exposure's national jurisdiction (or subdivision of such jurisdiction selected by the Board-regulated institution) are significantly higher than average.

Effective maturity (M) of a wholesale exposure means:

(1) For wholesale exposures other than repo-style transactions, eligible margin loans, and OTC derivative contracts described in paragraph (2) or (3) of this definition:

(i) The weighted-average remaining maturity (measured in years, whole or fractional) of the expected contractual cash flows from the exposure, using the undiscounted amounts of the cash flows as weights; or

(ii) The nominal remaining maturity (measured in years, whole or fractional) of the exposure.

(2) For repo-style transactions, eligible margin loans, and OTC derivative contracts subject to a qualifying master netting agreement for which the Board-regulated institution does not apply the internal models approach in section 132(d), the weighted-average remaining maturity (measured in years, whole or fractional) of the individual transactions subject to the qualifying master netting agreement, with the weight of each individual transaction set equal to the notional amount of the transaction.

(3) For repo-style transactions, eligible margin loans, and OTC derivative contracts for which the Board-regulated institution applies the internal models approach in § 217.132(d), the value determined in § 217.132(d)(4).

Eligible double default guarantor, with respect to a guarantee or credit derivative obtained by a Board-regulated institution, means:

(1) U.S.-based entities. A depository institution, a bank holding company, a savings and loan holding company, or a securities broker or dealer registered with the SEC under the Securities Exchange Act, if at the time the guarantee is issued or anytime thereafter, has issued and outstanding an unsecured debt security without credit enhancement that is investment grade.

(2) Non-U.S.-based entities. A foreign bank, or a non-U.S.-based securities firm if the Board-regulated institution demonstrates that the guarantor is subject to consolidated supervision and regulation comparable to that imposed on U.S. depository institutions, or securities broker-dealers) if at the time the guarantee is issued or anytime thereafter, has issued and outstanding an unsecured debt security without credit enhancement that is investment grade.

Eligible operational risk offsets means amounts, not to exceed expected operational loss, that:

(1) Are generated by internal business practices to absorb highly predictable and reasonably stable operational losses, including reserves calculated consistent with GAAP; and

(2) Are available to cover expected operational losses with a high degree of certainty over a one-year horizon.

Eligible purchased wholesale exposure means a purchased wholesale exposure that:

(1) The Board-regulated institution or securitization SPE purchased from an unaffiliated seller and did not directly or indirectly originate;

(2) Was generated on an arm's-length basis between the seller and the obligor (intercompany accounts receivable and receivables subject to contra-accounts between firms that buy and sell to each other do not satisfy this criterion);

(3) Provides the Board-regulated institution or securitization SPE with a claim on all proceeds from the exposure or a pro rata interest in the proceeds from the exposure;

(4) Has an M of less than one year; and

(5) When consolidated by obligor, does not represent a concentrated exposure relative to the portfolio of purchased wholesale exposures.

Expected exposure (EE) means the expected value of the probability distribution of non-negative credit risk exposures to a counterparty at any specified future date before the maturity date of the longest term transaction in the netting set. Any negative fair values in the probability distribution of fair values to a counterparty at a specified future date are set to zero to convert the probability distribution of fair values to the probability distribution of credit risk exposures.

Expected operational loss (EOL) means the expected value of the distribution of potential aggregate operational losses, as generated by the Board-regulated institution's operational risk quantification system using a one-year horizon.

Expected positive exposure (EPE) means the weighted average over time of expected (non-negative) exposures to a counterparty where the weights are the proportion of the time interval that an individual expected exposure represents. When calculating risk-based capital requirements, the average is taken over a one-year horizon.

Exposure at default (EAD) means:

(1) For the on-balance sheet component of a wholesale exposure or segment of retail exposures (other than an OTC derivative contract, a repo-style transaction or eligible margin loan for which the Board-regulated institution determines EAD under § 217.132, a cleared transaction, or default fund contribution), EAD means the Board-regulated institution's carrying value (including net accrued but unpaid interest and fees) for the exposure or segment less any allocated transfer risk reserve for the exposure or segment.

(2) For the off-balance sheet component of a wholesale exposure or segment of retail exposures (other than an OTC derivative contract, a repo-style transaction or eligible margin loan for which the Board-regulated institution determines EAD under § 217.132, cleared transaction, or default fund contribution) in the form of a loan commitment, line of credit, trade-related letter of credit, or transaction-related contingency, EAD means the Board-regulated institution's best estimate of net additions to the outstanding amount owed the Board-regulated institution, including estimated future additional draws of principal and accrued but unpaid interest and fees, that are likely to occur over a one-year horizon assuming the wholesale exposure or the retail exposures in the segment were to go into default. This estimate of net additions must reflect what would be expected during economic downturn conditions. For the purposes of this definition:

(i) Trade-related letters of credit are short-term, self-liquidating instruments that are used to finance the movement of goods and are collateralized by the underlying goods.

(ii) Transaction-related contingencies relate to a particular transaction and include, among other things, performance bonds and performance-based letters of credit.

(3) For the off-balance sheet component of a wholesale exposure or segment of retail exposures (other than an OTC derivative contract, a repo-style transaction, or eligible margin loan for which the Board-regulated institution determines EAD under § 217.132, cleared transaction, or default fund contribution) in the form of anything other than a loan commitment, line of credit, trade-related letter of credit, or transaction-related contingency, EAD means the notional amount of the exposure or segment.

(4) EAD for OTC derivative contracts is calculated as described in § 217.132. A Board-regulated institution also may determine EAD for repo-style transactions and eligible margin loans as described in § 217.132.

Exposure category means any of the wholesale, retail, securitization, or equity exposure categories.

External operational loss event data means, with respect to a Board-regulated institution, gross operational loss amounts, dates, recoveries, and relevant causal information for operational loss events occurring at organizations other than the Board-regulated institution.

IMM exposure means a repo-style transaction, eligible margin loan, or OTC derivative for which a Board-regulated institution calculates its EAD using the internal models methodology of § 217.132(d).

Internal operational loss event data means, with respect to a Board-regulated institution, gross operational loss amounts, dates, recoveries, and relevant causal information for operational loss events occurring at the Board-regulated institution.

Loss given default (LGD) means:

(1) For a wholesale exposure, the greatest of:

(i) Zero;

(ii) The Board-regulated institution's empirically based best estimate of the long-run default-weighted average economic loss, per dollar of EAD, the Board-regulated institution would expect to incur if the obligor (or a typical obligor in the loss severity grade assigned by the Board-regulated institution to the exposure) were to default within a one-year horizon over a mix of economic conditions, including economic downturn conditions; or

(iii) The Board-regulated institution's empirically based best estimate of the economic loss, per dollar of EAD, the Board-regulated institution would expect to incur if the obligor (or a typical obligor in the loss severity grade assigned by the Board-regulated institution to the exposure) were to default within a one-year horizon during economic downturn conditions.

(2) For a segment of retail exposures, the greatest of:

(i) Zero;

(ii) The Board-regulated institution's empirically based best estimate of the long-run default-weighted average economic loss, per dollar of EAD, the Board-regulated institution would expect to incur if the exposures in the segment were to default within a one-year horizon over a mix of economic conditions, including economic downturn conditions; or

(iii) The Board-regulated institution's empirically based best estimate of the economic loss, per dollar of EAD, the Board-regulated institution would expect to incur if the exposures in the segment were to default within a one-year horizon during economic downturn conditions.

(3) The economic loss on an exposure in the event of default is all material credit-related losses on the exposure (including accrued but unpaid interest or fees, losses on the sale of collateral, direct workout costs, and an appropriate allocation of indirect workout costs). Where positive or negative cash flows on a wholesale exposure to a defaulted obligor or a defaulted retail exposure (including proceeds from the sale of collateral, workout costs, additional extensions of credit to facilitate repayment of the exposure, and draw-downs of unused credit lines) occur after the date of default, the economic loss must reflect the net present value of cash flows as of the default date using a discount rate appropriate to the risk of the defaulted exposure.

Obligor means the legal entity or natural person contractually obligated on a wholesale exposure, except that a Board-regulated institution may treat the following exposures as having separate obligors:

(1) Exposures to the same legal entity or natural person denominated in different currencies;

(2)(i) An income-producing real estate exposure for which all or substantially all of the repayment of the exposure is reliant on the cash flows of the real estate serving as collateral for the exposure; the Board-regulated institution, in economic substance, does not have recourse to the borrower beyond the real estate collateral; and no cross-default or cross-acceleration clauses are in place other than clauses obtained solely out of an abundance of caution; and

(ii) Other credit exposures to the same legal entity or natural person; and

(3)(i) A wholesale exposure authorized under section 364 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. 364) to a legal entity or natural person who is a debtor-in-possession for purposes of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code; and

(ii) Other credit exposures to the same legal entity or natural person.

Operational loss means a loss (excluding insurance or tax effects) resulting from an operational loss event. Operational loss includes all expenses associated with an operational loss event except for opportunity costs, forgone revenue, and costs related to risk management and control enhancements implemented to prevent future operational losses.

Operational loss event means an event that results in loss and is associated with any of the following seven operational loss event type categories:

(1) Internal fraud, which means the operational loss event type category that comprises operational losses resulting from an act involving at least one internal party of a type intended to defraud, misappropriate property, or circumvent regulations, the law, or company policy excluding diversity- and discrimination-type events.

(2) External fraud, which means the operational loss event type category that comprises operational losses resulting from an act by a third party of a type intended to defraud, misappropriate property, or circumvent the law. Retail credit card losses arising from non-contractual, third-party-initiated fraud (for example, identity theft) are external fraud operational losses. All other third-party-initiated credit losses are to be treated as credit risk losses.

(3) Employment practices and workplace safety, which means the operational loss event type category that comprises operational losses resulting from an act inconsistent with employment, health, or safety laws or agreements, payment of personal injury claims, or payment arising from diversity- and discrimination-type events.

(4) Clients, products, and business practices, which means the operational loss event type category that comprises operational losses resulting from the nature or design of a product or from an unintentional or negligent failure to meet a professional obligation to specific clients (including fiduciary and suitability requirements).

(5) Damage to physical assets, which means the operational loss event type category that comprises operational losses resulting from the loss of or damage to physical assets from natural disaster or other events.

(6) Business disruption and system failures, which means the operational loss event type category that comprises operational losses resulting from disruption of business or system failures.

(7) Execution, delivery, and process management, which means the operational loss event type category that comprises operational losses resulting from failed transaction processing or process management or losses arising from relations with trade counterparties and vendors.

Operational risk means the risk of loss resulting from inadequate or failed internal processes, people, and systems or from external events (including legal risk but excluding strategic and reputational risk).

Operational risk exposure means the 99.9th percentile of the distribution of potential aggregate operational losses, as generated by the Board-regulated institution's operational risk quantification system over a one-year horizon (and not incorporating eligible operational risk offsets or qualifying operational risk mitigants).

Other retail exposure means an exposure (other than a securitization exposure, an equity exposure, a residential mortgage exposure, a pre-sold construction loan, a qualifying revolving exposure, or the residual value portion of a lease exposure) that is managed as part of a segment of exposures with homogeneous risk characteristics, not on an individual-exposure basis, and is either:

(1) An exposure to an individual for non-business purposes; or

(2) An exposure to an individual or company for business purposes if the Board-regulated institution's consolidated business credit exposure to the individual or company is $1 million or less.

Probability of default (PD) means:

(1) For a wholesale exposure to a non-defaulted obligor, the Board-regulated institution's empirically based best estimate of the long-run average one-year default rate for the rating grade assigned by the Board-regulated institution to the obligor, capturing the average default experience for obligors in the rating grade over a mix of economic conditions (including economic downturn conditions) sufficient to provide a reasonable estimate of the average one-year default rate over the economic cycle for the rating grade.

(2) For a segment of non-defaulted retail exposures, the Board-regulated institution's empirically based best estimate of the long-run average one-year default rate for the exposures in the segment, capturing the average default experience for exposures in the segment over a mix of economic conditions (including economic downturn conditions) sufficient to provide a reasonable estimate of the average one-year default rate over the economic cycle for the segment.

(3) For a wholesale exposure to a defaulted obligor or segment of defaulted retail exposures, 100 percent.

Qualifying cross-product master netting agreement means a qualifying master netting agreement that provides for termination and close-out netting across multiple types of financial transactions or qualifying master netting agreements in the event of a counterparty's default, provided that the underlying financial transactions are OTC derivative contracts, eligible margin loans, or repo-style transactions. In order to treat an agreement as a qualifying cross-product master netting agreement for purposes of this subpart, a Board-regulated institution must comply with the requirements of § 217.3(c) of this part with respect to that agreement.

Qualifying revolving exposure (QRE) means an exposure (other than a securitization exposure or equity exposure) to an individual that is managed as part of a segment of exposures with homogeneous risk characteristics, not on an individual-exposure basis, and:

(1) Is revolving (that is, the amount outstanding fluctuates, determined largely by a borrower's decision to borrow and repay up to a pre-established maximum amount, except for an outstanding amount that the borrower is required to pay in full every month);

(2) Is unsecured and unconditionally cancelable by the Board-regulated institution to the fullest extent permitted by Federal law; and

(3)(i) Has a maximum contractual exposure amount (drawn plus undrawn) of up to $100,000; or

(ii) With respect to a product with an outstanding amount that the borrower is required to pay in full every month, the total outstanding amount does not in practice exceed $100,000.

(4) A segment of exposures that contains one or more exposures that fails to meet paragraph (3)(ii) of this definition must be treated as a segment of other retail exposures for the 24 month period following the month in which the total outstanding amount of one or more exposures individually exceeds $100,000.

Retail exposure means a residential mortgage exposure, a qualifying revolving exposure, or an other retail exposure.

Retail exposure subcategory means the residential mortgage exposure, qualifying revolving exposure, or other retail exposure subcategory.

Risk parameter means a variable used in determining risk-based capital requirements for wholesale and retail exposures, specifically probability of default (PD), loss given default (LGD), exposure at default (EAD), or effective maturity (M).

Scenario analysis means a systematic process of obtaining expert opinions from business managers and risk management experts to derive reasoned assessments of the likelihood and loss impact of plausible high-severity operational losses. Scenario analysis may include the well-reasoned evaluation and use of external operational loss event data, adjusted as appropriate to ensure relevance to a Board-regulated institution's operational risk profile and control structure.

Total wholesale and retail risk-weighted assets means the sum of:

(1) Risk-weighted assets for wholesale exposures that are not IMM exposures, cleared transactions, or default fund contributions to non-defaulted obligors and segments of non-defaulted retail exposures;

(2) Risk-weighted assets for wholesale exposures to defaulted obligors and segments of defaulted retail exposures;

(3) Risk-weighted assets for assets not defined by an exposure category;

(4) Risk-weighted assets for non-material portfolios of exposures;

(5) Risk-weighted assets for IMM exposures (as determined in § 217.132(d));

(6) Risk-weighted assets for cleared transactions and risk-weighted assets for default fund contributions (as determined in § 217.133); and

(7) Risk-weighted assets for unsettled transactions (as determined in § 217.136).

Unexpected operational loss (UOL) means the difference between the Board-regulated institution's operational risk exposure and the Board-regulated institution's expected operational loss.

Unit of measure means the level (for example, organizational unit or operational loss event type) at which the Board-regulated institution's operational risk quantification system generates a separate distribution of potential operational losses.

Wholesale exposure means a credit exposure to a company, natural person, sovereign, or governmental entity (other than a securitization exposure, retail exposure, pre-sold construction loan, or equity exposure).

Wholesale exposure subcategory means the HVCRE or non-HVCRE wholesale exposure subcategory.

(a) Overview. A Board-regulated institution must calculate its total wholesale and retail risk-weighted asset amount in four distinct phases:

(1) Phase 1—categorization of exposures;

(2) Phase 2—assignment of wholesale obligors and exposures to rating grades and segmentation of retail exposures;

(3) Phase 3—assignment of risk parameters to wholesale exposures and segments of retail exposures; and

(4) Phase 4—calculation of risk-weighted asset amounts.

(b) Phase 1—Categorization. The Board-regulated institution must determine which of its exposures are wholesale exposures, retail exposures, securitization exposures, or equity exposures. The Board-regulated institution must categorize each retail exposure as a residential mortgage exposure, a QRE, or another retail exposure. The Board-regulated institution must identify which wholesale exposures are HVCRE exposures, sovereign exposures, OTC derivative contracts, repo-style transactions, eligible margin loans, eligible purchased wholesale exposures, cleared transactions, default fund contributions, and unsettled transactions to which § 217.136 applies, and eligible guarantees or eligible credit derivatives that are used as credit risk mitigants. The Board-regulated institution must identify any on-balance sheet asset that does not meet the definition of a wholesale, retail, equity, or securitization exposure, any non-material portfolio of exposures described in paragraph (e)(4) of this section, and for bank holding companies and savings and loan holding companies, any on-balance sheet asset that is held in a non-guaranteed separate account.

(c) Phase 2—Assignment of wholesale obligors and exposures to rating grades and retail exposures to segments—(1) Assignment of wholesale obligors and exposures to rating grades.

(i) The Board-regulated institution must assign each obligor of a wholesale exposure to a single obligor rating grade and must assign each wholesale exposure to which it does not directly assign an LGD estimate to a loss severity rating grade.

(ii) The Board-regulated institution must identify which of its wholesale obligors are in default.

(2) Segmentation of retail exposures. (i) The Board-regulated institution must group the retail exposures in each retail subcategory into segments that have homogeneous risk characteristics.

(ii) The Board-regulated institution must identify which of its retail exposures are in default. The Board-regulated institution must segment defaulted retail exposures separately from non-defaulted retail exposures.

(iii) If the Board-regulated institution determines the EAD for eligible margin loans using the approach in § 217.132(b), the Board-regulated institution must identify which of its retail exposures are eligible margin loans for which the Board-regulated institution uses this EAD approach and must segment such eligible margin loans separately from other retail exposures.

(3) Eligible purchased wholesale exposures. A Board-regulated institution may group its eligible purchased wholesale exposures into segments that have homogeneous risk characteristics. A Board-regulated institution must use the wholesale exposure formula in Table 1 of this section to determine the risk-based capital requirement for each segment of eligible purchased wholesale exposures.

(d) Phase 3—Assignment of risk parameters to wholesale exposures and segments of retail exposures—(1) Quantification process. Subject to the limitations in this paragraph (d), the Board-regulated institution must:

(i) Associate a PD with each wholesale obligor rating grade;

(ii) Associate an LGD with each wholesale loss severity rating grade or assign an LGD to each wholesale exposure;

(iii) Assign an EAD and M to each wholesale exposure; and

(iv) Assign a PD, LGD, and EAD to each segment of retail exposures.

(2) Floor on PD assignment. The PD for each wholesale obligor or retail segment may not be less than 0.03 percent, except for exposures to or directly and unconditionally guaranteed by a sovereign entity, the Bank for International Settlements, the International Monetary Fund, the European Commission, the European Central Bank, the European Stability Mechanism, the European Financial Stability Facility, or a multilateral development bank, to which the Board-regulated institution assigns a rating grade associated with a PD of less than 0.03 percent.

(3) Floor on LGD estimation. The LGD for each segment of residential mortgage exposures may not be less than 10 percent, except for segments of residential mortgage exposures for which all or substantially all of the principal of each exposure is either:

(i) Directly and unconditionally guaranteed by the full faith and credit of a sovereign entity; or

(ii) Guaranteed by a contingent obligation of the U.S. government or its agencies, the enforceability of which is dependent upon some affirmative action on the part of the beneficiary of the guarantee or a third party (for example, meeting servicing requirements).

(4) Eligible purchased wholesale exposures. A Board-regulated institution must assign a PD, LGD, EAD, and M to each segment of eligible purchased wholesale exposures. If the Board-regulated institution can estimate ECL (but not PD or LGD) for a segment of eligible purchased wholesale exposures, the Board-regulated institution must assume that the LGD of the segment equals 100 percent and that the PD of the segment equals ECL divided by EAD. The estimated ECL must be calculated for the exposures without regard to any assumption of recourse or guarantees from the seller or other parties.

(5) Credit risk mitigation: credit derivatives, guarantees, and collateral. (i) A Board-regulated institution may take into account the risk reducing effects of eligible guarantees and eligible credit derivatives in support of a wholesale exposure by applying the PD substitution or LGD adjustment treatment to the exposure as provided in § 217.134 or, if applicable, applying double default treatment to the exposure as provided in § 217.135. A Board-regulated institution may decide separately for each wholesale exposure that qualifies for the double default treatment under § 217.135 whether to apply the double default treatment or to use the PD substitution or LGD adjustment treatment without recognizing double default effects.

(ii) A Board-regulated institution may take into account the risk reducing effects of guarantees and credit derivatives in support of retail exposures in a segment when quantifying the PD and LGD of the segment. In doing so, a Board-regulated institution must consider all relevant available information.

(iii) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(6) of this section, a Board-regulated institution may take into account the risk reducing effects of collateral in support of a wholesale exposure when quantifying the LGD of the exposure, and may take into account the risk reducing effects of collateral in support of retail exposures when quantifying the PD and LGD of the segment. In order to do so, a Board-regulated institution must have established internal requirements for collateral management, legal certainty, and risk management processes.

(6) EAD for OTC derivative contracts, repo-style transactions, and eligible margin loans. A Board-regulated institution must calculate its EAD for an OTC derivative contract as provided in § 217.132 (c) and (d). A Board-regulated institution may take into account the risk-reducing effects of financial collateral in support of a repo-style transaction or eligible margin loan and of any collateral in support of a repo-style transaction that is included in the Board-regulated institution's VaR-based measure under subpart F of this part through an adjustment to EAD as provided in § 217.132(b) and (d). A Board-regulated institution that takes collateral into account through such an adjustment to EAD under § 217.132 may not reflect such collateral in LGD.

