Sub-Section 2

A default shall be considered to have occurred with regard to a particular obligor when either or both of the following have taken place: the institution considers that the obligor is unlikely to pay its credit obligations to the institution, the parent undertaking or any of its subsidiaries in full, without recourse by the institution to actions such as realising security; the obligor is past due more than 90 days on any material credit obligation to the institution, the parent undertaking or any of its subsidiaries. Competent authorities may replace the 90 days with 180 days for exposures secured by residential or SME commercial real estate in the retail exposure class, as well as exposures to public sector entities). The 180 days shall not apply for the purposes of Article 127. In the case of retail exposures, institutions may apply the definition of default laid down in points (a) and (b) of the first subparagraph at the level of an individual credit facility rather than in relation to the total obligations of a borrower. The following shall apply for the purposes of point (b) of paragraph 1: for overdrafts, days past due commence once an obligor has breached an advised limit, has been advised a limit smaller than current outstandings, or has drawn credit without authorisation and the underlying amount is material; for the purposes of point (a), an advised limit comprises any credit limit determined by the institution and about which the obligor has been informed by the institution; days past due for credit cards commence on the minimum payment due date; materiality of a credit obligation past due shall be assessed against a threshold, defined by the competent authorities. This threshold shall reflect a level of risk that the competent authority considers to be reasonable; institutions shall have documented policies in respect of the counting of days past due, in particular in respect of the re-ageing of the facilities and the granting of extensions, amendments or deferrals, renewals, and netting of existing accounts. These policies shall be applied consistently over time, and shall be in line with the internal risk management and decision processes of the institution. For the purpose of point (a) of paragraph 1, elements to be taken as indications of unlikeliness to pay shall include the following: the institution puts the credit obligation on non-accrued status; the institution recognises a specific credit adjustment resulting from a significant perceived decline in credit quality subsequent to the institution taking on the exposure; the institution sells the credit obligation at a material credit-related economic loss; the institution consents to a distressed restructuring of the credit obligation where this is likely to result in a diminished financial obligation caused by the material forgiveness, or postponement, of principal, interest or, where relevant fees. This includes, in the case of equity exposures assessed under a PD/LGD Approach, distressed restructuring of the equity itself; the institution has filed for the obligor's bankruptcy or a similar order in respect of an obligor's credit obligation to the institution, the parent undertaking or any of its subsidiaries; the obligor has sought or has been placed in bankruptcy or similar protection where this would avoid or delay repayment of a credit obligation to the institution, the parent undertaking or any of its subsidiaries. Institutions that use external data that is not itself consistent with the definition of default laid down in paragraph 1, shall make appropriate adjustments to achieve broad equivalence with the definition of default. If the institution considers that a previously defaulted exposure is such that no trigger of default continues to apply, the institution shall rate the obligor or facility as they would for a non-defaulted exposure. Where the definition of default is subsequently triggered, another default would be deemed to have occurred. EBA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the conditions according to which a competent authority shall set the threshold referred to in paragraph 2(d). EBA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 31 December 2014. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010. EBA shall issue guidelines on the application of this Article. Those guidelines shall be adopted in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010. In quantifying the risk parameters to be associated with rating grades or pools, institutions shall apply the following requirements: an institution's own estimates of the risk parameters PD, LGD, conversion factor and EL shall incorporate all relevant data, information and methods. The estimates shall be derived using both historical experience and empirical evidence, and not based purely on judgemental considerations. The estimates shall be plausible and intuitive and shall be based on the material drivers of the respective risk parameters. The less data an institution has, the more conservative it shall be in its estimation; an institution shall be able to provide a breakdown of its loss experience in terms of default frequency, LGD, conversion factor, or loss where EL estimates are used, by the factors it sees as the drivers of the respective risk parameters. The institution's estimates shall be representative of long run experience; any changes in lending practice or the process for pursuing recoveries over the observation periods referred to in Article 180(1)(h) and (2)(e), Article 181(1)(j) and (2), and Article 182(2) and (3) shall be taken into account. An institution's estimates shall reflect the implications of technical advances and new data and other information, as it becomes available. Institutions shall review their estimates when new information comes to light but at least on an annual basis; the population of exposures represented in the data used for estimation, the lending standards used when the data was generated and other relevant characteristics shall be comparable with those of the institution's exposures and standards. The economic or market conditions that underlie the data