(7) Effective maturity. An exposure's M must be no greater than five years and no less than one year, except that an exposure's M must be no less than one day if the exposure is a trade related letter of credit, or if the exposure has an original maturity of less than one year and is not part of a Board-regulated institution's ongoing financing of the obligor. An exposure is not part of a Board-regulated institution's ongoing financing of the obligor if the Board-regulated institution:

(i) Has a legal and practical ability not to renew or roll over the exposure in the event of credit deterioration of the obligor;

(ii) Makes an independent credit decision at the inception of the exposure and at every renewal or roll over; and

(iii) Has no substantial commercial incentive to continue its credit relationship with the obligor in the event of credit deterioration of the obligor.

(8) EAD for exposures to certain central counterparties. A Board-regulated institution may attribute an EAD of zero to exposures that arise from the settlement of cash transactions (such as equities, fixed income, spot foreign exchange, and spot commodities) with a central counterparty where there is no assumption of ongoing counterparty credit risk by the central counterparty after settlement of the trade and associated default fund contributions.

(e) Phase 4—Calculation of risk-weighted assets—(1) Non-defaulted exposures. (i) A Board-regulated institution must calculate the dollar risk-based capital requirement for each of its wholesale exposures to a non-defaulted obligor (except for eligible guarantees and eligible credit derivatives that hedge another wholesale exposure, IMM exposures, cleared transactions, default fund contributions, unsettled transactions, and exposures to which the Board-regulated institution applies the double default treatment in § 217.135) and segments of non-defaulted retail exposures by inserting the assigned risk parameters for the wholesale obligor and exposure or retail segment into the appropriate risk-based capital formula specified in Table 1 and multiplying the output of the formula (K) by the EAD of the exposure or segment. Alternatively, a Board-regulated institution may apply a 300 percent risk weight to the EAD of an eligible margin loan if the Board-regulated institution is not able to meet the Board's requirements for estimation of PD and LGD for the margin loan.

(ii) The sum of all the dollar risk-based capital requirements for each wholesale exposure to a non-defaulted obligor and segment of non-defaulted retail exposures calculated in paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section and in § 217.135(e) equals the total dollar risk-based capital requirement for those exposures and segments.

(iii) The aggregate risk-weighted asset amount for wholesale exposures to non-defaulted obligors and segments of non-defaulted retail exposures equals the total dollar risk-based capital requirement in paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section multiplied by 12.5.

(2) Wholesale exposures to defaulted obligors and segments of defaulted retail exposures—(i) Not covered by an eligible U.S. government guarantee: The dollar risk-based capital requirement for each wholesale exposure not covered by an eligible guarantee from the U.S. government to a defaulted obligor and each segment of defaulted retail exposures not covered by an eligible guarantee from the U.S. government equals 0.08 multiplied by the EAD of the exposure or segment.

(ii) Covered by an eligible U.S. government guarantee: The dollar risk-based capital requirement for each wholesale exposure to a defaulted obligor covered by an eligible guarantee from the U.S. government and each segment of defaulted retail exposures covered by an eligible guarantee from the U.S. government equals the sum of:

(A) The sum of the EAD of the portion of each wholesale exposure to a defaulted obligor covered by an eligible guarantee from the U.S. government plus the EAD of the portion of each segment of defaulted retail exposures that is covered by an eligible guarantee from the U.S. government and the resulting sum is multiplied by 0.016, and

(B) The sum of the EAD of the portion of each wholesale exposure to a defaulted obligor not covered by an eligible guarantee from the U.S. government plus the EAD of the portion of each segment of defaulted retail exposures that is not covered by an eligible guarantee from the U.S. government and the resulting sum is multiplied by 0.08.

(iii) The sum of all the dollar risk-based capital requirements for each wholesale exposure to a defaulted obligor and each segment of defaulted retail exposures calculated in paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section plus the dollar risk-based capital requirements each wholesale exposure to a defaulted obligor and for each segment of defaulted retail exposures calculated in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section equals the total dollar risk-based capital requirement for those exposures and segments.

(iv) The aggregate risk-weighted asset amount for wholesale exposures to defaulted obligors and segments of defaulted retail exposures equals the total dollar risk-based capital requirement calculated in paragraph (e)(2)(iii) of this section multiplied by 12.5.

(3) Assets not included in a defined exposure category. (i) A bank holding company or savings and loan holding company may assign a risk-weighted asset amount of zero to cash owned and held in all offices of subsidiary depository institutions or in transit; and for gold bullion held in a subsidiary depository institution's own vaults, or held in another depository institution's vaults on an allocated basis, to the extent the gold bullion assets are offset by gold bullion liabilities.

(ii) A state member bank may assign a risk-weighted asset amount to cash owned and held in all offices of the state member bank or in transit and for gold bullion held in the state member bank's own vaults, or held in another depository institution's vaults on an allocated basis, to the extent the gold bullion assets are offset by gold bullion liabilities.

(iii) A Board-regulated institution must assign a risk-weighted asset amount equal to 50 percent of the carrying value to a pre-sold construction loan unless the purchase contract is cancelled, in which case a Board-regulated institution must assign a risk-weighted asset amount equal to a 100 percent of the carrying value of the pre-sold construction loan.

(iv) The risk-weighted asset amount for the residual value of a retail lease exposure equals such residual value.

(v) The risk-weighted asset amount for DTAs arising from temporary differences that the Board-regulated institution could realize through net operating loss carrybacks equals the carrying value, netted in accordance with § 217.22.

(vi) The risk-weighted asset amount for MSAs, DTAs arising from temporary timing differences that the Board-regulated institution could not realize through net operating loss carrybacks, and significant investments in the capital of unconsolidated financial institutions in the form of common stock that are not deducted pursuant to § 217.22(d) equals the amount not subject to deduction multiplied by 250 percent.

(vii) The risk-weighted asset amount for any other on-balance-sheet asset that does not meet the definition of a wholesale, retail, securitization, IMM, or equity exposure, cleared transaction, or default fund contribution and is not subject to deduction under § 217.22(a), (c), or (d) equals the carrying value of the asset.

(viii) The risk-weighted asset amount for a Paycheck Protection Program covered loan as defined in section 7(a)(36) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)(36)) equals zero.

(4) Non-material portfolios of exposures. The risk-weighted asset amount of a portfolio of exposures for which the Board-regulated institution has demonstrated to the Board's satisfaction that the portfolio (when combined with all other portfolios of exposures that the Board-regulated institution seeks to treat under this paragraph (e)) is not material to the Board-regulated institution is the sum of the carrying values of on-balance sheet exposures plus the notional amounts of off-balance sheet exposures in the portfolio. For purposes of this paragraph (e)(4), the notional amount of an OTC derivative contract that is not a credit derivative is the EAD of the derivative as calculated in § 217.132.

(5) Assets held in non-guaranteed separate accounts. The risk-weighted asset amount for an on-balance sheet asset that is held in a non-guaranteed separate account is zero percent of the carrying value of the asset.

(a) Methodologies for collateral recognition. (1) Instead of an LGD estimation methodology, a Board-regulated institution may use the following methodologies to recognize the benefits of financial collateral in mitigating the counterparty credit risk of repo-style transactions, eligible margin loans, collateralized OTC derivative contracts and single product netting sets of such transactions, and to recognize the benefits of any collateral in mitigating the counterparty credit risk of repo-style transactions that are included in a Board-regulated institution's VaR-based measure under subpart F of this part:

(i) The collateral haircut approach set forth in paragraph (b)(2) of this section;

(ii) The internal models methodology set forth in paragraph (d) of this section; and

(iii) For single product netting sets of repo-style transactions and eligible margin loans, the simple VaR methodology set forth in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.

(2) A Board-regulated institution may use any combination of the three methodologies for collateral recognition; however, it must use the same methodology for transactions in the same category.

(3) A Board-regulated institution must use the methodology in paragraph (c) of this section, or with prior written approval of the Board, the internal model methodology in paragraph (d) of this section, to calculate EAD for an OTC derivative contract or a set of OTC derivative contracts subject to a qualifying master netting agreement. To estimate EAD for qualifying cross-product master netting agreements, a Board-regulated institution may only use the internal models methodology in paragraph (d) of this section.

(4) A Board-regulated institution must also use the methodology in paragraph (e) of this section to calculate the risk-weighted asset amounts for CVA for OTC derivatives.

(b) EAD for eligible margin loans and repo-style transactions—(1) General. A Board-regulated institution may recognize the credit risk mitigation benefits of financial collateral that secures an eligible margin loan, repo-style transaction, or single-product netting set of such transactions by factoring the collateral into its LGD estimates for the exposure. Alternatively, a Board-regulated institution may estimate an unsecured LGD for the exposure, as well as for any repo-style transaction that is included in the Board-regulated institution's VaR-based measure under subpart F of this part, and determine the EAD of the exposure using:

(i) The collateral haircut approach described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section;

(ii) For netting sets only, the simple VaR methodology described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section; or

(iii) The internal models methodology described in paragraph (d) of this section.

(2) Collateral haircut approach—(i) EAD equation. A Board-regulated institution may determine EAD for an eligible margin loan, repo-style transaction, or netting set by setting EAD equal to max

(A) ΣE equals the value of the exposure (the sum of the current fair values of all instruments, gold, and cash the Board-regulated institution has lent, sold subject to repurchase, or posted as collateral to the counterparty under the transaction (or netting set));

(B) ΣC equals the value of the collateral (the sum of the current fair values of all instruments, gold, and cash the Board-regulated institution has borrowed, purchased subject to resale, or taken as collateral from the counterparty under the transaction (or netting set));

(C) Es equals the absolute value of the net position in a given instrument or in gold (where the net position in a given instrument or in gold equals the sum of the current fair values of the instrument or gold the Board-regulated institution has lent, sold subject to repurchase, or posted as collateral to the counterparty minus the sum of the current fair values of that same instrument or gold the Board-regulated institution has borrowed, purchased subject to resale, or taken as collateral from the counterparty);

(D) Hs equals the market price volatility haircut appropriate to the instrument or gold referenced in Es;

(E) Efx equals the absolute value of the net position of instruments and cash in a currency that is different from the settlement currency (where the net position in a given currency equals the sum of the current fair values of any instruments or cash in the currency the Board-regulated institution has lent, sold subject to repurchase, or posted as collateral to the counterparty minus the sum of the current fair values of any instruments or cash in the currency the Board-regulated institution has borrowed, purchased subject to resale, or taken as collateral from the counterparty); and

(F) Hfx equals the haircut appropriate to the mismatch between the currency referenced in Efx and the settlement currency.

(ii) Standard supervisory haircuts. (A) Under the standard supervisory haircuts approach:

(1) A Board-regulated institution must use the haircuts for market price volatility (Hs) in Table 1 to § 217.132, as adjusted in certain circumstances as provided in paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(A)(3) and (4) of § 217.132;

(2) For currency mismatches, a Board-regulated institution must use a haircut for foreign exchange rate volatility (Hfx) of 8 percent, as adjusted in certain circumstances as provided in paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(A)(3) and (4) of this section.

(3) For repo-style transactions and client-facing derivative transactions, a Board-regulated institution may multiply the supervisory haircuts provided in paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(A)(1) and (2) of this section by the square root of 1/2 (which equals 0.707107). If the Board-regulated institution determines that a longer holding period is appropriate for client-facing derivative transactions, then it must use a larger scaling factor to adjust for the longer holding period pursuant to paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A)(6) of this section.

(4) A Board-regulated institution must adjust the supervisory haircuts upward on the basis of a holding period longer than ten business days (for eligible margin loans) or five business days (for repo-style transactions), using the formula provided in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A)(6) of this section where the conditions in this paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A)(4) apply. If the number of trades in a netting set exceeds 5,000 at any time during a quarter, a Board-regulated institution must adjust the supervisory haircuts upward on the basis of a minimum holding period of twenty business days for the following quarter (except when a Board-regulated institution is calculating EAD for a cleared transaction under § 217.133). If a netting set contains one or more trades involving illiquid collateral, a Board-regulated institution must adjust the supervisory haircuts upward on the basis of a minimum holding period of twenty business days. If over the two previous quarters more than two margin disputes on a netting set have occurred that lasted longer than the holding period, then the Board-regulated institution must adjust the supervisory haircuts upward for that netting set on the basis of a minimum holding period that is at least two times the minimum holding period for that netting set.

(5)(i) A Board-regulated institution must adjust the supervisory haircuts upward on the basis of a holding period longer than ten business days for collateral associated with derivative contracts (five business days for client-facing derivative contracts) using the formula provided in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A)(6) of this section where the conditions in this paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A)(5)(i) apply. For collateral associated with a derivative contract that is within a netting set that is composed of more than 5,000 derivative contracts that are not cleared transactions, a Board-regulated institution must use a minimum holding period of twenty business days. If a netting set contains one or more trades involving illiquid collateral or a derivative contract that cannot be easily replaced, a Board-regulated institution must use a minimum holding period of twenty business days.

(ii) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A)(1) or (3) or (b)(2)(ii)(A)(5)(i) of this section, for collateral associated with a derivative contract in a netting set under which more than two margin disputes that lasted longer than the holding period occurred during the two previous quarters, the minimum holding period is twice the amount provided under paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A)(1) or (3) or (b)(2)(ii)(A)(5)(i) of this section.

(6) A Board-regulated institution must adjust the standard supervisory haircuts upward, pursuant to the adjustments provided in paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(A)(3) through (5) of this section, using the following formula:

(7) If the instrument a Board-regulated institution has lent, sold subject to repurchase, or posted as collateral does not meet the definition of financial collateral, the Board-regulated institution must use a 25.0 percent haircut for market price volatility (Hs).

(iii) Own internal estimates for haircuts. With the prior written approval of the Board, a Board-regulated institution may calculate haircuts (Hs and Hfx) using its own internal estimates of the volatilities of market prices and foreign exchange rates.

(A) To receive Board approval to use its own internal estimates, a Board-regulated institution must satisfy the following minimum quantitative standards:

(1) A Board-regulated institution must use a 99th percentile one-tailed confidence interval.

(2) The minimum holding period for a repo-style transaction is five business days and for an eligible margin loan is ten business days except for transactions or netting sets for which paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A)(3) of this section applies. When a Board-regulated institution calculates an own-estimates haircut on a TN-day holding period, which is different from the minimum holding period for the transaction type, the applicable haircut (HM) is calculated using the following square root of time formula:

(i) TM equals 5 for repo-style transactions and 10 for eligible margin loans;

(ii) TN equals the holding period used by the Board-regulated institution to derive HN; and

(iii) HN equals the haircut based on the holding period TN

(3) If the number of trades in a netting set exceeds 5,000 at any time during a quarter, a Board-regulated institution must calculate the haircut using a minimum holding period of twenty business days for the following quarter (except when a Board-regulated institution is calculating EAD for a cleared transaction under § 217.133). If a netting set contains one or more trades involving illiquid collateral or an OTC derivative that cannot be easily replaced, a Board-regulated institution must calculate the haircut using a minimum holding period of twenty business days. If over the two previous quarters more than two margin disputes on a netting set have occurred that lasted more than the holding period, then the Board-regulated institution must calculate the haircut for transactions in that netting set on the basis of a holding period that is at least two times the minimum holding period for that netting set.

(4) A Board-regulated institution is required to calculate its own internal estimates with inputs calibrated to historical data from a continuous 12-month period that reflects a period of significant financial stress appropriate to the security or category of securities.

(5) A Board-regulated institution must have policies and procedures that describe how it determines the period of significant financial stress used to calculate the Board-regulated institution's own internal estimates for haircuts under this section and must be able to provide empirical support for the period used. The Board-regulated institution must obtain the prior approval of the Board for, and notify the Board if the Board-regulated institution makes any material changes to, these policies and procedures.

(6) Nothing in this section prevents the Board from requiring a Board-regulated institution to use a different period of significant financial stress in the calculation of own internal estimates for haircuts.

(7) A Board-regulated institution must update its data sets and calculate haircuts no less frequently than quarterly and must also reassess data sets and haircuts whenever market prices change materially.

(B) With respect to debt securities that are investment grade, a Board-regulated institution may calculate haircuts for categories of securities. For a category of securities, the Board-regulated institution must calculate the haircut on the basis of internal volatility estimates for securities in that category that are representative of the securities in that category that the Board-regulated institution has lent, sold subject to repurchase, posted as collateral, borrowed, purchased subject to resale, or taken as collateral. In determining relevant categories, the Board-regulated institution must at a minimum take into account:

(1) The type of issuer of the security;

(2) The credit quality of the security;

(3) The maturity of the security; and

(4) The interest rate sensitivity of the security.

(C) With respect to debt securities that are not investment grade and equity securities, a Board-regulated institution must calculate a separate haircut for each individual security.

(D) Where an exposure or collateral (whether in the form of cash or securities) is denominated in a currency that differs from the settlement currency, the Board-regulated institution must calculate a separate currency mismatch haircut for its net position in each mismatched currency based on estimated volatilities of foreign exchange rates between the mismatched currency and the settlement currency.

(E) A Board-regulated institution's own estimates of market price and foreign exchange rate volatilities may not take into account the correlations among securities and foreign exchange rates on either the exposure or collateral side of a transaction (or netting set) or the correlations among securities and foreign exchange rates between the exposure and collateral sides of the transaction (or netting set).

(3) Simple VaR methodology. With the prior written approval of the Board, a Board-regulated institution may estimate EAD for a netting set using a VaR model that meets the requirements in paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this section. In such event, the Board-regulated institution must set EAD equal to max {0, [(ΣE − ΣC) + PFE]}, where:

(i) ΣE equals the value of the exposure (the sum of the current fair values of all instruments, gold, and cash the Board-regulated institution has lent, sold subject to repurchase, or posted as collateral to the counterparty under the netting set);

(ii) ΣC equals the value of the collateral (the sum of the current fair values of all instruments, gold, and cash the Board-regulated institution has borrowed, purchased subject to resale, or taken as collateral from the counterparty under the netting set); and

(iii) PFE (potential future exposure) equals the Board-regulated institution's empirically based best estimate of the 99th percentile, one-tailed confidence interval for an increase in the value of (ΣE − ΣC) over a five-business-day holding period for repo-style transactions, or over a ten-business-day holding period for eligible margin loans except for netting sets for which paragraph (b)(3)(iv) of this section applies using a minimum one-year historical observation period of price data representing the instruments that the Board-regulated institution has lent, sold subject to repurchase, posted as collateral, borrowed, purchased subject to resale, or taken as collateral. The Board-regulated institution must validate its VaR model by establishing and maintaining a rigorous and regular backtesting regime.

(iv) If the number of trades in a netting set exceeds 5,000 at any time during a quarter, a Board-regulated institution must use a twenty-business-day holding period for the following quarter (except when a Board-regulated institution is calculating EAD for a cleared transaction under § 217.133). If a netting set contains one or more trades involving illiquid collateral, a Board-regulated institution must use a twenty-business-day holding period. If over the two previous quarters more than two margin disputes on a netting set have occurred that lasted more than the holding period, then the Board-regulated institution must set its PFE for that netting set equal to an estimate over a holding period that is at least two times the minimum holding period for that netting set.

(c) EAD for derivative contracts—(1) Options for determining EAD. A Board-regulated institution must determine the EAD for a derivative contract using the standardized approach for counterparty credit risk (SA-CCR) under paragraph (c)(5) of this section or using the internal models methodology described in paragraph (d) of this section. If a Board-regulated institution elects to use SA-CCR for one or more derivative contracts, the exposure amount determined under SA-CCR is the EAD for the derivative contract or derivatives contracts. A Board-regulation institution must use the same methodology to calculate the exposure amount for all its derivative contracts and may change its election only with prior approval of the Board. A Board-regulated institution may reduce the EAD calculated according to paragraph (c)(5) of this section by the credit valuation adjustment that the Board-regulated institution has recognized in its balance sheet valuation of any derivative contracts in the netting set. For purposes of this paragraph (c)(1), the credit valuation adjustment does not include any adjustments to common equity tier 1 capital attributable to changes in the fair value of the Board-regulated institution's liabilities that are due to changes in its own credit risk since the inception of the transaction with the counterparty.

(2) Definitions. For purposes of this paragraph (c) of this section, the following definitions apply:

(i) End date means the last date of the period referenced by an interest rate or credit derivative contract or, if the derivative contract references another instrument, by the underlying instrument, except as otherwise provided in paragraph (c) of this section.

(ii) Start date means the first date of the period referenced by an interest rate or credit derivative contract or, if the derivative contract references the value of another instrument, by underlying instrument, except as otherwise provided in paragraph (c) of this section.

(iii) Hedging set means:

(A) With respect to interest rate derivative contracts, all such contracts within a netting set that reference the same reference currency;

(B) With respect to exchange rate derivative contracts, all such contracts within a netting set that reference the same currency pair;

(C) With respect to credit derivative contract, all such contracts within a netting set;

(D) With respect to equity derivative contracts, all such contracts within a netting set;

(E) With respect to a commodity derivative contract, all such contracts within a netting set that reference one of the following commodity categories: Energy, metal, agricultural, or other commodities;

(F) With respect to basis derivative contracts, all such contracts within a netting set that reference the same pair of risk factors and are denominated in the same currency; or

(G) With respect to volatility derivative contracts, all such contracts within a netting set that reference one of interest rate, exchange rate, credit, equity, or commodity risk factors, separated according to the requirements under paragraphs (c)(2)(iii)(A) through (E) of this section.

(H) If the risk of a derivative contract materially depends on more than one of interest rate, exchange rate, credit, equity, or commodity risk factors, the Board may require a Board-regulated institution to include the derivative contract in each appropriate hedging set under paragraphs (c)(1)(iii)(A) through (E) of this section.

(3) Credit derivatives. Notwithstanding paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section:

(i) A Board-regulated institution that purchases a credit derivative that is recognized under § 217.134 or § 217.135 as a credit risk mitigant for an exposure that is not a covered position under subpart F of this part is not required to calculate a separate counterparty credit risk capital requirement under this section so long as the Board-regulated institution does so consistently for all such credit derivatives and either includes or excludes all such credit derivatives that are subject to a master netting agreement from any measure used to determine counterparty credit risk exposure to all relevant counterparties for risk-based capital purposes.

(ii) A Board-regulated institution that is the protection provider in a credit derivative must treat the credit derivative as a wholesale exposure to the reference obligor and is not required to calculate a counterparty credit risk capital requirement for the credit derivative under this section, so long as it does so consistently for all such credit derivatives and either includes all or excludes all such credit derivatives that are subject to a master netting agreement from any measure used to determine counterparty credit risk exposure to all relevant counterparties for risk-based capital purposes (unless the Board-regulated institution is treating the credit derivative as a covered position under subpart F of this part, in which case the Board-regulated institution must calculate a supplemental counterparty credit risk capital requirement under this section).

(4) Equity derivatives. A Board-regulated institution must treat an equity derivative contract as an equity exposure and compute a risk-weighted asset amount for the equity derivative contract under §§ 217.151-217.155 (unless the Board-regulated institution is treating the contract as a covered position under subpart F of this part). In addition, if the Board-regulated institution is treating the contract as a covered position under subpart F of this part, and under certain other circumstances described in § 217.155, the Board-regulated institution must also calculate a risk-based capital requirement for the counterparty credit risk of an equity derivative contract under this section.

(5) Exposure amount. (i) The exposure amount of a netting set, as calculated under paragraph (c) of this section, is equal to 1.4 multiplied by the sum of the replacement cost of the netting set, as calculated under paragraph (c)(6) of this section, and the potential future exposure of the netting set, as calculated under paragraph (c)(7) of this section.

(ii) Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section, the exposure amount of a netting set subject to a variation margin agreement, excluding a netting set that is subject to a variation margin agreement under which the counterparty to the variation margin agreement is not required to post variation margin, is equal to the lesser of the exposure amount of the netting set calculated under paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section and the exposure amount of the netting set calculated under paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section as if the netting set were not subject to a variation margin agreement.

(iii) Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section, the exposure amount of a netting set that consists of only sold options in which the premiums have been fully paid by the counterparty to the options and where the options are not subject to a variation margin agreement is zero.

(iv) Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section, the exposure amount of a netting set in which the counterparty is a commercial end-user is equal to the sum of replacement cost, as calculated under paragraph (c)(6) of this section, and the potential future exposure of the netting set, as calculated under paragraph (c)(7) of this section.

(v) For purposes of the exposure amount calculated under paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section and all calculations that are part of that exposure amount, a Board-regulated institution may elect to treat a derivative contract that is a cleared transaction that is not subject to a variation margin agreement as one that is subject to a variation margin agreement, if the derivative contract is subject to a requirement that the counterparties make daily cash payments to each other to account for changes in the fair value of the derivative contract and to reduce the net position of the contract to zero. If a Board-regulated institution makes an election under this paragraph (c)(5)(v) for one derivative contract, it must treat all other derivative contracts within the same netting set that are eligible for an election under this paragraph (c)(5)(v) as derivative contracts that are subject to a variation margin agreement.

(vi) For purposes of the exposure amount calculated under paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section and all calculations that are part of that exposure amount, a Board-regulated institution may elect to treat a credit derivative contract, equity derivative contract, or commodity derivative contract that references an index as if it were multiple derivative contracts each referencing one component of the index.

(6) Replacement cost of a netting set—(i) Netting set subject to a variation margin agreement under which the counterparty must post variation margin. The replacement cost of a netting set subject to a variation margin agreement, excluding a netting set that is subject to a variation margin agreement under which the counterparty is not required to post variation margin, is the greater of:

(A) The sum of the fair values (after excluding any valuation adjustments) of the derivative contracts within the netting set less the sum of the net independent collateral amount and the variation margin amount applicable to such derivative contracts;

(B) The sum of the variation margin threshold and the minimum transfer amount applicable to the derivative contracts within the netting set less the net independent collateral amount applicable to such derivative contracts; or

(C) Zero.

(ii) Netting sets not subject to a variation margin agreement under which the counterparty must post variation margin. The replacement cost of a netting set that is not subject to a variation margin agreement under which the counterparty must post variation margin to the Board-regulated institution is the greater of:

(A) The sum of the fair values (after excluding any valuation adjustments) of the derivative contracts within the netting set less the sum of the net independent collateral amount and variation margin amount applicable to such derivative contracts; or

(B) Zero.

(iii) Multiple netting sets subject to a single variation margin agreement. Notwithstanding paragraphs (c)(6)(i) and (ii) of this section, the replacement cost for multiple netting sets subject to a single variation margin agreement must be calculated according to paragraph (c)(10)(i) of this section.

(iv) Netting set subject to multiple variation margin agreements or a hybrid netting set. Notwithstanding paragraphs (c)(6)(i) and (ii) of this section, the replacement cost for a netting set subject to multiple variation margin agreements or a hybrid netting set must be calculated according to paragraph (c)(11)(i) of this section.

(7) Potential future exposure of a netting set. The potential future exposure of a netting set is the product of the PFE multiplier and the aggregated amount.

(i) PFE multiplier. The PFE multiplier is calculated according to the following formula:

(ii) Aggregated amount. The aggregated amount is the sum of all hedging set amounts, as calculated under paragraph (c)(8) of this section, within a netting set.

(iii) Multiple netting sets subject to a single variation margin agreement. Notwithstanding paragraphs (c)(7)(i) and (ii) of this section and when calculating the potential future exposure for purposes of total leverage exposure under § 217.10(c)(2)(ii)(B), the potential future exposure for multiple netting sets subject to a single variation margin agreement must be calculated according to paragraph (c)(10)(ii) of this section.

(iv) Netting set subject to multiple variation margin agreements or a hybrid netting set. Notwithstanding paragraphs (c)(7)(i) and (ii) of this section and when calculating the potential future exposure for purposes of total leverage exposure under § 217.10(c)(2)(ii)(B), the potential future exposure for a netting set subject to multiple variation margin agreements or a hybrid netting set must be calculated according to paragraph (c)(11)(ii) of this section.

(8) Hedging set amount—(i) Interest rate derivative contracts. To calculate the hedging set amount of an interest rate derivative contract hedging set, a Board-regulated institution may use either of the formulas provided in paragraphs (c)(8)(i)(A) and (B) of this section:

(A) Formula 1 is as follows:

(B) Formula 2 is as follows:

(ii) Exchange rate derivative contracts. For an exchange rate derivative contract hedging set, the hedging set amount equals the absolute value of the sum of the adjusted derivative contract amounts, as calculated under paragraph (c)(9) of this section, within the hedging set.

(iii) Credit derivative contracts and equity derivative contracts. The hedging set amount of a credit derivative contract hedging set or equity derivative contract hedging set within a netting set is calculated according to the following formula:

(iv) Commodity derivative contracts. The hedging set amount of a commodity derivative contract hedging set within a netting set is calculated according to the following formula:

(v) Basis derivative contracts and volatility derivative contracts. Notwithstanding paragraphs (c)(8)(i) through (iv) of this section, a Board-regulated institution must calculate a separate hedging set amount for each basis derivative contract hedging set and each volatility derivative contract hedging set. A Board-regulated institution must calculate such hedging set amounts using one of the formulas under paragraphs (c)(8)(i) through (iv) that corresponds to the primary risk factor of the hedging set being calculated.

(9) Adjusted derivative contract amount—(i) Summary. To calculate the adjusted derivative contract amount of a derivative contract, a Board-regulated institution must determine the adjusted notional amount of derivative contract, pursuant to paragraph (c)(9)(ii) of this section, and multiply the adjusted notional amount by each of the supervisory delta adjustment, pursuant to paragraph (c)(9)(iii) of this section, the maturity factor, pursuant to paragraph (c)(9)(iv) of this section, and the applicable supervisory factor, as provided in Table 3 to this section.

(ii) Adjusted notional amount. (A)(1) For an interest rate derivative contract or a credit derivative contract, the adjusted notional amount equals the product of the notional amount of the derivative contract, as measured in U.S. dollars using the exchange rate on the date of the calculation, and the supervisory duration, as calculated by the following formula:

(2) For purposes of paragraph (c)(9)(ii)(A)(1) of this section:

(i) For an interest rate derivative contract or credit derivative contract that is a variable notional swap, the notional amount is equal to the time-weighted average of the contractual notional amounts of such a swap over the remaining life of the swap; and

(ii) For an interest rate derivative contract or a credit derivative contract that is a leveraged swap, in which the notional amount of all legs of the derivative contract are divided by a factor and all rates of the derivative contract are multiplied by the same factor, the notional amount is equal to the notional amount of an equivalent unleveraged swap.

(B)(1) For an exchange rate derivative contract, the adjusted notional amount is the notional amount of the non-U.S. denominated currency leg of the derivative contract, as measured in U.S. dollars using the exchange rate on the date of the calculation. If both legs of the exchange rate derivative contract are denominated in currencies other than U.S. dollars, the adjusted notional amount of the derivative contract is the largest leg of the derivative contract, as measured in U.S. dollars using the exchange rate on the date of the calculation.

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (c)(9)(ii)(B)(1) of this section, for an exchange rate derivative contract with multiple exchanges of principal, the Board-regulated institution must set the adjusted notional amount of the derivative contract equal to the notional amount of the derivative contract multiplied by the number of exchanges of principal under the derivative contract.

(C)(1) For an equity derivative contract or a commodity derivative contract, the adjusted notional amount is the product of the fair value of one unit of the reference instrument underlying the derivative contract and the number of such units referenced by the derivative contract.

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (c)(9)(ii)(C)(1) of this section, when calculating the adjusted notional amount for an equity derivative contract or a commodity derivative contract that is a volatility derivative contract, the Board-regulated institution must replace the unit price with the underlying volatility referenced by the volatility derivative contract and replace the number of units with the notional amount of the volatility derivative contract.

(iii) Supervisory delta adjustments. (A) For a derivative contract that is not an option contract or collateralized debt obligation tranche, the supervisory delta adjustment is 1 if the fair value of the derivative contract increases when the value of the primary risk factor increases and −1 if the fair value of the derivative contract decreases when the value of the primary risk factor increases.

(B)(1) For a derivative contract that is an option contract, the supervisory delta adjustment is determined by the following formulas, as applicable:

(2) As used in the formulas in Table 2 to this section:

(i) Φ is the standard normal cumulative distribution function;

(ii) P equals the current fair value of the instrument or risk factor, as applicable, underlying the option;

(iii) K equals the strike price of the option;

(iv) T equals the number of business days until the latest contractual exercise date of the option;

(v) λ equals zero for all derivative contracts except interest rate options for the currencies where interest rates have negative values. The same value of λ must be used for all interest rate options that are denominated in the same currency. To determine the value of λ for a given currency, a Board-regulated institution must find the lowest value L of P and K of all interest rate options in a given currency that the Board-regulated institution has with all counterparties. Then, λ is set according to this formula: λ = max{−L + 0.1%, 0}; and

(vi) σ equals the supervisory option volatility, as provided in Table 3 to this section.

(C)(1) For a derivative contract that is a collateralized debt obligation tranche, the supervisory delta adjustment is determined by the following formula:

(2) As used in the formula in paragraph (c)(9)(iii)(C)(1) of this section:

(i) A is the attachment point, which equals the ratio of the notional amounts of all underlying exposures that are subordinated to the Board-regulated institution's exposure to the total notional amount of all underlying exposures, expressed as a decimal value between zero and one; 30

(ii) D is the detachment point, which equals one minus the ratio of the notional amounts of all underlying exposures that are senior to the Board-regulated institution's exposure to the total notional amount of all underlying exposures, expressed as a decimal value between zero and one; and

(iii) The resulting amount is designated with a positive sign if the collateralized debt obligation tranche was purchased by the Board-regulated institution and is designated with a negative sign if the collateralized debt obligation tranche was sold by the Board-regulated institution.

(iv) Maturity factor. (A)(1) The maturity factor of a derivative contract that is subject to a variation margin agreement, excluding derivative contracts that are subject to a variation margin agreement under which the counterparty is not required to post variation margin, is determined by the following formula:

Where MPOR refers to the period from the most recent exchange of collateral covering a netting set of derivative contracts with a defaulting counterparty until the derivative contracts are closed out and the resulting market risk is re-hedged.

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (c)(9)(iv)(A)(1) of this section:

(i) For a derivative contract that is not a client-facing derivative transaction, MPOR cannot be less than ten business days plus the periodicity of re-margining expressed in business days minus one business day;

(ii) For a derivative contract that is a client-facing derivative transaction, cannot be less than five business days plus the periodicity of re-margining expressed in business days minus one business day; and

(iii) For a derivative contract that is within a netting set that is composed of more than 5,000 derivative contracts that are not cleared transactions, or a netting set that contains one or more trades involving illiquid collateral or a derivative contract that cannot be easily replaced, MPOR cannot be less than twenty business days.

(3) Notwithstanding paragraphs (c)(9)(iv)(A)(1) and (2) of this section, for a netting set subject to more than two outstanding disputes over margin that lasted longer than the MPOR over the previous two quarters, the applicable floor is twice the amount provided in paragraphs (c)(9)(iv)(A)(1) and (2) of this section.

(B) The maturity factor of a derivative contract that is not subject to a variation margin agreement, or derivative contracts under which the counterparty is not required to post variation margin, is determined by the following formula:

Where M equals the greater of 10 business days and the remaining maturity of the contract, as measured in business days.

(C) For purposes of paragraph (c)(9)(iv) of this section, if a Board-regulated institution has elected pursuant to paragraph (c)(5)(v) of this section to treat a derivative contract that is a cleared transaction that is not subject to a variation margin agreement as one that is subject to a variation margin agreement, the Board-regulated institution must treat the derivative contract as subject to a variation margin agreement with maturity factor as determined according to (c)(9)(iv)(A) of this section, and daily settlement does not change the end date of the period referenced by the derivative contract.

(v) Derivative contract as multiple effective derivative contracts. A Board-regulated institution must separate a derivative contract into separate derivative contracts, according to the following rules:

(A) For an option where the counterparty pays a predetermined amount if the value of the underlying asset is above or below the strike price and nothing otherwise (binary option), the option must be treated as two separate options. For purposes of paragraph (c)(9)(iii)(B) of this section, a binary option with strike K must be represented as the combination of one bought European option and one sold European option of the same type as the original option (put or call) with the strikes set equal to 0.95 * K and 1.05 * K so that the payoff of the binary option is reproduced exactly outside the region between the two strikes. The absolute value of the sum of the adjusted derivative contract amounts of the bought and sold options is capped at the payoff amount of the binary option.

(B) For a derivative contract that can be represented as a combination of standard option payoffs (such as collar, butterfly spread, calendar spread, straddle, and strangle), a Board-regulated institution must treat each standard option component as a separate derivative contract.

(C) For a derivative contract that includes multiple-payment options, (such as interest rate caps and floors), a Board-regulated institution may represent each payment option as a combination of effective single-payment options (such as interest rate caplets and floorlets).

(D) A Board-regulated institution may not decompose linear derivative contracts (such as swaps) into components.

(10) Multiple netting sets subject to a single variation margin agreement—(i) Calculating replacement cost. Notwithstanding paragraph (c)(6) of this section, a Board-regulated institution shall assign a single replacement cost to multiple netting sets that are subject to a single variation margin agreement under which the counterparty must post variation margin, calculated according to the following formula:

(ii) Calculating potential future exposure. Notwithstanding paragraph (c)(5) of this section, a Board-regulated institution shall assign a single potential future exposure to multiple netting sets that are subject to a single variation margin agreement under which the counterparty must post variation margin equal to the sum of the potential future exposure of each such netting set, each calculated according to paragraph (c)(7) of this section as if such nettings sets were not subject to a variation margin agreement.

(11) Netting set subject to multiple variation margin agreements or a hybrid netting set—(i) Calculating replacement cost. To calculate replacement cost for either a netting set subject to multiple variation margin agreements under which the counterparty to each variation margin agreement must post variation margin, or a netting set composed of at least one derivative contract subject to variation margin agreement under which the counterparty must post variation margin and at least one derivative contract that is not subject to such a variation margin agreement, the calculation for replacement cost is provided under paragraph (c)(6)(i) of this section, except that the variation margin threshold equals the sum of the variation margin thresholds of all variation margin agreements within the netting set and the minimum transfer amount equals the sum of the minimum transfer amounts of all the variation margin agreements within the netting set.

(ii) Calculating potential future exposure. (A) To calculate potential future exposure for a netting set subject to multiple variation margin agreements under which the counterparty to each variation margin agreement must post variation margin, or a netting set composed of at least one derivative contract subject to variation margin agreement under which the counterparty to the derivative contract must post variation margin and at least one derivative contract that is not subject to such a variation margin agreement, a Board-regulated institution must divide the netting set into sub-netting sets (as described in paragraph (c)(11)(ii)(B) of this section) and calculate the aggregated amount for each sub-netting set. The aggregated amount for the netting set is calculated as the sum of the aggregated amounts for the sub-netting sets. The multiplier is calculated for the entire netting set.

(B) For purposes of paragraph (c)(11)(ii)(A) of this section, the netting set must be divided into sub-netting sets as follows:

(1) All derivative contracts within the netting set that are not subject to a variation margin agreement or that are subject to a variation margin agreement under which the counterparty is not required to post variation margin form a single sub-netting set. The aggregated amount for this sub-netting set is calculated as if the netting set is not subject to a variation margin agreement.

(2) All derivative contracts within the netting set that are subject to variation margin agreements in which the counterparty must post variation margin and that share the same value of the MPOR form a single sub-netting set. The aggregated amount for this sub-netting set is calculated as if the netting set is subject to a variation margin agreement, using the MPOR value shared by the derivative contracts within the netting set.

(d) Internal models methodology. (1)(i) With prior written approval from the Board, a Board-regulated institution may use the internal models methodology in this paragraph (d) to determine EAD for counterparty credit risk for derivative contracts (collateralized or uncollateralized) and single-product netting sets thereof, for eligible margin loans and single-product netting sets thereof, and for repo-style transactions and single-product netting sets thereof.

(ii) A Board-regulated institution that uses the internal models methodology for a particular transaction type (derivative contracts, eligible margin loans, or repo-style transactions) must use the internal models methodology for all transactions of that transaction type. A Board-regulated institution may choose to use the internal models methodology for one or two of these three types of exposures and not the other types.

(iii) A Board-regulated institution may also use the internal models methodology for derivative contracts, eligible margin loans, and repo-style transactions subject to a qualifying cross-product netting agreement if:

(A) The Board-regulated institution effectively integrates the risk mitigating effects of cross-product netting into its risk management and other information technology systems; and

(B) The Board-regulated institution obtains the prior written approval of the Board.

(iv) A Board-regulated institution that uses the internal models methodology for a transaction type must receive approval from the Board to cease using the methodology for that transaction type or to make a material change to its internal model.

(2) Risk-weighted assets using IMM. Under the IMM, a Board-regulated institution uses an internal model to estimate the expected exposure (EE) for a netting set and then calculates EAD based on that EE. A Board-regulated institution must calculate two EEs and two EADs (one stressed and one unstressed) for each netting set as follows:

(i) EADunstressed is calculated using an EE estimate based on the most recent data meeting the requirements of paragraph (d)(3)(vii) of this section;

(ii) EADstressed is calculated using an EE estimate based on a historical period that includes a period of stress to the credit default spreads of the Board-regulated institution's counterparties according to paragraph (d)(3)(viii) of this section;

(iii) The Board-regulated institution must use its internal model's probability distribution for changes in the fair value of a netting set that are attributable to changes in market variables to determine EE; and

(iv) Under the internal models methodology, EAD = Max (0, α × effective EPE − CVA), or, subject to the prior written approval of Board as provided in paragraph (d)(10) of this section, a more conservative measure of EAD.

(A) CVA equals the credit valuation adjustment that the Board-regulated institution has recognized in its balance sheet valuation of any OTC derivative contracts in the netting set. For purposes of this paragraph (d), CVA does not include any adjustments to common equity tier 1 capital attributable to changes in the fair value of the Board-regulated institution's liabilities that are due to changes in its own credit risk since the inception of the transaction with the counterparty.

(C) α = 1.4 except as provided in paragraph (d)(6) of this section, or when the Board has determined that the Board-regulated institution must set α higher based on the Board-regulated institution's specific characteristics of counterparty credit risk or model performance.

(v) A Board-regulated institution may include financial collateral currently posted by the counterparty as collateral (but may not include other forms of collateral) when calculating EE.

(vi) If a Board-regulated institution hedges some or all of the counterparty credit risk associated with a netting set using an eligible credit derivative, the Board-regulated institution may take the reduction in exposure to the counterparty into account when estimating EE. If the Board-regulated institution recognizes this reduction in exposure to the counterparty in its estimate of EE, it must also use its internal model to estimate a separate EAD for the Board-regulated institution's exposure to the protection provider of the credit derivative.