shall be relevant to current and foreseeable conditions. The number of exposures in the sample and the data period used for quantification shall be sufficient to provide the institution with confidence in the accuracy and robustness of its estimates; for purchased receivables the estimates shall reflect all relevant information available to the purchasing institution regarding the quality of the underlying receivables, including data for similar pools provided by the seller, by the purchasing institution, or by external sources. The purchasing institution shall evaluate any data relied upon which is provided by the seller; an institution shall add to its estimates a margin of conservatism that is related to the expected range of estimation errors. Where methods and data are considered to be less satisfactory, the expected range of errors is larger, the margin of conservatism shall be larger. Where institutions use different estimates for the calculation of risk weights and for internal purposes, it shall be documented and be reasonable. If institutions can demonstrate to their competent authorities that for data that have been collected prior to 1 January 2007 appropriate adjustments have been made to achieve broad equivalence with the definition of default laid down in Article 178 or with loss, competent authorities may permit the institutions some flexibility in the application of the required standards for data. Where an institution uses data that is pooled across institutions it shall meet the following requirements: the rating systems and criteria of other institutions in the pool are similar with its own; the pool is representative of the portfolio for which the pooled data is used; the pooled data is used consistently over time by the institution for its estimates; the institution shall remain responsible for the integrity of its rating systems; the institution shall maintain sufficient in-house understanding of its rating systems, including the ability to effectively monitor and audit the rating process. In quantifying the risk parameters to be associated with rating grades or pools, institutions shall apply the following requirements specific to PD estimation to exposures to corporates, institutions and central governments and central banks and for equity exposures where an institution uses the PD/LGD approach set out in Article 155(3): institutions shall estimate PDs by obligor grade from long run averages of one-year default rates. PD estimates for obligors that are highly leveraged or for obligors whose assets are predominantly traded assets shall reflect the performance of the underlying assets based on periods of stressed volatilities; for purchased corporate receivables institutions may estimate the EL by obligor grade from long run averages of one-year realised default rates; if an institution derives long run average estimates of PDs and LGDs for purchased corporate receivables from an estimate of EL, and an appropriate estimate of PD or LGD, the process for estimating total losses shall meet the overall standards for estimation of PD and LGD set out in this part, and the outcome shall be consistent with the concept of LGD as set out in Article 181(1)(a); institutions shall use PD estimation techniques only with supporting analysis. Institutions shall recognise the importance of judgmental considerations in combining results of techniques and in making adjustments for limitations of techniques and information; to the extent that an institution uses data on internal default experience for the estimation of PDs, the estimates shall be reflective of underwriting standards and of any differences in the rating system that generated the data and the current rating system. Where underwriting standards or rating systems have changed, the institution shall add a greater margin of conservatism in its estimate of PD; to the extent that an institution associates or maps its internal grades to the scale used by an ECAI or similar organisations and then attributes the default rate observed for the external organisation's grades to the institution's grades, mappings shall be based on a comparison of internal rating criteria to the criteria used by the external organisation and on a comparison of the internal and external ratings of any common obligors. Biases or inconsistencies in the mapping approach or underlying data shall be avoided. The criteria of the external organisation underlying the data used for quantification shall be oriented to default risk only and not reflect transaction characteristics. The analysis undertaken by the institution shall include a comparison of the default definitions used, subject to the requirements in Article 178. The institution shall document the basis for the mapping; to the extent that an institution uses statistical default prediction models it is allowed to estimate PDs as the simple average of default-probability estimates for individual obligors in a given grade. The institution's use of default probability models for this purpose shall meet the standards specified in Article 174; irrespective of whether an institution is using external, internal, or pooled data sources, or a combination of the three, for its PD estimation, the length of the underlying historical observation period used shall be at least five years for at least one source. If the available observation period spans a longer period for any source, and this data is relevant, this longer period shall be used. This point also applies to the PD/LGD Approach to equity. Subject to the permission of competent authorities, institutions which have not received the permission of the competent authority pursuant to Article 143 to use own estimates of LGDs or conversion factors may use, when they implement the IRB Approach, relevant data covering a period of two years. The period to be covered shall increase by one year each year until relevant data cover a period of five years. For retail exposures, the following requirements shall apply: institutions shall estimate PDs by obligor grade or pool from long run averages of one-year default rates; PD estimates may also be derived from an