(3) Prior approval relating to EAD calculation. To obtain Board approval to calculate the distributions of exposures upon which the EAD calculation is based, the Board-regulated institution must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Board that it has been using for at least one year an internal model that broadly meets the following minimum standards, with which the Board-regulated institution must maintain compliance:

(i) The model must have the systems capability to estimate the expected exposure to the counterparty on a daily basis (but is not expected to estimate or report expected exposure on a daily basis);

(ii) The model must estimate expected exposure at enough future dates to reflect accurately all the future cash flows of contracts in the netting set;

(iii) The model must account for the possible non-normality of the exposure distribution, where appropriate;

(iv) The Board-regulated institution must measure, monitor, and control current counterparty exposure and the exposure to the counterparty over the whole life of all contracts in the netting set;

(v) The Board-regulated institution must be able to measure and manage current exposures gross and net of collateral held, where appropriate. The Board-regulated institution must estimate expected exposures for OTC derivative contracts both with and without the effect of collateral agreements;

(vi) The Board-regulated institution must have procedures to identify, monitor, and control wrong-way risk throughout the life of an exposure. The procedures must include stress testing and scenario analysis;

(vii) The model must use current market data to compute current exposures. The Board-regulated institution must estimate model parameters using historical data from the most recent three-year period and update the data quarterly or more frequently if market conditions warrant. The Board-regulated institution should consider using model parameters based on forward-looking measures, where appropriate;

(viii) When estimating model parameters based on a stress period, the Board-regulated institution must use at least three years of historical data that include a period of stress to the credit default spreads of the Board-regulated institution's counterparties. The Board-regulated institution must review the data set and update the data as necessary, particularly for any material changes in its counterparties. The Board-regulated institution must demonstrate, at least quarterly, and maintain documentation of such demonstration, that the stress period coincides with increased CDS or other credit spreads of the Board-regulated institution's counterparties. The Board-regulated institution must have procedures to evaluate the effectiveness of its stress calibration that include a process for using benchmark portfolios that are vulnerable to the same risk factors as the Board-regulated institution's portfolio. The Board may require the Board-regulated institution to modify its stress calibration to better reflect actual historic losses of the portfolio;

(ix) A Board-regulated institution must subject its internal model to an initial validation and annual model review process. The model review should consider whether the inputs and risk factors, as well as the model outputs, are appropriate. As part of the model review process, the Board-regulated institution must have a backtesting program for its model that includes a process by which unacceptable model performance will be determined and remedied;

(x) A Board-regulated institution must have policies for the measurement, management and control of collateral and margin amounts; and

(xi) A Board-regulated institution must have a comprehensive stress testing program that captures all credit exposures to counterparties, and incorporates stress testing of principal market risk factors and creditworthiness of counterparties.

(4) Calculating the maturity of exposures. (i) If the remaining maturity of the exposure or the longest-dated contract in the netting set is greater than one year, the Board-regulated institution must set M for the exposure or netting set equal to the lower of five years or M(EPE), where:

(ii) If the remaining maturity of the exposure or the longest-dated contract in the netting set is one year or less, the Board-regulated institution must set M for the exposure or netting set equal to one year, except as provided in § 217.131(d)(7).

(iii) Alternatively, a Board-regulated institution that uses an internal model to calculate a one-sided credit valuation adjustment may use the effective credit duration estimated by the model as M(EPE) in place of the formula in paragraph (d)(4)(i) of this section.

(5) Effects of collateral agreements on EAD. A Board-regulated institution may capture the effect on EAD of a collateral agreement that requires receipt of collateral when exposure to the counterparty increases, but may not capture the effect on EAD of a collateral agreement that requires receipt of collateral when counterparty credit quality deteriorates. Two methods are available to capture the effect of a collateral agreement, as set forth in paragraphs (d)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section:

(i) With prior written approval from the Board, a Board-regulated institution may include the effect of a collateral agreement within its internal model used to calculate EAD. The Board-regulated institution may set EAD equal to the expected exposure at the end of the margin period of risk. The margin period of risk means, with respect to a netting set subject to a collateral agreement, the time period from the most recent exchange of collateral with a counterparty until the next required exchange of collateral, plus the period of time required to sell and realize the proceeds of the least liquid collateral that can be delivered under the terms of the collateral agreement and, where applicable, the period of time required to re-hedge the resulting market risk upon the default of the counterparty. The minimum margin period of risk is set according to paragraph (d)(5)(iii) of this section; or

(ii) As an alternative to paragraph (d)(5)(i) of this section, a Board-regulated institution that can model EPE without collateral agreements but cannot achieve the higher level of modeling sophistication to model EPE with collateral agreements can set effective EPE for a collateralized netting set equal to the lesser of:

(A) An add-on that reflects the potential increase in exposure of the netting set over the margin period of risk, plus the larger of:

(1) The current exposure of the netting set reflecting all collateral held or posted by the Board-regulated institution excluding any collateral called or in dispute; or

(2) The largest net exposure including all collateral held or posted under the margin agreement that would not trigger a collateral call. For purposes of this section, the add-on is computed as the expected increase in the netting set's exposure over the margin period of risk (set in accordance with paragraph (d)(5)(iii) of this section); or

(B) Effective EPE without a collateral agreement plus any collateral the Board-regulated institution posts to the counterparty that exceeds the required margin amount.

(iii) For purposes of this part, including paragraphs (d)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section, the margin period of risk for a netting set subject to a collateral agreement is:

(A) Five business days for repo-style transactions subject to daily remargining and daily marking-to-market, and ten business days for other transactions when liquid financial collateral is posted under a daily margin maintenance requirement, or

(B) Twenty business days if the number of trades in a netting set exceeds 5,000 at any time during the previous quarter (except if the Board-regulated institution is calculating EAD for a cleared transaction under § 217.133) or contains one or more trades involving illiquid collateral or any derivative contract that cannot be easily replaced. If over the two previous quarters more than two margin disputes on a netting set have occurred that lasted more than the margin period of risk, then the Board-regulated institution must use a margin period of risk for that netting set that is at least two times the minimum margin period of risk for that netting set. If the periodicity of the receipt of collateral is N-days, the minimum margin period of risk is the minimum margin period of risk under this paragraph (d) plus N minus 1. This period should be extended to cover any impediments to prompt re-hedging of any market risk.

(C) Five business days for an OTC derivative contract or netting set of OTC derivative contracts where the Board-regulated institution is either acting as a financial intermediary and enters into an offsetting transaction with a CCP or where the Board-regulated institution provides a guarantee to the CCP on the performance of the client. A Board-regulated institution must use a longer holding period if the Board-regulated institution determines that a longer period is appropriate. Additionally, the Board may require the Board-regulated institution to set a longer holding period if the Board determines that a longer period is appropriate due to the nature, structure, or characteristics of the transaction or is commensurate with the risks associated with the transaction.

(6) Own estimate of alpha. With prior written approval of the Board, a Board-regulated institution may calculate alpha as the ratio of economic capital from a full simulation of counterparty exposure across counterparties that incorporates a joint simulation of market and credit risk factors (numerator) and economic capital based on EPE (denominator), subject to a floor of 1.2. For purposes of this calculation, economic capital is the unexpected losses for all counterparty credit risks measured at a 99.9 percent confidence level over a one-year horizon. To receive approval, the Board-regulated institution must meet the following minimum standards to the satisfaction of the Board:

(i) The Board-regulated institution's own estimate of alpha must capture in the numerator the effects of:

(A) The material sources of stochastic dependency of distributions of fair values of transactions or portfolios of transactions across counterparties;

(B) Volatilities and correlations of market risk factors used in the joint simulation, which must be related to the credit risk factor used in the simulation to reflect potential increases in volatility or correlation in an economic downturn, where appropriate; and

(C) The granularity of exposures (that is, the effect of a concentration in the proportion of each counterparty's exposure that is driven by a particular risk factor).

(ii) The Board-regulated institution must assess the potential model uncertainty in its estimates of alpha.

(iii) The Board-regulated institution must calculate the numerator and denominator of alpha in a consistent fashion with respect to modeling methodology, parameter specifications, and portfolio composition.

(iv) The Board-regulated institution must review and adjust as appropriate its estimates of the numerator and denominator of alpha on at least a quarterly basis and more frequently when the composition of the portfolio varies over time.

(7) Risk-based capital requirements for transactions with specific wrong-way risk. A Board-regulated institution must determine if a repo-style transaction, eligible margin loan, bond option, or equity derivative contract or purchased credit derivative to which the Board-regulated institution applies the internal models methodology under this paragraph (d) has specific wrong-way risk. If a transaction has specific wrong-way risk, the Board-regulated institution must treat the transaction as its own netting set and exclude it from the model described in § 217.132(d)(2) and instead calculate the risk-based capital requirement for the transaction as follows:

(i) For an equity derivative contract, by multiplying:

(A) K, calculated using the appropriate risk-based capital formula specified in Table 1 of § 217.131 using the PD of the counterparty and LGD equal to 100 percent, by

(B) The maximum amount the Board-regulated institution could lose on the equity derivative.

(ii) For a purchased credit derivative by multiplying:

(A) K, calculated using the appropriate risk-based capital formula specified in Table 1 of § 217.131 using the PD of the counterparty and LGD equal to 100 percent, by

(B) The fair value of the reference asset of the credit derivative.

(iii) For a bond option, by multiplying:

(A) K, calculated using the appropriate risk-based capital formula specified in Table 1 of § 217.131 using the PD of the counterparty and LGD equal to 100 percent, by

(B) The smaller of the notional amount of the underlying reference asset and the maximum potential loss under the bond option contract.

(iv) For a repo-style transaction or eligible margin loan by multiplying:

(A) K, calculated using the appropriate risk-based capital formula specified in Table 1 of § 217.131 using the PD of the counterparty and LGD equal to 100 percent, by

(B) The EAD of the transaction determined according to the EAD equation in § 217.132(b)(2), substituting the estimated value of the collateral assuming a default of the counterparty for the value of the collateral in Σc of the equation.

(8) Risk-weighted asset amount for IMM exposures with specific wrong-way risk. The aggregate risk-weighted asset amount for IMM exposures with specific wrong-way risk is the sum of a Board-regulated institution's risk-based capital requirement for purchased credit derivatives that are not bond options with specific wrong-way risk as calculated under paragraph (d)(7)(ii) of this section, a Board-regulated institution's risk-based capital requirement for equity derivatives with specific wrong-way risk as calculated under paragraph (d)(7)(i) of this section, a Board-regulated institution's risk-based capital requirement for bond options with specific wrong-way risk as calculated under paragraph (d)(7)(iii) of this section, and a Board-regulated institution's risk-based capital requirement for repo-style transactions and eligible margin loans with specific wrong-way risk as calculated under paragraph (d)(7)(iv) of this section, multiplied by 12.5.

(9) Risk-weighted assets for IMM exposures. (i) The Board-regulated institution must insert the assigned risk parameters for each counterparty and netting set into the appropriate formula specified in Table 1 of § 217.131 and multiply the output of the formula by the EADunstressed of the netting set to obtain the unstressed capital requirement for each netting set. A Board-regulated institution that uses an advanced CVA approach that captures migrations in credit spreads under paragraph (e)(3) of this section must set the maturity adjustment (b) in the formula equal to zero. The sum of the unstressed capital requirement calculated for each netting set equals Kunstressed.

(ii) The Board-regulated institution must insert the assigned risk parameters for each wholesale obligor and netting set into the appropriate formula specified in Table 1 of § 217.131 and multiply the output of the formula by the EADstressed of the netting set to obtain the stressed capital requirement for each netting set. A Board-regulated institution that uses an advanced CVA approach that captures migrations in credit spreads under paragraph (e)(6) of this section must set the maturity adjustment (b) in the formula equal to zero. The sum of the stressed capital requirement calculated for each netting set equals Kstressed.

(iii) The Board-regulated institution's dollar risk-based capital requirement under the internal models methodology equals the larger of Kunstressed and Kstressed. A Board-regulated institution's risk-weighted assets amount for IMM exposures is equal to the capital requirement multiplied by 12.5, plus risk-weighted assets for IMM exposures with specific wrong-way risk in paragraph (d)(8) of this section and those in paragraph (d)(10) of this section.

(10) Other measures of counterparty exposure. (i) With prior written approval of the Board, a Board-regulated institution may set EAD equal to a measure of counterparty credit risk exposure, such as peak EAD, that is more conservative than an alpha of 1.4 times the larger of EPEunstressed and EPEstressed for every counterparty whose EAD will be measured under the alternative measure of counterparty exposure. The Board-regulated institution must demonstrate the conservatism of the measure of counterparty credit risk exposure used for EAD. With respect to paragraph (d)(10)(i) of this section:

(A) For material portfolios of new OTC derivative products, the Board-regulated institution may assume that the standardized approach for counterparty credit risk pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section meets the conservatism requirement of this section for a period not to exceed 180 days.

(B) For immaterial portfolios of OTC derivative contracts, the Board-regulated institution generally may assume that the standardized approach for counterparty credit risk pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section meets the conservatism requirement of this section.

(ii) To calculate risk-weighted assets for purposes of the approach in paragraph (d)(10)(i) of this section, the Board-regulated institution must insert the assigned risk parameters for each counterparty and netting set into the appropriate formula specified in Table 1 of § 217.131, multiply the output of the formula by the EAD for the exposure as specified above, and multiply by 12.5.

(e) Credit valuation adjustment (CVA) risk-weighted assets—(1) In general. With respect to its OTC derivative contracts, a Board-regulated institution must calculate a CVA risk-weighted asset amount for its portfolio of OTC derivative transactions that are subject to the CVA capital requirement using the simple CVA approach described in paragraph (e)(5) of this section or, with prior written approval of the Board, the advanced CVA approach described in paragraph (e)(6) of this section. A Board-regulated institution that receives prior Board approval to calculate its CVA risk-weighted asset amounts for a class of counterparties using the advanced CVA approach must continue to use that approach for that class of counterparties until it notifies the Board in writing that the Board-regulated institution expects to begin calculating its CVA risk-weighted asset amount using the simple CVA approach. Such notice must include an explanation of the Board-regulated institution's rationale and the date upon which the Board-regulated institution will begin to calculate its CVA risk-weighted asset amount using the simple CVA approach.

(2) Market risk Board-regulated institutions. Notwithstanding the prior approval requirement in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, a market risk Board-regulated institution may calculate its CVA risk-weighted asset amount using the advanced CVA approach if the Board-regulated institution has Board approval to:

(i) Determine EAD for OTC derivative contracts using the internal models methodology described in paragraph (d) of this section; and

(ii) Determine its specific risk add-on for debt positions issued by the counterparty using a specific risk model described in § 217.207(b).

(3) Recognition of hedges. (i) A Board-regulated institution may recognize a single name CDS, single name contingent CDS, any other equivalent hedging instrument that references the counterparty directly, and index credit default swaps (CDSind) as a CVA hedge under paragraph (e)(5)(ii) of this section or paragraph (e)(6) of this section, provided that the position is managed as a CVA hedge in accordance with the Board-regulated institution's hedging policies.

(ii) A Board-regulated institution shall not recognize as a CVA hedge any tranched or n th-to-default credit derivative.

(4) Total CVA risk-weighted assets. Total CVA risk-weighted assets is the CVA capital requirement, KCVA, calculated for a Board-regulated institution's entire portfolio of OTC derivative counterparties that are subject to the CVA capital requirement, multiplied by 12.5.

(5) Simple CVA approach. (i) Under the simple CVA approach, the CVA capital requirement, KCVA, is calculated according to the following formula:

(A) wi = the weight applicable to counterparty i under Table 4 to this section;

(B) Mi = the EAD-weighted average of the effective maturity of each netting set with counterparty i (where each netting set's effective maturity can be no less than one year.)

(C) EADitotal = the sum of the EAD for all netting sets of OTC derivative contracts with counterparty i calculated using the standardized approach to counterparty credit risk described in paragraph (c) of this section or the internal models methodology described in paragraph (d) of this section. When the Board-regulated institution calculates EAD under paragraph (c) of this section, such EAD may be adjusted for purposes of calculating EADitotal by multiplying EAD by (1-exp(−0.05 × Mi))/(0.05 × Mi), where “exp” is the exponential function. When the Board-regulated institution calculates EAD under paragraph (d) of this section, EADitotal equals EADunstressed.

(D) Mihedge = the notional weighted average maturity of the hedge instrument.

(E) Bi = the sum of the notional amounts of any purchased single name CDS referencing counterparty i that is used to hedge CVA risk to counterparty i multiplied by (1-exp(−0.05 × Mihedge))/(0.05 × Mihedge).

(F) Mind = the maturity of the CDSind or the notional weighted average maturity of any CDSind purchased to hedge CVA risk of counterparty i.

(G) Bind = the notional amount of one or more CDSind purchased to hedge CVA risk for counterparty i multiplied by (1-exp(−0.05 × Mind))/(0.05 × Mind)

(H) wind = the weight applicable to the CDSind based on the average weight of the underlying reference names that comprise the index under Table 4 to this section.

(ii) The Board-regulated institution may treat the notional amount of the index attributable to a counterparty as a single name hedge of counterparty i (Bi,) when calculating KCVA, and subtract the notional amount of Bi from the notional amount of the CDSind. A Board-regulated institution must treat the CDSind hedge with the notional amount reduced by Bi as a CVA hedge.

(6) Advanced CVA approach. (i) A Board-regulated institution may use the VaR model that it uses to determine specific risk under § 217.207(b) or another VaR model that meets the quantitative requirements of § 217.205(b) and § 217.207(b)(1) to calculate its CVA capital requirement for a counterparty by modeling the impact of changes in the counterparties' credit spreads, together with any recognized CVA hedges, on the CVA for the counterparties, subject to the following requirements:

(A) The VaR model must incorporate only changes in the counterparties' credit spreads, not changes in other risk factors. The VaR model does not need to capture jump-to-default risk;

(B) A Board-regulated institution that qualifies to use the advanced CVA approach must include in that approach any immaterial OTC derivative portfolios for which it uses the standardized approach to counterparty credit risk in paragraph (c) of this section according to paragraph (e)(6)(viii) of this section; and

(C) A Board-regulated institution must have the systems capability to calculate the CVA capital requirement for a counterparty on a daily basis (but is not required to calculate the CVA capital requirement on a daily basis).

(ii) Under the advanced CVA approach, the CVA capital requirement, KCVA, is calculated according to the following formulas:

(A) ti = the time of the i-th revaluation time bucket starting from t0 = 0.

(B) tT = the longest contractual maturity across the OTC derivative contracts with the counterparty.

(C) si = the CDS spread for the counterparty at tenor ti used to calculate the CVA for the counterparty. If a CDS spread is not available, the Board-regulated institution must use a proxy spread based on the credit quality, industry and region of the counterparty.

(D) LGDMKT = the loss given default of the counterparty based on the spread of a publicly traded debt instrument of the counterparty, or, where a publicly traded debt instrument spread is not available, a proxy spread based on the credit quality, industry, and region of the counterparty. Where no market information and no reliable proxy based on the credit quality, industry, and region of the counterparty are available to determine LGDMKT, a Board-regulated institution may use a conservative estimate when determining LGDMKT, subject to approval by the Board.

(E) EEi = the sum of the expected exposures for all netting sets with the counterparty at revaluation time ti, calculated according to paragraphs (e)(6)(iv)(A) and (e)(6)(v)(A) of this section.

(F) Di = the risk-free discount factor at time ti, where D0 = 1.

(G) Exp is the exponential function.

(H) The subscript j refers either to a stressed or an unstressed calibration as described in paragraphs (e)(6)(iv) and (v) of this section.

(iii) Notwithstanding paragraphs (e)(6)(i) and (e)(6)(ii) of this section, a Board-regulated institution must use the formulas in paragraphs (e)(6)(iii)(A) or (e)(6)(iii)(B) of this section to calculate credit spread sensitivities if its VaR model is not based on full repricing.

(A) If the VaR model is based on credit spread sensitivities for specific tenors, the Board-regulated institution must calculate each credit spread sensitivity according to the following formula:

(iv) To calculate the CVAUnstressed measure for purposes of paragraph (e)(6)(ii) of this section, the Board-regulated institution must:

(A) Use the EEi calculated using the calibration of paragraph (d)(3)(vii) of this section, except as provided in § 217.132(e)(6)(vi), and

(B) Use the historical observation period required under § 217.205(b)(2).

(v) To calculate the CVAStressed measure for purposes of paragraph (e)(6)(ii) of this section, the Board-regulated institution must:

(A) Use the EEi calculated using the stress calibration in paragraph (d)(3)(viii) of this section except as provided in paragraph (e)(6)(vi) of this section.

(B) Calibrate VaR model inputs to historical data from the most severe twelve-month stress period contained within the three-year stress period used to calculate EEi. The Board may require a Board-regulated institution to use a different period of significant financial stress in the calculation of the CVAStressed measure.

(vi) If a Board-regulated institution captures the effect of a collateral agreement on EAD using the method described in paragraph (d)(5)(ii) of this section, for purposes of paragraph (e)(6)(ii) of this section, the Board-regulated institution must calculate EEi using the method in paragraph (d)(5)(ii) of this section and keep that EE constant with the maturity equal to the maximum of:

(A) Half of the longest maturity of a transaction in the netting set, and

(B) The notional weighted average maturity of all transactions in the netting set.

(vii) For purposes of paragraph (e)(6) of this section, the Board-regulated institution's VaR model must capture the basis between the spreads of any CDSind that is used as the hedging instrument and the hedged counterparty exposure over various time periods, including benign and stressed environments. If the VaR model does not capture that basis, the Board-regulated institution must reflect only 50 percent of the notional amount of the CDSind hedge in the VaR model.

(viii) If a Board-regulated institution uses the standardized approach for counterparty credit risk pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section to calculate the EAD for any immaterial portfolios of OTC derivative contracts, the Board-regulated institution must use that EAD as a constant EE in the formula for the calculation of CVA with the maturity equal to the maximum of:

(A) Half of the longest maturity of a transaction in the netting set; and

(B) The notional weighted average maturity of all transactions in the netting set.

(a) General requirements—(1) Clearing member clients. A Board-regulated institution that is a clearing member client must use the methodologies described in paragraph (b) of this section to calculate risk-weighted assets for a cleared transaction.

(2) Clearing members. A Board-regulated institution that is a clearing member must use the methodologies described in paragraph (c) of this section to calculate its risk-weighted assets for a cleared transaction and paragraph (d) of this section to calculate its risk-weighted assets for its default fund contribution to a CCP.

(b) Clearing member client Board-regulated institutions—(1) Risk-weighted assets for cleared transactions. (i) To determine the risk-weighted asset amount for a cleared transaction, a Board-regulated institution that is a clearing member client must multiply the trade exposure amount for the cleared transaction, calculated in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this section, by the risk weight appropriate for the cleared transaction, determined in accordance with paragraph (b)(3) of this section.

(ii) A clearing member client Board-regulated institution's total risk-weighted assets for cleared transactions is the sum of the risk-weighted asset amounts for all of its cleared transactions.

(2) Trade exposure amount. (i) For a cleared transaction that is a derivative contract or a netting set of derivative contracts, trade exposure amount equals the EAD for the derivative contract or netting set of derivative contracts calculated using the methodology used to calculate EAD for derivative contracts set forth in § 217.132(c) or (d), plus the fair value of the collateral posted by the clearing member client Board-regulated institution and held by the CCP or a clearing member in a manner that is not bankruptcy remote. When the Board-regulated institution calculates EAD for the cleared transaction using the methodology in § 217.132(d), EAD equals EADunstressed.

(ii) For a cleared transaction that is a repo-style transaction or netting set of repo-style transactions, trade exposure amount equals the EAD for the repo-style transaction calculated using the methodology set forth in § 217.132(b)(2) or (3) or (d), plus the fair value of the collateral posted by the clearing member client Board-regulated institution and held by the CCP or a clearing member in a manner that is not bankruptcy remote. When the Board-regulated institution calculates EAD for the cleared transaction under § 217.132(d), EAD equals EADunstressed.

(3) Cleared transaction risk weights. (i) For a cleared transaction with a QCCP, a clearing member client Board-regulated institution must apply a risk weight of:

(A) 2 percent if the collateral posted by the Board-regulated institution to the QCCP or clearing member is subject to an arrangement that prevents any loss to the clearing member client Board-regulated institution due to the joint default or a concurrent insolvency, liquidation, or receivership proceeding of the clearing member and any other clearing member clients of the clearing member; and the clearing member client Board-regulated institution has conducted sufficient legal review to conclude with a well-founded basis (and maintains sufficient written documentation of that legal review) that in the event of a legal challenge (including one resulting from an event of default or from liquidation, insolvency, or receivership proceedings) the relevant court and administrative authorities would find the arrangements to be legal, valid, binding, and enforceable under the law of the relevant jurisdictions.

(B) 4 percent, if the requirements of paragraph (b)(3)(i)(A) of this section are not met.

(ii) For a cleared transaction with a CCP that is not a QCCP, a clearing member client Board-regulated institution must apply the risk weight applicable to the CCP under subpart D of this part.

(4) Collateral. (i) Notwithstanding any other requirement of this section, collateral posted by a clearing member client Board-regulated institution that is held by a custodian (in its capacity as a custodian) in a manner that is bankruptcy remote from the CCP, clearing member, and other clearing member clients of the clearing member, is not subject to a capital requirement under this section.

(ii) A clearing member client Board-regulated institution must calculate a risk-weighted asset amount for any collateral provided to a CCP, clearing member or a custodian in connection with a cleared transaction in accordance with requirements under subparts E or F of this part, as applicable.

(c) Clearing member Board-regulated institution—(1) Risk-weighted assets for cleared transactions. (i) To determine the risk-weighted asset amount for a cleared transaction, a clearing member Board-regulated institution must multiply the trade exposure amount for the cleared transaction, calculated in accordance with paragraph (c)(2) of this section by the risk weight appropriate for the cleared transaction, determined in accordance with paragraph (c)(3) of this section.

(ii) A clearing member Board-regulated institution's total risk-weighted assets for cleared transactions is the sum of the risk-weighted asset amounts for all of its cleared transactions.

(2) Trade exposure amount. A clearing member Board-regulated institution must calculate its trade exposure amount for a cleared transaction as follows:

(i) For a cleared transaction that is a derivative contract or a netting set of derivative contracts, trade exposure amount equals the EAD calculated using the methodology used to calculate EAD for derivative contracts set forth in § 217.132(c) or (d), plus the fair value of the collateral posted by the clearing member Board-regulated institution and held by the CCP in a manner that is not bankruptcy remote. When the clearing member Board-regulated institution calculates EAD for the cleared transaction using the methodology in § 217.132(d), EAD equals EADunstressed.

(ii) For a cleared transaction that is a repo-style transaction or netting set of repo-style transactions, trade exposure amount equals the EAD calculated under § 217.132(b)(2) or (3) or (d), plus the fair value of the collateral posted by the clearing member Board-regulated institution and held by the CCP in a manner that is not bankruptcy remote. When the clearing member Board-regulated institution calculates EAD for the cleared transaction under § 217.132(d), EAD equals EADunstressed.

(3) Cleared transaction risk weights. (i) A clearing member Board-regulated institution must apply a risk weight of 2 percent to the trade exposure amount for a cleared transaction with a QCCP.

(ii) For a cleared transaction with a CCP that is not a QCCP, a clearing member Board-regulated institution must apply the risk weight applicable to the CCP according to subpart D of this part.

(iii) Notwithstanding paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section, a clearing member Board-regulated institution may apply a risk weight of zero percent to the trade exposure amount for a cleared transaction with a QCCP where the clearing member Board-regulated institution is acting as a financial intermediary on behalf of a clearing member client, the transaction offsets another transaction that satisfies the requirements set forth in § 217.3(a), and the clearing member Board-regulated institution is not obligated to reimburse the clearing member client in the event of the QCCP default.

(4) Collateral. (i) Notwithstanding any other requirement of this section, collateral posted by a clearing member Board-regulated institution that is held by a custodian (in its capacity as a custodian) in a manner that is bankruptcy remote from the CCP, clearing member, and other clearing member clients of the clearing member, is not subject to a capital requirement under this section.

(ii) A clearing member Board-regulated institution must calculate a risk-weighted asset amount for any collateral provided to a CCP, clearing member or a custodian in connection with a cleared transaction in accordance with requirements under subparts E or F of this part, as applicable.

(d) Default fund contributions—(1) General requirement. A clearing member Board-regulated institution must determine the risk-weighted asset amount for a default fund contribution to a CCP at least quarterly, or more frequently if, in the opinion of the Board-regulated institution or the Board, there is a material change in the financial condition of the CCP.

(2) Risk-weighted asset amount for default fund contributions to nonqualifying CCPs. A clearing member Board-regulated institution's risk-weighted asset amount for default fund contributions to CCPs that are not QCCPs equals the sum of such default fund contributions multiplied by 1,250 percent, or an amount determined by the Board, based on factors such as size, structure, and membership characteristics of the CCP and riskiness of its transactions, in cases where such default fund contributions may be unlimited.

(3) Risk-weighted asset amount for default fund contributions to QCCPs. A clearing member Board-regulated institution's risk-weighted asset amount for default fund contributions to QCCPs equals the sum of its capital requirement, KCM for each QCCP, as calculated under the methodology set forth in paragraph (d)(4) of this section, multiplied by 12.5.

(4) Capital requirement for default fund contributions to a QCCP. A clearing member Board-regulated institution's capital requirement for its default fund contribution to a QCCP (KCM) is equal to:

(5) Hypothetical capital requirement of a QCCP. Where a QCCP has provided its KCCP, a Board-regulated institution must rely on such disclosed figure instead of calculating KCCP under this paragraph (d)(5), unless the Board-regulated institution determines that a more conservative figure is appropriate based on the nature, structure, or characteristics of the QCCP. The hypothetical capital requirement of a QCCP (KCCP), as determined by the Board-regulated institution, is equal to:

(6) EAD of a QCCP to a clearing member. (i) The EAD of a QCCP to a clearing member is equal to the sum of the EAD for derivative contracts determined under paragraph (d)(6)(ii) of this section and the EAD for repo-style transactions determined under paragraph (d)(6)(iii) of this section.

(ii) With respect to any derivative contracts between the QCCP and the clearing member that are cleared transactions and any guarantees that the clearing member has provided to the QCCP with respect to performance of a clearing member client on a derivative contract, the EAD is equal to the exposure amount of the QCCP to the clearing member for all such derivative contracts and guarantees of derivative contracts calculated under SA-CCR in § 217.132(c) (or, with respect to a QCCP located outside the United States, under a substantially identical methodology in effect in the jurisdiction) using a value of 10 business days for purposes of § 217.132(c)(9)(iv); less the value of all collateral held by the QCCP posted by the clearing member or a client of the clearing member in connection with a derivative contract for which the clearing member has provided a guarantee to the QCCP and the amount of the prefunded default fund contribution of the clearing member to the QCCP.

(iii) With respect to any repo-style transactions between the QCCP and a clearing member that are cleared transactions, EAD is equal to:

(iv) EAD must be calculated separately for each clearing member's sub-client accounts and sub-house account (i.e., for the clearing member's proprietary activities). If the clearing member's collateral and its client's collateral are held in the same default fund contribution account, then the EAD of that account is the sum of the EAD for the client-related transactions within the account and the EAD of the house-related transactions within the account. For purposes of determining such EADs, the independent collateral of the clearing member and its client must be allocated in proportion to the respective total amount of independent collateral posted by the clearing member to the QCCP.

(v) If any account or sub-account contains both derivative contracts and repo-style transactions, the EAD of that account is the sum of the EAD for the derivative contracts within the account and the EAD of the repo-style transactions within the account. If independent collateral is held for an account containing both derivative contracts and repo-style transactions, then such collateral must be allocated to the derivative contracts and repo-style transactions in proportion to the respective product specific exposure amounts, calculated, excluding the effects of collateral, according to § 217.132(b) for repo-style transactions and to § 217.132(c)(5) for derivative contracts.

(vi) Notwithstanding any other provision of paragraph (d) of this section, with the prior approval of the Board, a Board-regulated institution may determine the risk-weighted asset amount for a default fund contribution to a QCCP according to § 217.35(d)(3)(ii).

(a) Scope. (1) This section applies to wholesale exposures for which:

(i) Credit risk is fully covered by an eligible guarantee or eligible credit derivative; or

(ii) Credit risk is covered on a pro rata basis (that is, on a basis in which the Board-regulated institution and the protection provider share losses proportionately) by an eligible guarantee or eligible credit derivative.

(2) Wholesale exposures on which there is a tranching of credit risk (reflecting at least two different levels of seniority) are securitization exposures subject to § 217.141 through § 217.145.

(3) A Board-regulated institution may elect to recognize the credit risk mitigation benefits of an eligible guarantee or eligible credit derivative covering an exposure described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section by using the PD substitution approach or the LGD adjustment approach in paragraph (c) of this section or, if the transaction qualifies, using the double default treatment in § 217.135. A Board-regulated institution's PD and LGD for the hedged exposure may not be lower than the PD and LGD floors described in § 217.131(d)(2) and (d)(3).

(4) If multiple eligible guarantees or eligible credit derivatives cover a single exposure described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, a Board-regulated institution may treat the hedged exposure as multiple separate exposures each covered by a single eligible guarantee or eligible credit derivative and may calculate a separate risk-based capital requirement for each separate exposure as described in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.

(5) If a single eligible guarantee or eligible credit derivative covers multiple hedged wholesale exposures described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, a Board-regulated institution must treat each hedged exposure as covered by a separate eligible guarantee or eligible credit derivative and must calculate a separate risk-based capital requirement for each exposure as described in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.

(6) A Board-regulated institution must use the same risk parameters for calculating ECL as it uses for calculating the risk-based capital requirement for the exposure.

(b) Rules of recognition. (1) A Board-regulated institution may only recognize the credit risk mitigation benefits of eligible guarantees and eligible credit derivatives.

(2) A Board-regulated institution may only recognize the credit risk mitigation benefits of an eligible credit derivative to hedge an exposure that is different from the credit derivative's reference exposure used for determining the derivative's cash settlement value, deliverable obligation, or occurrence of a credit event if:

(i) The reference exposure ranks pari passu (that is, equally) with or is junior to the hedged exposure; and

(ii) The reference exposure and the hedged exposure are exposures to the same legal entity, and legally enforceable cross-default or cross-acceleration clauses are in place to assure payments under the credit derivative are triggered when the obligor fails to pay under the terms of the hedged exposure.

(c) Risk parameters for hedged exposures—(1) PD substitution approach—(i) Full coverage. If an eligible guarantee or eligible credit derivative meets the conditions in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section and the protection amount (P) of the guarantee or credit derivative is greater than or equal to the EAD of the hedged exposure, a Board-regulated institution may recognize the guarantee or credit derivative in determining the Board-regulated institution's risk-based capital requirement for the hedged exposure by substituting the PD associated with the rating grade of the protection provider for the PD associated with the rating grade of the obligor in the risk-based capital formula applicable to the guarantee or credit derivative in Table 1 of § 217.131 and using the appropriate LGD as described in paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section. If the Board-regulated institution determines that full substitution of the protection provider's PD leads to an inappropriate degree of risk mitigation, the Board-regulated institution may substitute a higher PD than that of the protection provider.

(ii) Partial coverage. If an eligible guarantee or eligible credit derivative meets the conditions in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section and P of the guarantee or credit derivative is less than the EAD of the hedged exposure, the Board-regulated institution must treat the hedged exposure as two separate exposures (protected and unprotected) in order to recognize the credit risk mitigation benefit of the guarantee or credit derivative.

(A) The Board-regulated institution must calculate its risk-based capital requirement for the protected exposure under § 217.131, where PD is the protection provider's PD, LGD is determined under paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section, and EAD is P. If the Board-regulated institution determines that full substitution leads to an inappropriate degree of risk mitigation, the Board-regulated institution may use a higher PD than that of the protection provider.

(B) The Board-regulated institution must calculate its risk-based capital requirement for the unprotected exposure under § 217.131, where PD is the obligor's PD, LGD is the hedged exposure's LGD (not adjusted to reflect the guarantee or credit derivative), and EAD is the EAD of the original hedged exposure minus P.

(C) The treatment in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section is applicable when the credit risk of a wholesale exposure is covered on a partial pro rata basis or when an adjustment is made to the effective notional amount of the guarantee or credit derivative under paragraphs (d), (e), or (f) of this section.

(iii) LGD of hedged exposures. The LGD of a hedged exposure under the PD substitution approach is equal to:

(A) The lower of the LGD of the hedged exposure (not adjusted to reflect the guarantee or credit derivative) and the LGD of the guarantee or credit derivative, if the guarantee or credit derivative provides the Board-regulated institution with the option to receive immediate payout upon triggering the protection; or

(B) The LGD of the guarantee or credit derivative, if the guarantee or credit derivative does not provide the Board-regulated institution with the option to receive immediate payout upon triggering the protection.

(2) LGD adjustment approach—(i) Full coverage. If an eligible guarantee or eligible credit derivative meets the conditions in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section and the protection amount (P) of the guarantee or credit derivative is greater than or equal to the EAD of the hedged exposure, the Board-regulated institution's risk-based capital requirement for the hedged exposure is the greater of:

(A) The risk-based capital requirement for the exposure as calculated under § 217.131, with the LGD of the exposure adjusted to reflect the guarantee or credit derivative; or

(B) The risk-based capital requirement for a direct exposure to the protection provider as calculated under § 217.131, using the PD for the protection provider, the LGD for the guarantee or credit derivative, and an EAD equal to the EAD of the hedged exposure.

(ii) Partial coverage. If an eligible guarantee or eligible credit derivative meets the conditions in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section and the protection amount (P) of the guarantee or credit derivative is less than the EAD of the hedged exposure, the Board-regulated institution must treat the hedged exposure as two separate exposures (protected and unprotected) in order to recognize the credit risk mitigation benefit of the guarantee or credit derivative.

(A) The Board-regulated institution's risk-based capital requirement for the protected exposure would be the greater of:

(1) The risk-based capital requirement for the protected exposure as calculated under § 217.131, with the LGD of the exposure adjusted to reflect the guarantee or credit derivative and EAD set equal to P; or

(2) The risk-based capital requirement for a direct exposure to the guarantor as calculated under § 217.131, using the PD for the protection provider, the LGD for the guarantee or credit derivative, and an EAD set equal to P.

(B) The Board-regulated institution must calculate its risk-based capital requirement for the unprotected exposure under § 217.131, where PD is the obligor's PD, LGD is the hedged exposure's LGD (not adjusted to reflect the guarantee or credit derivative), and EAD is the EAD of the original hedged exposure minus P.

(3) M of hedged exposures. For purposes of this paragraph (c), the M of the hedged exposure is the same as the M of the exposure if it were unhedged.

(d) Maturity mismatch. (1) A Board-regulated institution that recognizes an eligible guarantee or eligible credit derivative in determining its risk-based capital requirement for a hedged exposure must adjust the effective notional amount of the credit risk mitigant to reflect any maturity mismatch between the hedged exposure and the credit risk mitigant.

(2) A maturity mismatch occurs when the residual maturity of a credit risk mitigant is less than that of the hedged exposure(s).

(3) The residual maturity of a hedged exposure is the longest possible remaining time before the obligor is scheduled to fulfil its obligation on the exposure. If a credit risk mitigant has embedded options that may reduce its term, the Board-regulated institution (protection purchaser) must use the shortest possible residual maturity for the credit risk mitigant. If a call is at the discretion of the protection provider, the residual maturity of the credit risk mitigant is at the first call date. If the call is at the discretion of the Board-regulated institution (protection purchaser), but the terms of the arrangement at origination of the credit risk mitigant contain a positive incentive for the Board-regulated institution to call the transaction before contractual maturity, the remaining time to the first call date is the residual maturity of the credit risk mitigant. 31

(4) A credit risk mitigant with a maturity mismatch may be recognized only if its original maturity is greater than or equal to one year and its residual maturity is greater than three months.

(5) When a maturity mismatch exists, the Board-regulated institution must apply the following adjustment to the effective notional amount of the credit risk mitigant:

(i) Pm = effective notional amount of the credit risk mitigant, adjusted for maturity mismatch;

(ii) E = effective notional amount of the credit risk mitigant;

(iii) t = the lesser of T or the residual maturity of the credit risk mitigant, expressed in years; and

(iv) T = the lesser of five or the residual maturity of the hedged exposure, expressed in years.

(e) Credit derivatives without restructuring as a credit event. If a Board-regulated institution recognizes an eligible credit derivative that does not include as a credit event a restructuring of the hedged exposure involving forgiveness or postponement of principal, interest, or fees that results in a credit loss event (that is, a charge-off, specific provision, or other similar debit to the profit and loss account), the Board-regulated institution must apply the following adjustment to the effective notional amount of the credit derivative:

(1) Pr = effective notional amount of the credit risk mitigant, adjusted for lack of restructuring event (and maturity mismatch, if applicable); and

(2) Pm = effective notional amount of the credit risk mitigant adjusted for maturity mismatch (if applicable).

(f) Currency mismatch. (1) If a Board-regulated institution recognizes an eligible guarantee or eligible credit derivative that is denominated in a currency different from that in which the hedged exposure is denominated, the Board-regulated institution must apply the following formula to the effective notional amount of the guarantee or credit derivative:

(i) Pc = effective notional amount of the credit risk mitigant, adjusted for currency mismatch (and maturity mismatch and lack of restructuring event, if applicable);

(ii) Pr = effective notional amount of the credit risk mitigant (adjusted for maturity mismatch and lack of restructuring event, if applicable); and

(iii) HFX = haircut appropriate for the currency mismatch between the credit risk mitigant and the hedged exposure.

(2) A Board-regulated institution must set HFX equal to 8 percent unless it qualifies for the use of and uses its own internal estimates of foreign exchange volatility based on a ten-business-day holding period and daily marking-to-market and remargining. A Board-regulated institution qualifies for the use of its own internal estimates of foreign exchange volatility if it qualifies for:

(i) The own-estimates haircuts in § 217.132(b)(2)(iii);

(ii) The simple VaR methodology in § 217.132(b)(3); or

(iii) The internal models methodology in § 217.132(d).

(3) A Board-regulated institution must adjust HFX calculated in paragraph (f)(2) of this section upward if the Board-regulated institution revalues the guarantee or credit derivative less frequently than once every ten business days using the square root of time formula provided in § 217.132(b)(2)(iii)(A)(2).

(a) Eligibility and operational criteria for double default treatment. A Board-regulated institution may recognize the credit risk mitigation benefits of a guarantee or credit derivative covering an exposure described in § 217.134(a)(1) by applying the double default treatment in this section if all the following criteria are satisfied:

(1) The hedged exposure is fully covered or covered on a pro rata basis by:

(i) An eligible guarantee issued by an eligible double default guarantor; or

(ii) An eligible credit derivative that meets the requirements of § 217.134(b)(2) and that is issued by an eligible double default guarantor.