estimate of total losses and appropriate estimates of LGDs; institutions shall regard internal data for assigning exposures to grades or pools as the primary source of information for estimating loss characteristics. Institutions may use external data (including pooled data) or statistical models for quantification provided the following strong links both exist: between the institution's process of assigning exposures to grades or pools and the process used by the external data source; and between the institution's internal risk profile and the composition of the external data; if an institution derives long run average estimates of PD and LGD for retail from an estimate of total losses and an appropriate estimate of PD or LGD, the process for estimating total losses shall meet the overall standards for estimation of PD and LGD set out in this part, and the outcome shall be consistent with the concept of LGD as set out in point (a) of Article 181(1); irrespective of whether an institution is using external, internal or pooled data sources or a combination of the three, for their estimation of loss characteristics, the length of the underlying historical observation period used shall be at least five years for at least one source. If the available observation spans a longer period for any source, and these data are relevant, this longer period shall be used. An institution need not give equal importance to historic data if more recent data is a better predictor of loss rates. Subject to the permission of the competent authorities, institutions may use, when they implement the IRB Approach, relevant data covering a period of two years. The period to be covered shall increase by one year each year until relevant data cover a period of five years; institutions shall identify and analyse expected changes of risk parameters over the life of credit exposures (seasoning effects). For purchased retail receivables, institutions may use external and internal reference data. Institutions shall use all relevant data sources as points of comparison. EBA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the following: the conditions according to which competent authorities may grant the permissions referred to in point (h) of paragraph 1 and point (e) of paragraph 2; the methodologies according to which competent authorities shall assess the methodology of an institution for estimating PD pursuant to Article 143. EBA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 31 December 2014. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010. In quantifying the risk parameters to be associated with rating grades or pools, institutions shall apply the following requirements specific to own-LGD estimates: institutions shall estimate LGDs by facility grade or pool on the basis of the average realised LGDs by facility grade or pool using all observed defaults within the data sources (default weighted average); institutions shall use LGD estimates that are appropriate for an economic downturn if those are more conservative than the long-run average. To the extent a rating system is expected to deliver realised LGDs at a constant level by grade or pool over time, institutions shall make adjustments to their estimates of risk parameters by grade or pool to limit the capital impact of an economic downturn; an institution shall consider the extent of any dependence between the risk of the obligor with that of the collateral or collateral provider. Cases where there is a significant degree of dependence shall be addressed in a conservative manner; currency mismatches between the underlying obligation and the collateral shall be treated conservatively in the institution's assessment of LGD; to the extent that LGD estimates take into account the existence of collateral, these estimates shall not solely be based on the collateral's estimated market value. LGD estimates shall take into account the effect of the potential inability of institutions to expeditiously gain control of their collateral and liquidate it; to the extent that LGD estimates take into account the existence of collateral, institutions shall establish internal requirements for collateral management, legal certainty and risk management that are generally consistent with those set out in Chapter 4, Section 3; to the extent that an institution recognises collateral for determining the exposure value for counterparty credit risk in accordance with Chapter 6, Section 5 or 6, any amount expected to be recovered from the collateral shall not be taken into account in the LGD estimates; for the specific case of exposures already in default, the institution shall use the sum of its best estimate of expected loss for each exposure given current economic circumstances and exposure status and its estimate of the increase of loss rate caused by possible additional unexpected losses during the recovery period, i.e. between date of default and final liquidation of the exposure; to the extent that unpaid late fees have been capitalised in the institution's income statement, they shall be added to the institution's measure of exposure and loss; for exposures to corporates, institutions and central governments and central banks, estimates of LGD shall be based on data over a minimum of five years, increasing by one year each year after implementation until a minimum of seven years is reached, for at least one data source. If the available observation period spans a longer period for any source, and the data is relevant, this longer period shall be used. For retail exposures, institutions may do the following: derive LGD estimates from realised losses and appropriate estimates of PDs; reflect future drawings either in their conversion factors or in their LGD estimates; For purchased retail receivables use external and internal reference data to estimate LGDs. For retail exposures, estimates of LGD shall be based on data over a minimum of five years. An institution needs not give equal importance to historic data if more recent data is a better predictor of loss rates. Subject to the permission of the competent authorities, institutions may use, when they implement the IRB Approach, relevant data covering a period of two years. The period to be covered shall increase by one year each year until relevant data cover a period of five years. EBA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the following: the nature, severity and duration of an economic downturn referred to in paragraph 1; the conditions according to which a competent authority may permit and institution pursuant to paragraph 3 to use relevant data covering a period of two years when the institution implements the IRB Approach. EBA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 31 December 2014. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010. In quantifying the risk parameters to be associated with rating grades or pools, institutions shall apply the following requirements specific to own-conversion factor estimates: institutions shall estimate conversion factors by facility grade or pool on the basis of the average realised conversion factors by facility grade or pool using the default weighted average resulting from all observed defaults within the data sources; institutions shall use conversion factor estimates that are appropriate for an economic downturn if those are more conservative than the long-run average. To the extent a rating system is expected to deliver realised conversion factors at a constant level by grade or pool over time, institutions shall make adjustments to their estimates of risk parameters by grade or pool to limit the capital impact of an economic downturn; institutions' estimates of conversion factors shall reflect the possibility of additional drawings by the obligor up to and after the time a default event is triggered. The conversion factor estimate shall incorporate a larger margin of conservatism where a stronger positive correlation can reasonably be expected between the default frequency and the magnitude of conversion factor; in arriving at estimates of conversion factors institutions shall consider their specific policies and strategies adopted in respect of account monitoring and payment processing. Institutions shall also consider their ability and willingness to prevent further drawings in circumstances short of payment default, such as covenant violations or other technical default events; institutions shall have adequate systems and procedures in place to monitor facility amounts, current outstandings against committed lines and changes in outstandings per obligor and per grade. The institution shall be able to monitor outstanding balances on a daily basis; if institutions use different estimates of conversion factors for the calculation of risk weighted exposure amounts and internal purposes it shall be documented and be reasonable. For exposures to corporates, institutions and central governments and central banks, estimates of conversion factors shall be based on data over a minimum of five years, increasing by one year each year after implementation until a minimum of seven years is reached, for at least one data source. If the available observation period spans a longer period for any source, and the data is relevant, this longer period shall be used. For retail exposures, institutions may reflect future drawings either in their conversion factors or in their LGD estimates. For retail exposures, estimates of conversion factors shall be based on data over a minimum of five years. By way of derogation from point (a) of paragraph 1, an institution need not give equal importance to historic data if more recent data is a better predictor of draw downs. Subject to the permission of competent authorities, institutions may use, when they implement the IRB Approach, relevant data covering a period of two years. The period to be covered shall increase by one year each year until relevant data cover a period of five years. EBA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the following: the nature, severity and duration of an economic downturn referred to in paragraph 1; conditions according to which a competent authority may permit and institution to use relevant data covering a period of two years at the time an institution first implements the IRB Approach. EBA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 31 December 2014. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010. The following requirements shall apply in relation to eligible guarantors and guarantees: institutions shall have clearly specified criteria for the types of guarantors they recognise for the calculation of risk weighted exposure amounts; for recognised guarantors the same rules as for obligors as set out in Articles 171, 172 and 173 shall apply; the guarantee shall be evidenced in writing, non-cancellable on the part of the guarantor, in force until the obligation is satisfied in full (to the extent of the amount and tenor of the guarantee) and legally enforceable against the guarantor in a jurisdiction where the guarantor has assets to attach and enforce a judgement. Conditional guarantees prescribing conditions under which the guarantor may not be obliged to perform may be recognised subject to permission of the competent authorities. The assignment criteria shall adequately address any potential reduction in the risk mitigation effect. An institution shall have clearly specified criteria for adjusting grades, pools or LGD estimates, and, in the case of retail and eligible purchased receivables, the process of allocating exposures to grades or pools, to reflect the impact of guarantees for the calculation of risk weighted exposure amounts. These criteria shall comply with the requirements set out in Articles 171, 172 and 173. The criteria shall be plausible and intuitive. They shall address the guarantor's ability and willingness to perform under the guarantee, the likely timing of any payments from the guarantor, the degree to which the guarantor's ability to perform under the guarantee is correlated with the obligor's ability to repay, and the extent to which residual risk to the obligor remains. The requirements for guarantees in this Article shall apply also for single-name credit derivatives. In relation to a mismatch between