(2) The guarantee or credit derivative is:

(i) An uncollateralized guarantee or uncollateralized credit derivative (for example, a credit default swap) that provides protection with respect to a single reference obligor; or

(ii) An n th-to-default credit derivative (subject to the requirements of § 217.142(m).

(3) The hedged exposure is a wholesale exposure (other than a sovereign exposure).

(4) The obligor of the hedged exposure is not:

(i) An eligible double default guarantor or an affiliate of an eligible double default guarantor; or

(ii) An affiliate of the guarantor.

(5) The Board-regulated institution does not recognize any credit risk mitigation benefits of the guarantee or credit derivative for the hedged exposure other than through application of the double default treatment as provided in this section.

(6) The Board-regulated institution has implemented a process (which has received the prior, written approval of the Board) to detect excessive correlation between the creditworthiness of the obligor of the hedged exposure and the protection provider. If excessive correlation is present, the Board-regulated institution may not use the double default treatment for the hedged exposure.

(b) Full coverage. If a transaction meets the criteria in paragraph (a) of this section and the protection amount (P) of the guarantee or credit derivative is at least equal to the EAD of the hedged exposure, the Board-regulated institution may determine its risk-weighted asset amount for the hedged exposure under paragraph (e) of this section.

(c) Partial coverage. If a transaction meets the criteria in paragraph (a) of this section and the protection amount (P) of the guarantee or credit derivative is less than the EAD of the hedged exposure, the Board-regulated institution must treat the hedged exposure as two separate exposures (protected and unprotected) in order to recognize double default treatment on the protected portion of the exposure:

(1) For the protected exposure, the Board-regulated institution must set EAD equal to P and calculate its risk-weighted asset amount as provided in paragraph (e) of this section; and

(2) For the unprotected exposure, the Board-regulated institution must set EAD equal to the EAD of the original exposure minus P and then calculate its risk-weighted asset amount as provided in § 217.131.

(d) Mismatches. For any hedged exposure to which a Board-regulated institution applies double default treatment under this part, the Board-regulated institution must make applicable adjustments to the protection amount as required in § 217.134(d), (e), and (f).

(e) The double default dollar risk-based capital requirement. The dollar risk-based capital requirement for a hedged exposure to which a Board-regulated institution has applied double default treatment is KDD multiplied by the EAD of the exposure. KDD is calculated according to the following formula:

(1)

(2) PDg = PD of the protection provider.

(3) PDo = PD of the obligor of the hedged exposure.

(4) LGDg =

(i) The lower of the LGD of the hedged exposure (not adjusted to reflect the guarantee or credit derivative) and the LGD of the guarantee or credit derivative, if the guarantee or credit derivative provides the Board-regulated institution with the option to receive immediate payout on triggering the protection; or

(ii) The LGD of the guarantee or credit derivative, if the guarantee or credit derivative does not provide the Board-regulated institution with the option to receive immediate payout on triggering the protection; and

(5) ρos (asset value correlation of the obligor) is calculated according to the appropriate formula for (R) provided in Table 1 in § 217.131, with PD equal to PDo.

(6) b (maturity adjustment coefficient) is calculated according to the formula for b provided in Table 1 in § 217.131, with PD equal to the lesser of PDo and PDg; and

(7) M (maturity) is the effective maturity of the guarantee or credit derivative, which may not be less than one year or greater than five years.

(a) Definitions. For purposes of this section:

(1) Delivery-versus-payment (DvP) transaction means a securities or commodities transaction in which the buyer is obligated to make payment only if the seller has made delivery of the securities or commodities and the seller is obligated to deliver the securities or commodities only if the buyer has made payment.

(2) Payment-versus-payment (PvP) transaction means a foreign exchange transaction in which each counterparty is obligated to make a final transfer of one or more currencies only if the other counterparty has made a final transfer of one or more currencies.

(3) A transaction has a normal settlement period if the contractual settlement period for the transaction is equal to or less than the market standard for the instrument underlying the transaction and equal to or less than five business days.

(4) The positive current exposure of a Board-regulated institution for a transaction is the difference between the transaction value at the agreed settlement price and the current market price of the transaction, if the difference results in a credit exposure of the Board-regulated institution to the counterparty.

(b) Scope. This section applies to all transactions involving securities, foreign exchange instruments, and commodities that have a risk of delayed settlement or delivery. This section does not apply to:

(1) Cleared transactions that are subject to daily marking-to-market and daily receipt and payment of variation margin;

(2) Repo-style transactions, including unsettled repo-style transactions (which are addressed in §§ 217.131 and 132);

(3) One-way cash payments on OTC derivative contracts (which are addressed in §§ 217. 131 and 132); or

(4) Transactions with a contractual settlement period that is longer than the normal settlement period (which are treated as OTC derivative contracts and addressed in §§ 217.131 and 132).

(c) System-wide failures. In the case of a system-wide failure of a settlement or clearing system, or a central counterparty, the Board may waive risk-based capital requirements for unsettled and failed transactions until the situation is rectified.

(d) Delivery-versus-payment (DvP) and payment-versus-payment (PvP) transactions. A Board-regulated institution must hold risk-based capital against any DvP or PvP transaction with a normal settlement period if the Board-regulated institution's counterparty has not made delivery or payment within five business days after the settlement date. The Board-regulated institution must determine its risk-weighted asset amount for such a transaction by multiplying the positive current exposure of the transaction for the Board-regulated institution by the appropriate risk weight in Table 1 to § 217.136.

(e) Non-DvP/non-PvP (non-delivery-versus-payment/non-payment-versus-payment) transactions. (1) A Board-regulated institution must hold risk-based capital against any non-DvP/non-PvP transaction with a normal settlement period if the Board-regulated institution has delivered cash, securities, commodities, or currencies to its counterparty but has not received its corresponding deliverables by the end of the same business day. The Board-regulated institution must continue to hold risk-based capital against the transaction until the Board-regulated institution has received its corresponding deliverables.

(2) From the business day after the Board-regulated institution has made its delivery until five business days after the counterparty delivery is due, the Board-regulated institution must calculate its risk-based capital requirement for the transaction by treating the current fair value of the deliverables owed to the Board-regulated institution as a wholesale exposure.

(i) A Board-regulated institution may use a 45 percent LGD for the transaction rather than estimating LGD for the transaction provided the Board-regulated institution uses the 45 percent LGD for all transactions described in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section.

(ii) A Board-regulated institution may use a 100 percent risk weight for the transaction provided the Board-regulated institution uses this risk weight for all transactions described in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section.

(3) If the Board-regulated institution has not received its deliverables by the fifth business day after the counterparty delivery was due, the Board-regulated institution must apply a 1,250 percent risk weight to the current fair value of the deliverables owed to the Board-regulated institution.

(f) Total risk-weighted assets for unsettled transactions. Total risk-weighted assets for unsettled transactions is the sum of the risk-weighted asset amounts of all DvP, PvP, and non-DvP/non-PvP transactions.

(a) Operational criteria for traditional securitizations. A Board-regulated institution that transfers exposures it has originated or purchased to a securitization SPE or other third party in connection with a traditional securitization may exclude the exposures from the calculation of its risk-weighted assets only if each of the conditions in this paragraph (a) is satisfied. A Board-regulated institution that meets these conditions must hold risk-based capital against any securitization exposures it retains in connection with the securitization. A Board-regulated institution that fails to meet these conditions must hold risk-based capital against the transferred exposures as if they had not been securitized and must deduct from common equity tier 1 capital any after-tax gain-on-sale resulting from the transaction. The conditions are:

(1) The exposures are not reported on the Board-regulated institution's consolidated balance sheet under GAAP;

(2) The Board-regulated institution has transferred to one or more third parties credit risk associated with the underlying exposures;

(3) Any clean-up calls relating to the securitization are eligible clean-up calls; and

(4) The securitization does not:

(i) Include one or more underlying exposures in which the borrower is permitted to vary the drawn amount within an agreed limit under a line of credit; and

(ii) Contain an early amortization provision.

(b) Operational criteria for synthetic securitizations. For synthetic securitizations, a Board-regulated institution may recognize for risk-based capital purposes under this subpart the use of a credit risk mitigant to hedge underlying exposures only if each of the conditions in this paragraph (b) is satisfied. A Board-regulated institution that meets these conditions must hold risk-based capital against any credit risk of the exposures it retains in connection with the synthetic securitization. A Board-regulated institution that fails to meet these conditions or chooses not to recognize the credit risk mitigant for purposes of this section must hold risk-based capital under this subpart against the underlying exposures as if they had not been synthetically securitized. The conditions are:

(1) The credit risk mitigant is:

(i) Financial collateral; or

(ii) A guarantee that meets all of the requirements of an eligible guarantee in § 217.2 except for paragraph (3) of the definition; or

(iii) A credit derivative that meets all of the requirements of an eligible credit derivative except for paragraph (3) of the definition of eligible guarantee in § 217.2.

(2) The Board-regulated institution transfers credit risk associated with the underlying exposures to third parties, and the terms and conditions in the credit risk mitigants employed do not include provisions that:

(i) Allow for the termination of the credit protection due to deterioration in the credit quality of the underlying exposures;

(ii) Require the Board-regulated institution to alter or replace the underlying exposures to improve the credit quality of the underlying exposures;

(iii) Increase the Board-regulated institution's cost of credit protection in response to deterioration in the credit quality of the underlying exposures;

(iv) Increase the yield payable to parties other than the Board-regulated institution in response to a deterioration in the credit quality of the underlying exposures; or

(v) Provide for increases in a retained first loss position or credit enhancement provided by the Board-regulated institution after the inception of the securitization;

(3) The Board-regulated institution obtains a well-reasoned opinion from legal counsel that confirms the enforceability of the credit risk mitigant in all relevant jurisdictions; and

(4) Any clean-up calls relating to the securitization are eligible clean-up calls.

(c) Due diligence requirements for securitization exposures. (1) Except for exposures that are deducted from common equity tier 1 capital and exposures subject to § 217.142(k), if a Board-regulated institution is unable to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Board a comprehensive understanding of the features of a securitization exposure that would materially affect the performance of the exposure, the Board-regulated institution must assign a 1,250 percent risk weight to the securitization exposure. The Board-regulated institution's analysis must be commensurate with the complexity of the securitization exposure and the materiality of the position in relation to regulatory capital according to this part.

(2) A Board-regulated institution must demonstrate its comprehensive understanding of a securitization exposure under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, for each securitization exposure by:

(i) Conducting an analysis of the risk characteristics of a securitization exposure prior to acquiring the exposure and document such analysis within three business days after acquiring the exposure, considering:

(A) Structural features of the securitization that would materially impact the performance of the exposure, for example, the contractual cash flow waterfall, waterfall-related triggers, credit enhancements, liquidity enhancements, fair value triggers, the performance of organizations that service the position, and deal-specific definitions of default;

(B) Relevant information regarding the performance of the underlying credit exposure(s), for example, the percentage of loans 30, 60, and 90 days past due; default rates; prepayment rates; loans in foreclosure; property types; occupancy; average credit score or other measures of creditworthiness; average loan-to-value ratio; and industry and geographic diversification data on the underlying exposure(s);

(C) Relevant market data of the securitization, for example, bid-ask spreads, most recent sales price and historical price volatility, trading volume, implied market rating, and size, depth and concentration level of the market for the securitization; and

(D) For resecuritization exposures, performance information on the underlying securitization exposures, for example, the issuer name and credit quality, and the characteristics and performance of the exposures underlying the securitization exposures; and

(ii) On an on-going basis (no less frequently than quarterly), evaluating, reviewing, and updating as appropriate the analysis required under this section for each securitization exposure.

(a) Hierarchy of approaches. Except as provided elsewhere in this section and in § 217.141:

(1) A Board-regulated institution must deduct from common equity tier 1 capital any after-tax gain-on-sale resulting from a securitization and must apply a 1,250 percent risk weight to the portion of any CEIO that does not constitute after tax gain-on-sale;

(2) If a securitization exposure does not require deduction or a 1,250 percent risk weight under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the Board-regulated institution must apply the supervisory formula approach in § 217.143 to the exposure if the Board-regulated institution and the exposure qualify for the supervisory formula approach according to § 217.143(a);

(3) If a securitization exposure does not require deduction or a 1,250 percent risk weight under paragraph (a)(1) of this section and does not qualify for the supervisory formula approach, the Board-regulated institution may apply the simplified supervisory formula approach under § 217.144;

(4) If a securitization exposure does not require deduction or a 1,250 percent risk weight under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, does not qualify for the supervisory formula approach in § 217.143, and the Board-regulated institution does not apply the simplified supervisory formula approach in § 217.144, the Board-regulated institution must apply a 1,250 percent risk weight to the exposure; and

(5) If a securitization exposure is a derivative contract (other than protection provided by a Board-regulated institution in the form of a credit derivative) that has a first priority claim on the cash flows from the underlying exposures (notwithstanding amounts due under interest rate or currency derivative contracts, fees due, or other similar payments), a Board-regulated institution may choose to set the risk-weighted asset amount of the exposure equal to the amount of the exposure as determined in paragraph (e) of this section rather than apply the hierarchy of approaches described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section.

(b) Total risk-weighted assets for securitization exposures. A Board-regulated institution's total risk-weighted assets for securitization exposures is equal to the sum of its risk-weighted assets calculated using §§ 217.141 through 146.

(c) Deductions. A Board-regulated institution may calculate any deduction from common equity tier 1 capital for a securitization exposure net of any DTLs associated with the securitization exposure.

(d) Maximum risk-based capital requirement. Except as provided in § 217.141(c), unless one or more underlying exposures does not meet the definition of a wholesale, retail, securitization, or equity exposure, the total risk-based capital requirement for all securitization exposures held by a single Board-regulated institution associated with a single securitization (excluding any risk-based capital requirements that relate to the Board-regulated institution's gain-on-sale or CEIOs associated with the securitization) may not exceed the sum of:

(1) The Board-regulated institution's total risk-based capital requirement for the underlying exposures calculated under this subpart as if the Board-regulated institution directly held the underlying exposures; and

(2) The total ECL of the underlying exposures calculated under this subpart.

(e) Exposure amount of a securitization exposure. (1) The exposure amount of an on-balance sheet securitization exposure that is not a repo-style transaction, eligible margin loan, OTC derivative contract, or cleared transaction is the Board-regulated institution's carrying value.

(2) Except as provided in paragraph (m) of this section, the exposure amount of an off-balance sheet securitization exposure that is not an OTC derivative contract (other than a credit derivative), repo-style transaction, eligible margin loan, or cleared transaction (other than a credit derivative) is the notional amount of the exposure. For an off-balance-sheet securitization exposure to an ABCP program, such as an eligible ABCP liquidity facility, the notional amount may be reduced to the maximum potential amount that the Board-regulated institution could be required to fund given the ABCP program's current underlying assets (calculated without regard to the current credit quality of those assets).

(3) The exposure amount of a securitization exposure that is a repo-style transaction, eligible margin loan, or OTC derivative contract (other than a credit derivative) or cleared transaction (other than a credit derivative) is the EAD of the exposure as calculated in § 217.132 or § 217.133.

(f) Overlapping exposures. If a Board-regulated institution has multiple securitization exposures that provide duplicative coverage of the underlying exposures of a securitization (such as when a Board-regulated institution provides a program-wide credit enhancement and multiple pool-specific liquidity facilities to an ABCP program), the Board-regulated institution is not required to hold duplicative risk-based capital against the overlapping position. Instead, the Board-regulated institution may assign to the overlapping securitization exposure the applicable risk-based capital treatment under this subpart that results in the highest risk-based capital requirement.

(g) Securitizations of non-IRB exposures. Except as provided in § 217.141(c), if a Board-regulated institution has a securitization exposure where any underlying exposure is not a wholesale exposure, retail exposure, securitization exposure, or equity exposure, the Board-regulated institution:

(1) Must deduct from common equity tier 1 capital any after-tax gain-on-sale resulting from the securitization and apply a 1,250 percent risk weight to the portion of any CEIO that does not constitute gain-on-sale, if the Board-regulated institution is an originating Board-regulated institution;

(2) May apply the simplified supervisory formula approach in § 217.144 to the exposure, if the securitization exposure does not require deduction or a 1,250 percent risk weight under paragraph (g)(1) of this section;

(3) Must assign a 1,250 percent risk weight to the exposure if the securitization exposure does not require deduction or a 1,250 percent risk weight under paragraph (g)(1) of this section, does not qualify for the supervisory formula approach in § 217.143, and the Board-regulated institution does not apply the simplified supervisory formula approach in § 217.144 to the exposure.

(h) Implicit support. If a Board-regulated institution provides support to a securitization in excess of the Board-regulated institution's contractual obligation to provide credit support to the securitization (implicit support):

(1) The Board-regulated institution must calculate a risk-weighted asset amount for underlying exposures associated with the securitization as if the exposures had not been securitized and must deduct from common equity tier 1 capital any after-tax gain-on-sale resulting from the securitization; and

(2) The Board-regulated institution must disclose publicly:

(i) That it has provided implicit support to the securitization; and

(ii) The regulatory capital impact to the Board-regulated institution of providing such implicit support.

(i) Undrawn portion of a servicer cash advance facility. (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subpart, a Board-regulated institution that is a servicer under an eligible servicer cash advance facility is not required to hold risk-based capital against potential future cash advance payments that it may be required to provide under the contract governing the facility.

(2) For a Board-regulated institution that acts as a servicer, the exposure amount for a servicer cash advance facility that is not an eligible servicer cash advance facility is equal to the amount of all potential future cash advance payments that the Board-regulated institution may be contractually required to provide during the subsequent 12 month period under the contract governing the facility.

(j) Interest-only mortgage-backed securities. Regardless of any other provisions in this part, the risk weight for a non-credit-enhancing interest-only mortgage-backed security may not be less than 100 percent.

(k) Small-business loans and leases on personal property transferred with recourse. (1) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this subpart E, a Board-regulated institution that has transferred small-business loans and leases on personal property (small-business obligations) with recourse must include in risk-weighted assets only the contractual amount of retained recourse if all the following conditions are met:

(i) The transaction is a sale under GAAP.

(ii) The Board-regulated institution establishes and maintains, pursuant to GAAP, a non-capital reserve sufficient to meet the Board-regulated institution's reasonably estimated liability under the recourse arrangement.

(iii) The loans and leases are to businesses that meet the criteria for a small-business concern established by the Small Business Administration under section 3(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632 et seq.); and

(iv)(A) In the case of a state member bank, the bank is well capitalized, as defined in section 208.43 of this chapter. For purposes of determining whether a state member bank is well capitalized for purposes of this paragraph, the state member bank's capital ratios must be calculated without regard to the capital treatment for transfers of small-business obligations with recourse specified in this paragraph (k)(1).

(B) In the case of a bank holding company or savings and loan holding company, the bank holding company or savings and loan holding company is well capitalized, as defined in 12 CFR 225.2. For purposes of determining whether a bank holding company or savings and loan holding company is well capitalized for purposes of this paragraph, the bank holding company or savings and loan holding company's capital ratios must be calculated without regard to the capital treatment for transfers of small-business obligations with recourse specified in this paragraph (k)(1).

(2) The total outstanding amount of recourse retained by a Board-regulated institution on transfers of small-business obligations subject to paragraph (k)(1) of this section cannot exceed 15 percent of the Board-regulated institution's total capital.

(3) If a Board-regulated institution ceases to be well capitalized or exceeds the 15 percent capital limitation in paragraph (k)(2) of this section, the preferential capital treatment specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this section will continue to apply to any transfers of small-business obligations with recourse that occurred during the time that the Board-regulated institution was well capitalized and did not exceed the capital limit.

(4) The risk-based capital ratios of a Board-regulated institution must be calculated without regard to the capital treatment for transfers of small-business obligations with recourse specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this section.

(l) Nth-to-default credit derivatives—(1) Protection provider. A Board-regulated institution must determine a risk weight using the supervisory formula approach (SFA) pursuant to § 217.143 or the simplified supervisory formula approach (SSFA) pursuant to § 217.144 for an nth-to-default credit derivative in accordance with this paragraph (l). In the case of credit protection sold, a Board-regulated institution must determine its exposure in the n th-to-default credit derivative as the largest notional amount of all the underlying exposures.

(2) For purposes of determining the risk weight for an n th-to-default credit derivative using the SFA or the SSFA, the Board-regulated institution must calculate the attachment point and detachment point of its exposure as follows:

(i) The attachment point (parameter A) is the ratio of the sum of the notional amounts of all underlying exposures that are subordinated to the Board-regulated institution's exposure to the total notional amount of all underlying exposures. For purposes of the SSFA, parameter A is expressed as a decimal value between zero and one. For purposes of using the SFA to calculate the risk weight for its exposure in an n th-to-default credit derivative, parameter A must be set equal to the credit enhancement level (L) input to the SFA formula. In the case of a first-to-default credit derivative, there are no underlying exposures that are subordinated to the Board-regulated institution's exposure. In the case of a second-or-subsequent-to-default credit derivative, the smallest (n-1) risk-weighted asset amounts of the underlying exposure(s) are subordinated to the Board-regulated institution's exposure.

(ii) The detachment point (parameter D) equals the sum of parameter A plus the ratio of the notional amount of the Board-regulated institution's exposure in the n th-to-default credit derivative to the total notional amount of all underlying exposures. For purposes of the SSFA, parameter W is expressed as a decimal value between zero and one. For purposes of the SFA, parameter D must be set to equal L plus the thickness of tranche T input to the SFA formula.

(3) A Board-regulated institution that does not use the SFA or the SSFA to determine a risk weight for its exposure in an n th-to-default credit derivative must assign a risk weight of 1,250 percent to the exposure.

(4) Protection purchaser—(i) First-to-default credit derivatives. A Board-regulated institution that obtains credit protection on a group of underlying exposures through a first-to-default credit derivative that meets the rules of recognition of § 217.134(b) must determine its risk-based capital requirement under this subpart for the underlying exposures as if the Board-regulated institution synthetically securitized the underlying exposure with the lowest risk-based capital requirement and had obtained no credit risk mitigant on the other underlying exposures. A Board-regulated institution must calculate a risk-based capital requirement for counterparty credit risk according to § 217.132 for a first-to-default credit derivative that does not meet the rules of recognition of § 217.134(b).

(ii) Second-or-subsequent-to-default credit derivatives. (A) A Board-regulated institution that obtains credit protection on a group of underlying exposures through a n th-to-default credit derivative that meets the rules of recognition of § 217.134(b) (other than a first-to-default credit derivative) may recognize the credit risk mitigation benefits of the derivative only if:

(1) The Board-regulated institution also has obtained credit protection on the same underlying exposures in the form of first-through-(n-1)-to-default credit derivatives; or

(2) If n-1 of the underlying exposures have already defaulted.

(B) If a Board-regulated institution satisfies the requirements of paragraph (l)(3)(ii)(A) of this section, the Board-regulated institution must determine its risk-based capital requirement for the underlying exposures as if the bank had only synthetically securitized the underlying exposure with the n th smallest risk-based capital requirement and had obtained no credit risk mitigant on the other underlying exposures.

(C) A Board-regulated institution must calculate a risk-based capital requirement for counterparty credit risk according to § 217.132 for a n th-to-default credit derivative that does not meet the rules of recognition of § 217.134(b).

(m) Guarantees and credit derivatives other than nth-to-default credit derivatives—(1) Protection provider. For a guarantee or credit derivative (other than an n th-to-default credit derivative) provided by a Board-regulated institution that covers the full amount or a pro rata share of a securitization exposure's principal and interest, the Board-regulated institution must risk weight the guarantee or credit derivative as if it holds the portion of the reference exposure covered by the guarantee or credit derivative.

(2) Protection purchaser. (i) A Board-regulated institution that purchases an OTC credit derivative (other than an n th-to-default credit derivative) that is recognized under § 217.145 as a credit risk mitigant (including via recognized collateral) is not required to compute a separate counterparty credit risk capital requirement under § 217.131 in accordance with § 217.132(c)(3).

(ii) If a Board-regulated institution cannot, or chooses not to, recognize a purchased credit derivative as a credit risk mitigant under § 217.145, the Board-regulated institution must determine the exposure amount of the credit derivative under § 217.132(c).

(A) If the Board-regulated institution purchases credit protection from a counterparty that is not a securitization SPE, the Board-regulated institution must determine the risk weight for the exposure according § 217.131.

(B) If the Board-regulated institution purchases the credit protection from a counterparty that is a securitization SPE, the Board-regulated institution must determine the risk weight for the exposure according to this section, including paragraph (a)(5) of this section for a credit derivative that has a first priority claim on the cash flows from the underlying exposures of the securitization SPE (notwithstanding amounts due under interest rate or currency derivative contracts, fees due, or other similar payments.

(a) Eligibility requirements. A Board-regulated institution must use the SFA to determine its risk-weighted asset amount for a securitization exposure if the Board-regulated institution can calculate on an ongoing basis each of the SFA parameters in paragraph (e) of this section.

(b) Mechanics. The risk-weighted asset amount for a securitization exposure equals its SFA risk-based capital requirement as calculated under paragraph (c) and (d) of this section, multiplied by 12.5.

(c) The SFA risk-based capital requirement. (1) If KIRB is greater than or equal to L + T, an exposure's SFA risk-based capital requirement equals the exposure amount.

(2) If KIRB is less than or equal to L, an exposure's SFA risk-based capital requirement is UE multiplied by TP multiplied by the greater of:

(i) F · T (where F is 0.016 for all securitization exposures); or

(ii) S[L + T]−S[L].

(3) If KIRB is greater than L and less than L + T, the Board-regulated institution must apply a 1,250 percent risk weight to an amount equal to UE · TP (KIRB−L), and the exposure's SFA risk-based capital requirement is UE multiplied by TP multiplied by the greater of:

(i) F · (T−(KIRB−L)) (where F is 0.016 for all other securitization exposures); or

(ii) S[L + T]−S[KIRB].

(d) The supervisory formula:

(e) SFA parameters. For purposes of the calculations in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section:

(1) Amount of the underlying exposures (UE). UE is the EAD of any underlying exposures that are wholesale and retail exposures (including the amount of any funded spread accounts, cash collateral accounts, and other similar funded credit enhancements) plus the amount of any underlying exposures that are securitization exposures (as defined in § 217.142(e)) plus the adjusted carrying value of any underlying exposures that are equity exposures (as defined in § 217.151(b)).

(2) Tranche percentage (TP). TP is the ratio of the amount of the Board-regulated institution's securitization exposure to the amount of the tranche that contains the securitization exposure.

(3) Capital requirement on underlying exposures (KIRB). (i) KIRB is the ratio of:

(A) The sum of the risk-based capital requirements for the underlying exposures plus the expected credit losses of the underlying exposures (as determined under this subpart E as if the underlying exposures were directly held by the Board-regulated institution); to

(B) UE.

(ii) The calculation of KIRB must reflect the effects of any credit risk mitigant applied to the underlying exposures (either to an individual underlying exposure, to a group of underlying exposures, or to all of the underlying exposures).

(iii) All assets related to the securitization are treated as underlying exposures, including assets in a reserve account (such as a cash collateral account).

(4) Credit enhancement level (L). (i) L is the ratio of:

(A) The amount of all securitization exposures subordinated to the tranche that contains the Board-regulated institution's securitization exposure; to

(B) UE.

(ii) A Board-regulated institution must determine L before considering the effects of any tranche-specific credit enhancements.

(iii) Any gain-on-sale or CEIO associated with the securitization may not be included in L.

(iv) Any reserve account funded by accumulated cash flows from the underlying exposures that is subordinated to the tranche that contains the Board-regulated institution's securitization exposure may be included in the numerator and denominator of L to the extent cash has accumulated in the account. Unfunded reserve accounts (that is, reserve accounts that are to be funded from future cash flows from the underlying exposures) may not be included in the calculation of L.

(v) In some cases, the purchase price of receivables will reflect a discount that provides credit enhancement (for example, first loss protection) for all or certain tranches of the securitization. When this arises, L should be calculated inclusive of this discount if the discount provides credit enhancement for the securitization exposure.

(5) Thickness of tranche (T). T is the ratio of:

(i) The amount of the tranche that contains the Board-regulated institution's securitization exposure; to

(ii) UE.

(6) Effective number of exposures (N). (i) Unless the Board-regulated institution elects to use the formula provided in paragraph (f) of this section,

(ii) Multiple exposures to one obligor /must be treated as a single underlying exposure.

(iii) In the case of a resecuritization, the Board-regulated institution must treat each underlying exposure as a single underlying exposure and must not look through to the originally securitized underlying exposures.

(7) Exposure-weighted average loss given default (EWALGD). EWALGD is calculated as:

(f) Simplified method for computing N and EWALGD. (1) If all underlying exposures of a securitization are retail exposures, a Board-regulated institution may apply the SFA using the following simplifications:

(i) h = 0; and

(ii) v = 0.

(2) Under the conditions in §§ 217.143(f)(3) and (f)(4), a Board-regulated institution may employ a simplified method for calculating N and EWALGD.

(3) If C1 is no more than 0.03, a Board-regulated institution may set EWALGD = 0.50 if none of the underlying exposures is a securitization exposure, or may set EWALGD = 1 if one or more of the underlying exposures is a securitization exposure, and may set N equal to the following amount:

(i) Cm is the ratio of the sum of the amounts of the `m' largest underlying exposures to UE; and

(ii) The level of m is to be selected by the Board-regulated institution.

(4) Alternatively, if only C1 is available and C1 is no more than 0.03, the Board-regulated institution may set EWALGD = 0.50 if none of the underlying exposures is a securitization exposure, or may set EWALGD = 1 if one or more of the underlying exposures is a securitization exposure and may set N = 1/C1.

(a) General requirements for the SSFA. To use the SSFA to determine the risk weight for a securitization exposure, a Board-regulated institution must have data that enables it to assign accurately the parameters described in paragraph (b) of this section. Data used to assign the parameters described in paragraph (b) of this section must be the most currently available data; if the contracts governing the underlying exposures of the securitization require payments on a monthly or quarterly basis, the data used to assign the parameters described in paragraph (b) of this section must be no more than 91 calendar days old. A Board-regulated institution that does not have the appropriate data to assign the parameters described in paragraph (b) of this section must assign a risk weight of 1,250 percent to the exposure.

(b) SSFA parameters. To calculate the risk weight for a securitization exposure using the SSFA, a Board-regulated institution must have accurate information on the following five inputs to the SSFA calculation:

(1) KG is the weighted-average (with unpaid principal used as the weight for each exposure) total capital requirement of the underlying exposures calculated using subpart D of this part. KG is expressed as a decimal value between zero and one (that is, an average risk weight of 100 percent represents a value of KG equal to 0.08).

(2) Parameter W is expressed as a decimal value between zero and one. Parameter W is the ratio of the sum of the dollar amounts of any underlying exposures of the securitization that meet any of the criteria as set forth in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (vi) of this section to the balance, measured in dollars, of underlying exposures:

(i) Ninety days or more past due;

(ii) Subject to a bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding;

(iii) In the process of foreclosure;

(iv) Held as real estate owned;

(v) Has contractually deferred payments for 90 days or more, other than principal or interest payments deferred on:

(A) Federally-guaranteed student loans, in accordance with the terms of those guarantee programs; or

(B) Consumer loans, including non-federally-guaranteed student loans, provided that such payments are deferred pursuant to provisions included in the contract at the time funds are disbursed that provide for period(s) of deferral that are not initiated based on changes in the creditworthiness of the borrower; or

(vi) Is in default.

(3) Parameter A is the attachment point for the exposure, which represents the threshold at which credit losses will first be allocated to the exposure. Except as provided in section 142(l) for n th-to-default credit derivatives, parameter A equals the ratio of the current dollar amount of underlying exposures that are subordinated to the exposure of the Board-regulated institution to the current dollar amount of underlying exposures. Any reserve account funded by the accumulated cash flows from the underlying exposures that is subordinated to the Board-regulated institution's securitization exposure may be included in the calculation of parameter A to the extent that cash is present in the account. Parameter A is expressed as a decimal value between zero and one.

(4) Parameter D is the detachment point for the exposure, which represents the threshold at which credit losses of principal allocated to the exposure would result in a total loss of principal. Except as provided in section 142(l) for n th-to-default credit derivatives, parameter D equals parameter A plus the ratio of the current dollar amount of the securitization exposures that are pari passu with the exposure (that is, have equal seniority with respect to credit risk) to the current dollar amount of the underlying exposures. Parameter D is expressed as a decimal value between zero and one.

(5) A supervisory calibration parameter, p, is equal to 0.5 for securitization exposures that are not resecuritization exposures and equal to 1.5 for resecuritization exposures.

(c) Mechanics of the SSFA. KG and W are used to calculate KA, the augmented value of KG, which reflects the observed credit quality of the underlying exposures. KA is defined in paragraph (d) of this section. The values of parameters A and D, relative to KA determine the risk weight assigned to a securitization exposure as described in paragraph (d) of this section. The risk weight assigned to a securitization exposure, or portion of a securitization exposure, as appropriate, is the larger of the risk weight determined in accordance with this paragraph (c), paragraph (d) of this section, and a risk weight of 20 percent.

(1) When the detachment point, parameter D, for a securitization exposure is less than or equal to KA, the exposure must be assigned a risk weight of 1,250 percent;

(2) When the attachment point, parameter A, for a securitization exposure is greater than or equal to KA, the Board-regulated institution must calculate the risk weight in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section;

(3) When A is less than KA and D is greater than KA, the risk weight is a weighted-average of 1,250 percent and 1,250 percent times KSSFA calculated in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section. For the purpose of this weighted-average calculation:

(a) General. An originating Board-regulated institution that has obtained a credit risk mitigant to hedge its securitization exposure to a synthetic or traditional securitization that satisfies the operational criteria in § 217.141 may recognize the credit risk mitigant, but only as provided in this section. An investing Board-regulated institution that has obtained a credit risk mitigant to hedge a securitization exposure may recognize the credit risk mitigant, but only as provided in this section.

(b) Collateral—(1) Rules of recognition. A Board-regulated institution may recognize financial collateral in determining the Board-regulated institution's risk-weighted asset amount for a securitization exposure (other than a repo-style transaction, an eligible margin loan, or an OTC derivative contract for which the Board-regulated institution has reflected collateral in its determination of exposure amount under § 217.132) as follows. The Board-regulated institution's risk-weighted asset amount for the collateralized securitization exposure is equal to the risk-weighted asset amount for the securitization exposure as calculated under the SSFA in § 217.144 or under the SFA in § 217.143 multiplied by the ratio of adjusted exposure amount (SE*) to original exposure amount (SE),

(i) SE* = max {0, [SE−C × (1−Hs−Hfx)]};

(ii) SE = the amount of the securitization exposure calculated under § 217.142(e);

(iii) C = the current fair value of the collateral;

(iv) Hs = the haircut appropriate to the collateral type; and

(v) Hfx = the haircut appropriate for any currency mismatch between the collateral and the exposure.

(3) Standard supervisory haircuts. Unless a Board-regulated institution qualifies for use of and uses own-estimates haircuts in paragraph (b)(4) of this section:

(i) A Board-regulated institution must use the collateral type haircuts (Hs) in Table 1 to § 217.132 of this subpart;

(ii) A Board-regulated institution must use a currency mismatch haircut (Hfx) of 8 percent if the exposure and the collateral are denominated in different currencies;

(iii) A Board-regulated institution must multiply the supervisory haircuts obtained in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section by the square root of 6.5 (which equals 2.549510); and

(iv) A Board-regulated institution must adjust the supervisory haircuts upward on the basis of a holding period longer than 65 business days where and as appropriate to take into account the illiquidity of the collateral.

(4) Own estimates for haircuts. With the prior written approval of the Board, a Board-regulated institution may calculate haircuts using its own internal estimates of market price volatility and foreign exchange volatility, subject to § 217.132(b)(2)(iii). The minimum holding period (TM) for securitization exposures is 65 business days.

(c) Guarantees and credit derivatives—(1) Limitations on recognition. A Board-regulated institution may only recognize an eligible guarantee or eligible credit derivative provided by an eligible guarantor in determining the Board-regulated institution's risk-weighted asset amount for a securitization exposure.

(2) ECL for securitization exposures. When a Board-regulated institution recognizes an eligible guarantee or eligible credit derivative provided by an eligible guarantor in determining the Board-regulated institution's risk-weighted asset amount for a securitization exposure, the Board-regulated institution must also:

(i) Calculate ECL for the protected portion of the exposure using the same risk parameters that it uses for calculating the risk-weighted asset amount of the exposure as described in paragraph (c)(3) of this section; and

(ii) Add the exposure's ECL to the Board-regulated institution's total ECL.

(3) Rules of recognition. A Board-regulated institution may recognize an eligible guarantee or eligible credit derivative provided by an eligible guarantor in determining the Board-regulated institution's risk-weighted asset amount for the securitization exposure as follows:

(i) Full coverage. If the protection amount of the eligible guarantee or eligible credit derivative equals or exceeds the amount of the securitization exposure, the Board-regulated institution may set the risk-weighted asset amount for the securitization exposure equal to the risk-weighted asset amount for a direct exposure to the eligible guarantor (as determined in the wholesale risk weight function described in § 217.131), using the Board-regulated institution's PD for the guarantor, the Board-regulated institution's LGD for the guarantee or credit derivative, and an EAD equal to the amount of the securitization exposure (as determined in § 217.142(e)).

(ii) Partial coverage. If the protection amount of the eligible guarantee or eligible credit derivative is less than the amount of the securitization exposure, the Board-regulated institution may set the risk-weighted asset amount for the securitization exposure equal to the sum of:

(A) Covered portion. The risk-weighted asset amount for a direct exposure to the eligible guarantor (as determined in the wholesale risk weight function described in § 217.131), using the Board-regulated institution's PD for the guarantor, the Board-regulated institution's LGD for the guarantee or credit derivative, and an EAD equal to the protection amount of the credit risk mitigant; and

(B) Uncovered portion. (1) 1.0 minus the ratio of the protection amount of the eligible guarantee or eligible credit derivative to the amount of the securitization exposure); multiplied by

(2) The risk-weighted asset amount for the securitization exposure without the credit risk mitigant (as determined in §§ 217.142 through 146).

(4) Mismatches. The Board-regulated institution must make applicable adjustments to the protection amount as required in § 217.134(d), (e), and (f) for any hedged securitization exposure and any more senior securitization exposure that benefits from the hedge. In the context of a synthetic securitization, when an eligible guarantee or eligible credit derivative covers multiple hedged exposures that have different residual maturities, the Board-regulated institution must use the longest residual maturity of any of the hedged exposures as the residual maturity of all the hedged exposures.

(a) General. (1) To calculate its risk-weighted asset amounts for equity exposures that are not equity exposures to investment funds, a Board-regulated institution may apply either the Simple Risk Weight Approach (SRWA) in § 217.152 or, if it qualifies to do so, the Internal Models Approach (IMA) in § 217.153. A Board-regulated institution must use the look-through approaches provided in § 217.154 to calculate its risk-weighted asset amounts for equity exposures to investment funds.

(2) A Board-regulated institution must treat an investment in a separate account (as defined in § 217.2), as if it were an equity exposure to an investment fund as provided in § 217.154.

(3) Stable value protection. (i) Stable value protection means a contract where the provider of the contract is obligated to pay:

(A) The policy owner of a separate account an amount equal to the shortfall between the fair value and cost basis of the separate account when the policy owner of the separate account surrenders the policy, or

(B) The beneficiary of the contract an amount equal to the shortfall between the fair value and book value of a specified portfolio of assets.

(ii) A Board-regulated institution that purchases stable value protection on its investment in a separate account must treat the portion of the carrying value of its investment in the separate account attributable to the stable value protection as an exposure to the provider of the protection and the remaining portion of the carrying value of its separate account as an equity exposure to an investment fund.

(iii) A Board-regulated institution that provides stable value protection must treat the exposure as an equity derivative with an adjusted carrying value determined as the sum of § 217.151(b)(1) and (2).

(b) Adjusted carrying value. For purposes of this subpart, the adjusted carrying value of an equity exposure is:

(1) For the on-balance sheet component of an equity exposure, the Board-regulated institution's carrying value of the exposure;

(2) For the off-balance sheet component of an equity exposure, the effective notional principal amount of the exposure, the size of which is equivalent to a hypothetical on-balance sheet position in the underlying equity instrument that would evidence the same change in fair value (measured in dollars) for a given small change in the price of the underlying equity instrument, minus the adjusted carrying value of the on-balance sheet component of the exposure as calculated in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

(3) For unfunded equity commitments that are unconditional, the effective notional principal amount is the notional amount of the commitment. For unfunded equity commitments that are conditional, the effective notional principal amount is the Board-regulated institution's best estimate of the amount that would be funded under economic downturn conditions.

(a) General. Under the SRWA, a Board-regulated institution's aggregate risk-weighted asset amount for its equity exposures is equal to the sum of the risk-weighted asset amounts for each of the Board-regulated institution's individual equity exposures (other than equity exposures to an investment fund) as determined in this section and the risk-weighted asset amounts for each of the Board-regulated institution's individual equity exposures to an investment fund as determined in § 217.154.

(b) SRWA computation for individual equity exposures. A Board-regulated institution must determine the risk-weighted asset amount for an individual equity exposure (other than an equity exposure to an investment fund) by multiplying the adjusted carrying value of the equity exposure or the effective portion and ineffective portion of a hedge pair (as defined in paragraph (c) of this section) by the lowest applicable risk weight in this section.

(1) Zero percent risk weight equity exposures. An equity exposure to an entity whose credit exposures are exempt from the 0.03 percent PD floor in § 217.131(d)(2) is assigned a zero percent risk weight.

(2) 20 percent risk weight equity exposures. An equity exposure to a Federal Home Loan Bank or the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation (Farmer Mac) is assigned a 20 percent risk weight.

(3) 100 percent risk weight equity exposures. The following equity exposures are assigned a 100 percent risk weight:

(i) Community development equity exposures. (A) For state member banks and bank holding companies, an equity exposure that qualifies as a community development investment under 12 U.S.C. 24 (Eleventh), excluding equity exposures to an unconsolidated small business investment company and equity exposures held through a consolidated small business investment company described in section 302 of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 682).

(B) For savings and loan holding companies, an equity exposure that is designed primarily to promote community welfare, including the welfare of low- and moderate-income communities or families, such as by providing services or employment, and excluding equity exposures to an unconsolidated small business investment company and equity exposures held through a small business investment company described in section 302 of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 682).

(ii) Effective portion of hedge pairs. The effective portion of a hedge pair.