the underlying obligation and the reference obligation of the credit derivative or the obligation used for determining whether a credit event has occurred, the requirements set out under Article 216(2) shall apply. For retail exposures and eligible purchased receivables, this paragraph applies to the process of allocating exposures to grades or pools. The criteria shall address the payout structure of the credit derivative and conservatively assess the impact this has on the level and timing of recoveries. The institution shall consider the extent to which other forms of residual risk remain. The requirements set out in paragraphs 1 to 3 shall not apply for guarantees provided by institutions, central governments and central banks, and corporate entities which meet the requirements laid down in Article 201(1)(g) if the institution has received permission to apply the Standardised Approach for exposures to such entities pursuant to Articles 148 and 150. In this case the requirements of Chapter 4 shall apply. For retail guarantees, the requirements set out in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall also apply to the assignment of exposures to grades or pools, and the estimation of PD. EBA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the conditions according to which competent authorities may permit conditional guarantees to be recognised. EBA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 31 December 2014. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010. In quantifying the risk parameters to be associated with rating grades or pools for purchased receivables, institutions shall ensure the conditions laid down in paragraphs 2 to 6 are met. The structure of the facility shall ensure that under all foreseeable circumstances the institution has effective ownership and control of all cash remittances from the receivables. When the obligor makes payments directly to a seller or servicer, the institution shall verify regularly that payments are forwarded completely and within the contractually agreed terms. Institutions shall have procedures to ensure that ownership over the receivables and cash receipts is protected against bankruptcy stays or legal challenges that could materially delay the lender's ability to liquidate or assign the receivables or retain control over cash receipts. The institution shall monitor both the quality of the purchased receivables and the financial condition of the seller and servicer. The following shall apply: the institution shall assess the correlation among the quality of the purchased receivables and the financial condition of both the seller and servicer, and have in place internal policies and procedures that provide adequate safeguards to protect against any contingencies, including the assignment of an internal risk rating for each seller and servicer; the institution shall have clear and effective policies and procedures for determining seller and servicer eligibility. The institution or its agent shall conduct periodic reviews of sellers and servicers in order to verify the accuracy of reports from the seller or servicer, detect fraud or operational weaknesses, and verify the quality of the seller's credit policies and servicer's collection policies and procedures. The findings of these reviews shall be documented; the institution shall assess the characteristics of the purchased receivables pools, including over-advances; history of the seller's arrears, bad debts, and bad debt allowances; payment terms, and potential contra accounts; the institution shall have effective policies and procedures for monitoring on an aggregate basis single-obligor concentrations both within and across purchased receivables pools; the institution shall ensure that it receives from the servicer timely and sufficiently detailed reports of receivables ageings and dilutions to ensure compliance with the institution's eligibility criteria and advancing policies governing purchased receivables, and provide an effective means with which to monitor and confirm the seller's terms of sale and dilution. The institution shall have systems and procedures for detecting deteriorations in the seller's financial condition and purchased receivables quality at an early stage, and for addressing emerging problems pro-actively. In particular, the institution shall have clear and effective policies, procedures, and information systems to monitor covenant violations, and clear and effective policies and procedures for initiating legal actions and dealing with problem purchased receivables. The institution shall have clear and effective policies and procedures governing the control of purchased receivables, credit, and cash. In particular, written internal policies shall specify all material elements of the receivables purchase programme, including the advancing rates, eligible collateral, necessary documentation, concentration limits, and the way cash receipts are to be handled. These elements shall take appropriate account of all relevant and material factors, including the seller and servicer's financial condition, risk concentrations, and trends in the quality of the purchased receivables and the seller's customer base, and internal systems shall ensure that funds are advanced only against specified supporting collateral and documentation. The institution shall have an effective internal process for assessing compliance with all internal policies and procedures. The process shall include regular audits of all critical phases of the institution's receivables purchase programme, verification of the separation of duties between firstly the assessment of the seller and servicer and the assessment of the obligor and secondly between the assessment of the seller and servicer and the field audit of the seller and servicer, and evaluations of back office operations, with particular focus on qualifications, experience, staffing levels, and supporting automation systems.

← art_177__para_3__text_1 · All articles · Artikel 178 →

Source: EUR-Lex (Cellar) · retrieved 2026-09-25 · Text as adopted (Official Journal); later amendments are not incorporated in this text.