(iii) Non-significant equity exposures. Equity exposures, excluding significant investments in the capital of an unconsolidated institution in the form of common stock and exposures to an investment firm that would meet the definition of a traditional securitization were it not for the Board's application of paragraph (8) of that definition in § 217.2 and has greater than immaterial leverage, to the extent that the aggregate adjusted carrying value of the exposures does not exceed 10 percent of the Board-regulated institution's total capital.

(A) To compute the aggregate adjusted carrying value of a Board-regulated institution's equity exposures for purposes of this section, the Board-regulated institution may exclude equity exposures described in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3)(i), and (b)(3)(ii) of this section, the equity exposure in a hedge pair with the smaller adjusted carrying value, and a proportion of each equity exposure to an investment fund equal to the proportion of the assets of the investment fund that are not equity exposures or that meet the criterion of paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section. If a Board-regulated institution does not know the actual holdings of the investment fund, the Board-regulated institution may calculate the proportion of the assets of the fund that are not equity exposures based on the terms of the prospectus, partnership agreement, or similar contract that defines the fund's permissible investments. If the sum of the investment limits for all exposure classes within the fund exceeds 100 percent, the Board-regulated institution must assume for purposes of this section that the investment fund invests to the maximum extent possible in equity exposures.

(B) When determining which of a Board-regulated institution's equity exposures qualifies for a 100 percent risk weight under this section, a Board-regulated institution first must include equity exposures to unconsolidated small business investment companies or held through consolidated small business investment companies described in section 302 of the Small Business Investment Act, then must include publicly traded equity exposures (including those held indirectly through investment funds), and then must include non-publicly traded equity exposures (including those held indirectly through investment funds).

(4) 250 percent risk weight equity exposures. Significant investments in the capital of unconsolidated financial institutions in the form of common stock that are not deducted from capital pursuant to § 217.22(b)(4) are assigned a 250 percent risk weight.

(5) 300 percent risk weight equity exposures. A publicly traded equity exposure (other than an equity exposure described in paragraph (b)(7) of this section and including the ineffective portion of a hedge pair) is assigned a 300 percent risk weight.

(6) 400 percent risk weight equity exposures. An equity exposure (other than an equity exposure described in paragraph (b)(7) of this section) that is not publicly traded is assigned a 400 percent risk weight.

(7) 600 percent risk weight equity exposures. An equity exposure to an investment firm that:

(i) Would meet the definition of a traditional securitization were it not for the Board's application of paragraph (8) of that definition in § 217.2; and

(ii) Has greater than immaterial leverage is assigned a 600 percent risk weight.

(c) Hedge transactions—(1) Hedge pair. A hedge pair is two equity exposures that form an effective hedge so long as each equity exposure is publicly traded or has a return that is primarily based on a publicly traded equity exposure.

(2) Effective hedge. Two equity exposures form an effective hedge if the exposures either have the same remaining maturity or each has a remaining maturity of at least three months; the hedge relationship is formally documented in a prospective manner (that is, before the Board-regulated institution acquires at least one of the equity exposures); the documentation specifies the measure of effectiveness (E) the Board-regulated institution will use for the hedge relationship throughout the life of the transaction; and the hedge relationship has an E greater than or equal to 0.8. A Board-regulated institution must measure E at least quarterly and must use one of three alternative measures of E:

(i) Under the dollar-offset method of measuring effectiveness, the Board-regulated institution must determine the ratio of value change (RVC). The RVC is the ratio of the cumulative sum of the periodic changes in value of one equity exposure to the cumulative sum of the periodic changes in the value of the other equity exposure. If RVC is positive, the hedge is not effective and E equals zero. If RVC is negative and greater than or equal to −1 (that is, between zero and −1), then E equals the absolute value of RVC. If RVC is negative and less than −1, then E equals 2 plus RVC.

(ii) Under the variability-reduction method of measuring effectiveness:

(iii) Under the regression method of measuring effectiveness, E equals the coefficient of determination of a regression in which the change in value of one exposure in a hedge pair is the dependent variable and the change in value of the other exposure in a hedge pair is the independent variable. However, if the estimated regression coefficient is positive, then the value of E is zero.

(3) The effective portion of a hedge pair is E multiplied by the greater of the adjusted carrying values of the equity exposures forming a hedge pair.

(4) The ineffective portion of a hedge pair is (1-E) multiplied by the greater of the adjusted carrying values of the equity exposures forming a hedge pair.

(a) General. A Board-regulated institution may calculate its risk-weighted asset amount for equity exposures using the IMA by modeling publicly traded and non-publicly traded equity exposures (in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section) or by modeling only publicly traded equity exposures (in accordance with paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section).

(b) Qualifying criteria. To qualify to use the IMA to calculate risk-weighted assets for equity exposures, a Board-regulated institution must receive prior written approval from the Board. To receive such approval, the Board-regulated institution must demonstrate to the Board's satisfaction that the Board-regulated institution meets the following criteria:

(1) The Board-regulated institution must have one or more models that:

(i) Assess the potential decline in value of its modeled equity exposures;

(ii) Are commensurate with the size, complexity, and composition of the Board-regulated institution's modeled equity exposures; and

(iii) Adequately capture both general market risk and idiosyncratic risk.

(2) The Board-regulated institution's model must produce an estimate of potential losses for its modeled equity exposures that is no less than the estimate of potential losses produced by a VaR methodology employing a 99th percentile one-tailed confidence interval of the distribution of quarterly returns for a benchmark portfolio of equity exposures comparable to the Board-regulated institution's modeled equity exposures using a long-term sample period.

(3) The number of risk factors and exposures in the sample and the data period used for quantification in the Board-regulated institution's model and benchmarking exercise must be sufficient to provide confidence in the accuracy and robustness of the Board-regulated institution's estimates.

(4) The Board-regulated institution's model and benchmarking process must incorporate data that are relevant in representing the risk profile of the Board-regulated institution's modeled equity exposures, and must include data from at least one equity market cycle containing adverse market movements relevant to the risk profile of the Board-regulated institution's modeled equity exposures. In addition, the Board-regulated institution's benchmarking exercise must be based on daily market prices for the benchmark portfolio. If the Board-regulated institution's model uses a scenario methodology, the Board-regulated institution must demonstrate that the model produces a conservative estimate of potential losses on the Board-regulated institution's modeled equity exposures over a relevant long-term market cycle. If the Board-regulated institution employs risk factor models, the Board-regulated institution must demonstrate through empirical analysis the appropriateness of the risk factors used.

(5) The Board-regulated institution must be able to demonstrate, using theoretical arguments and empirical evidence, that any proxies used in the modeling process are comparable to the Board-regulated institution's modeled equity exposures and that the Board-regulated institution has made appropriate adjustments for differences. The Board-regulated institution must derive any proxies for its modeled equity exposures and benchmark portfolio using historical market data that are relevant to the Board-regulated institution's modeled equity exposures and benchmark portfolio (or, where not, must use appropriately adjusted data), and such proxies must be robust estimates of the risk of the Board-regulated institution's modeled equity exposures.

(c) Risk-weighted assets calculation for a Board-regulated institution using the IMA for publicly traded and non-publicly traded equity exposures. If a Board-regulated institution models publicly traded and non-publicly traded equity exposures, the Board-regulated institution's aggregate risk-weighted asset amount for its equity exposures is equal to the sum of:

(1) The risk-weighted asset amount of each equity exposure that qualifies for a 0 percent, 20 percent, or 100 percent risk weight under § 217.152(b)(1) through (b)(3)(i) (as determined under § 217.152) and each equity exposure to an investment fund (as determined under § 217.154); and

(2) The greater of:

(i) The estimate of potential losses on the Board-regulated institution's equity exposures (other than equity exposures referenced in paragraph (c)(1) of this section) generated by the Board-regulated institution's internal equity exposure model multiplied by 12.5; or

(ii) The sum of:

(A) 200 percent multiplied by the aggregate adjusted carrying value of the Board-regulated institution's publicly traded equity exposures that do not belong to a hedge pair, do not qualify for a 0 percent, 20 percent, or 100 percent risk weight under § 217.152(b)(1) through (b)(3)(i), and are not equity exposures to an investment fund;

(B) 200 percent multiplied by the aggregate ineffective portion of all hedge pairs; and

(C) 300 percent multiplied by the aggregate adjusted carrying value of the Board-regulated institution's equity exposures that are not publicly traded, do not qualify for a 0 percent, 20 percent, or 100 percent risk weight under § 217.152(b)(1) through (b)(3)(i), and are not equity exposures to an investment fund.

(d) Risk-weighted assets calculation for a Board-regulated institution using the IMA only for publicly traded equity exposures. If a Board-regulated institution models only publicly traded equity exposures, the Board-regulated institution's aggregate risk-weighted asset amount for its equity exposures is equal to the sum of:

(1) The risk-weighted asset amount of each equity exposure that qualifies for a 0 percent, 20 percent, or 100 percent risk weight under §§ 217.152(b)(1) through (b)(3)(i) (as determined under § 217.152), each equity exposure that qualifies for a 400 percent risk weight under § 217.152(b)(5) or a 600 percent risk weight under § 217.152(b)(6) (as determined under § 217.152), and each equity exposure to an investment fund (as determined under § 217.154); and

(2) The greater of:

(i) The estimate of potential losses on the Board-regulated institution's equity exposures (other than equity exposures referenced in paragraph (d)(1) of this section) generated by the Board-regulated institution's internal equity exposure model multiplied by 12.5; or

(ii) The sum of:

(A) 200 percent multiplied by the aggregate adjusted carrying value of the Board-regulated institution's publicly traded equity exposures that do not belong to a hedge pair, do not qualify for a 0 percent, 20 percent, or 100 percent risk weight under § 217.152(b)(1) through (b)(3)(i), and are not equity exposures to an investment fund; and

(B) 200 percent multiplied by the aggregate ineffective portion of all hedge pairs.

(a) Available approaches. (1) Unless the exposure meets the requirements for a community development equity exposure in § 217.152(b)(3)(i), a Board-regulated institution must determine the risk-weighted asset amount of an equity exposure to an investment fund under the full look-through approach in paragraph (b) of this section, the simple modified look-through approach in paragraph (c) of this section, or the alternative modified look-through approach in paragraph (d) of this section.

(2) The risk-weighted asset amount of an equity exposure to an investment fund that meets the requirements for a community development equity exposure in § 217.152(b)(3)(i) is its adjusted carrying value.

(3) If an equity exposure to an investment fund is part of a hedge pair and the Board-regulated institution does not use the full look-through approach, the Board-regulated institution may use the ineffective portion of the hedge pair as determined under § 217.152(c) as the adjusted carrying value for the equity exposure to the investment fund. The risk-weighted asset amount of the effective portion of the hedge pair is equal to its adjusted carrying value.

(b) Full look-through approach. A Board-regulated institution that is able to calculate a risk-weighted asset amount for its proportional ownership share of each exposure held by the investment fund (as calculated under this subpart E of this part as if the proportional ownership share of each exposure were held directly by the Board-regulated institution) may either:

(1) Set the risk-weighted asset amount of the Board-regulated institution's exposure to the fund equal to the product of:

(i) The aggregate risk-weighted asset amounts of the exposures held by the fund as if they were held directly by the Board-regulated institution; and

(ii) The Board-regulated institution's proportional ownership share of the fund; or

(2) Include the Board-regulated institution's proportional ownership share of each exposure held by the fund in the Board-regulated institution's IMA.

(c) Simple modified look-through approach. Under this approach, the risk-weighted asset amount for a Board-regulated institution's equity exposure to an investment fund equals the adjusted carrying value of the equity exposure multiplied by the highest risk weight assigned according to subpart D of this part that applies to any exposure the fund is permitted to hold under its prospectus, partnership agreement, or similar contract that defines the fund's permissible investments (excluding derivative contracts that are used for hedging rather than speculative purposes and that do not constitute a material portion of the fund's exposures).

(d) Alternative modified look-through approach. Under this approach, a Board-regulated institution may assign the adjusted carrying value of an equity exposure to an investment fund on a pro rata basis to different risk weight categories assigned according to subpart D of this part based on the investment limits in the fund's prospectus, partnership agreement, or similar contract that defines the fund's permissible investments. The risk-weighted asset amount for the Board-regulated institution's equity exposure to the investment fund equals the sum of each portion of the adjusted carrying value assigned to an exposure class multiplied by the applicable risk weight. If the sum of the investment limits for all exposure types within the fund exceeds 100 percent, the Board-regulated institution must assume that the fund invests to the maximum extent permitted under its investment limits in the exposure type with the highest risk weight under subpart D of this part, and continues to make investments in order of the exposure type with the next highest risk weight under subpart D of this part until the maximum total investment level is reached. If more than one exposure type applies to an exposure, the Board-regulated institution must use the highest applicable risk weight. A Board-regulated institution may exclude derivative contracts held by the fund that are used for hedging rather than for speculative purposes and do not constitute a material portion of the fund's exposures.

(a) Under the IMA, in addition to holding risk-based capital against an equity derivative contract under this part, a Board-regulated institution must hold risk-based capital against the counterparty credit risk in the equity derivative contract by also treating the equity derivative contract as a wholesale exposure and computing a supplemental risk-weighted asset amount for the contract under § 217.132.

(b) Under the SRWA, a Board-regulated institution may choose not to hold risk-based capital against the counterparty credit risk of equity derivative contracts, as long as it does so for all such contracts. Where the equity derivative contracts are subject to a qualified master netting agreement, a Board-regulated institution using the SRWA must either include all or exclude all of the contracts from any measure used to determine counterparty credit risk exposure.

(a) Qualification to use operational risk mitigants. A Board-regulated institution may adjust its estimate of operational risk exposure to reflect qualifying operational risk mitigants if:

(1) The Board-regulated institution's operational risk quantification system is able to generate an estimate of the Board-regulated institution's operational risk exposure (which does not incorporate qualifying operational risk mitigants) and an estimate of the Board-regulated institution's operational risk exposure adjusted to incorporate qualifying operational risk mitigants; and

(2) The Board-regulated institution's methodology for incorporating the effects of insurance, if the Board-regulated institution uses insurance as an operational risk mitigant, captures through appropriate discounts to the amount of risk mitigation:

(i) The residual term of the policy, where less than one year;

(ii) The cancellation terms of the policy, where less than one year;

(iii) The policy's timeliness of payment;

(iv) The uncertainty of payment by the provider of the policy; and

(v) Mismatches in coverage between the policy and the hedged operational loss event.

(b) Qualifying operational risk mitigants. Qualifying operational risk mitigants are:

(1) Insurance that:

(i) Is provided by an unaffiliated company that the Board-regulated institution deems to have strong capacity to meet its claims payment obligations and the obligor rating category to which the Board-regulated institution assigns the company is assigned a PD equal to or less than 10 basis points;

(ii) Has an initial term of at least one year and a residual term of more than 90 days;

(iii) Has a minimum notice period for cancellation by the provider of 90 days;

(iv) Has no exclusions or limitations based upon regulatory action or for the receiver or liquidator of a failed depository institution; and

(v) Is explicitly mapped to a potential operational loss event;

(2) Operational risk mitigants other than insurance for which the Board has given prior written approval. In evaluating an operational risk mitigant other than insurance, the Board will consider whether the operational risk mitigant covers potential operational losses in a manner equivalent to holding total capital.

(a) If a Board-regulated institution does not qualify to use or does not have qualifying operational risk mitigants, the Board-regulated institution's dollar risk-based capital requirement for operational risk is its operational risk exposure minus eligible operational risk offsets (if any).

(b) If a Board-regulated institution qualifies to use operational risk mitigants and has qualifying operational risk mitigants, the Board-regulated institution's dollar risk-based capital requirement for operational risk is the greater of:

(1) The Board-regulated institution's operational risk exposure adjusted for qualifying operational risk mitigants minus eligible operational risk offsets (if any); or

(2) 0.8 multiplied by the difference between:

(i) The Board-regulated institution's operational risk exposure; and

(ii) Eligible operational risk offsets (if any).

(c) The Board-regulated institution's risk-weighted asset amount for operational risk equals the Board-regulated institution's dollar risk-based capital requirement for operational risk determined under sections 162(a) or (b) multiplied by 12.5.

§§ 217.171 through 217.173 establish public disclosure requirements related to the capital requirements of a Board-regulated institution that is an advanced approaches Board-regulated institution.

(a) A Board-regulated institution that is an advanced approaches Board-regulated institution that has completed the parallel run process and that has received notification from the Board pursuant to section 121(d) of subpart E of this part must publicly disclose each quarter its total and tier 1 risk-based capital ratios and their components as calculated under this subpart (that is, common equity tier 1 capital, additional tier 1 capital, tier 2 capital, total qualifying capital, and total risk-weighted assets).

(b) A Board-regulated institution that is an advanced approaches Board-regulated institution that has completed the parallel run process and that has received notification from the Board pursuant to section 121(d) of subpart E of this part must comply with paragraph (c) of this section unless it is a consolidated subsidiary of a bank holding company, savings and loan holding company, or depository institution that is subject to these disclosure requirements or a subsidiary of a non-U.S. banking organization that is subject to comparable public disclosure requirements in its home jurisdiction.

(c)(1) A Board-regulated institution described in paragraph (b) of this section must provide timely public disclosures each calendar quarter of the information in the applicable tables in § 217.173. If a significant change occurs, such that the most recent reported amounts are no longer reflective of the Board-regulated institution's capital adequacy and risk profile, then a brief discussion of this change and its likely impact must be disclosed as soon as practicable thereafter. Qualitative disclosures that typically do not change each quarter (for example, a general summary of the Board-regulated institution's risk management objectives and policies, reporting system, and definitions) may be disclosed annually after the end of the fourth calendar quarter, provided that any significant changes to these are disclosed in the interim. Management may provide all of the disclosures required by this subpart in one place on the Board-regulated institution's public Web site or may provide the disclosures in more than one public financial report or other regulatory reports, provided that the Board-regulated institution publicly provides a summary table specifically indicating the location(s) of all such disclosures.

(2) A Board-regulated institution described in paragraph (b) of this section must have a formal disclosure policy approved by the board of directors that addresses its approach for determining the disclosures it makes. The policy must address the associated internal controls and disclosure controls and procedures. The board of directors and senior management are responsible for establishing and maintaining an effective internal control structure over financial reporting, including the disclosures required by this subpart, and must ensure that appropriate review of the disclosures takes place. One or more senior officers of the Board-regulated institution must attest that the disclosures meet the requirements of this subpart.

(3) If a Board-regulated institution described in paragraph (b) of this section believes that disclosure of specific commercial or financial information would prejudice seriously its position by making public information that is either proprietary or confidential in nature, the Board-regulated institution is not required to disclose those specific items, but must disclose more general information about the subject matter of the requirement, together with the fact that, and the reason why, the specific items of information have not been disclosed.

(d)(1) A Board-regulated institution that meets any of the criteria in § 217.100(b)(1) before January 1, 2015, must publicly disclose each quarter its supplementary leverage ratio and the components thereof (that is, tier 1 capital and total leverage exposure) as calculated under subpart B of this part, beginning with the first quarter in 2015. This disclosure requirement applies without regard to whether the Board-regulated institution has completed the parallel run process and received notification from the Board pursuant to § 217.121(d).

(2) A Board-regulated that meets any of the criteria in § 217.100(b)(1) on or after January 1, 2015, or a Category III Board-regulated institution must publicly disclose each quarter its supplementary leverage ratio and the components thereof (that is, tier 1 capital and total leverage exposure) as calculated under subpart B of this part beginning with the calendar quarter immediately following the quarter in which the Board-regulated institution becomes an advanced approaches Board-regulated institution or a Category III Board-regulated institution. This disclosure requirement applies without regard to whether the Board-regulated institution has completed the parallel run process and has received notification from the Board pursuant to § 217.121(d).

(a)(1) An advanced approaches Board-regulated institution described in § 217.172(b) must make the disclosures described in Tables 1 through 12 to § 217.173.

(2) An advanced approaches Board-regulated institution and a Category III Board-regulated institution that is required to publicly disclose its supplementary leverage ratio pursuant to § 217.172(d) must make the disclosures required under Table 13 to this section unless the Board-regulated institution is a consolidated subsidiary of a bank holding company, savings and loan holding company, or depository institution that is subject to these disclosure requirements or a subsidiary of a non-U.S. banking organization that is subject to comparable public disclosure requirements in its home jurisdiction.

(3) The disclosures described in Tables 1 through 12 to § 217.173 must be made publicly available for twelve consecutive quarters beginning on January 1, 2014, or a shorter period, as applicable, for the quarters after the Board-regulated institution has completed the parallel run process and received notification from the Board pursuant to § 217.121(d). The disclosures described in Table 13 to § 217.173 must be made publicly available for twelve consecutive quarters beginning on January 1, 2015, or a shorter period, as applicable, for the quarters after the Board-regulated institution becomes subject to the disclosure of the supplementary leverage ratio pursuant to § 217.172(d) and § 217.173(a)(2).

(b) General qualitative disclosure requirement. For each separate risk area described in Tables 5 through 12 to § 217.173, the Board-regulated institution must describe its risk management objectives and policies, including:

(1) Strategies and processes;

(2) The structure and organization of the relevant risk management function;

(3) The scope and nature of risk reporting and/or measurement systems; and

(4) Policies for hedging and/or mitigating risk and strategies and processes for monitoring the continuing effectiveness of hedges/mitigants.

(c) Except as provided in § 217.172(b), a Board-regulated institution described in § 217.172(d) must make the disclosures described in Table 13 to § 217.173; provided, however, the disclosures required under this paragraph are required without regard to whether the Board-regulated institution has completed the parallel run process and has received notification from the Board pursuant to § 217.121(d). The Board-regulated institution must make these disclosures publicly available beginning on January 1, 2015.