Other parts of this series:
- Internal Model Method (IMM) Helps Banks Measure Capital Requirements
- Defining Materiality is Key First Step in Internal Model Method (IMM) Process
- Setting Progress Metrics for Internal Model Method (IMM)
- A Robust Control Framework for Internal Model Method (IMM) Implementation
- Internal Model Method Solution Design: Seeking Efficiencies in Regulatory and Business Initiatives
- Self-Assessment Considerations in Internal Model Method Compliance Programs
- A Coherent Target Operating Model for Internal Model Method Compliance Programs
- Establishing an Effective Regulatory Communications Strategy for Internal Model Method Compliance Programs
As we noted in our first blog, many financial institutions are considering a move to the Internal Model Method (IMM) due to increasing capital requirements and a need for higher reserves due to growing regulatory demands. However, large-scale, regulatory-driven transformation projects, such as a move to IMM, call for a clear definition of what constitutes an effective implementation, and this definition should be articulated and clearly communicated from the top down.
Before receiving regulatory approval for the use of IMM, banks are expected to demonstrate material progress in implementing their methodology. To date, regulators have been non-prescriptive about “material progress” and how this progress ought to be defined and illustrated. An effective IMM program, therefore, hinges on leadership defining “materiality,” establishing agreement with regulators, and structuring an IMM program that, at minimum, achieves this defined threshold.
Regulatory initiatives have a prescribed scope, which may be wholly or partially satisfied during a bank’s initial implementation phase. The regulatory requirement for evidencing “material progress” often allows for management to articulate a plan that is tailored to the individual bank’s portfolio and systems construct. Each bank should interpret these requirements as they relate to its own portfolio and existing infrastructure. “Material” implementation progress should strike a pragmatic balance between full regulatory compliance and feasibility given resource constraints.
Within the interim phases of IMM implementation, it may not be possible to document and examine all exposures across all asset classes. Therefore, the bank should set a reasonable threshold for exposure and product coverage that can match the spirit of the regulatory requirements, while providing margin for improvement during future phases of work. The threshold for materiality should be at a level that demonstrates significant progress towards full compliance with regulations and asset class coverage.
The definition of “materiality” should provide an objective lens through which to evaluate program progress. For IMM, exposure coverage and effective modeling (valuation and simulation) are critical components of the implementation. Coverage could be defined, therefore, as a percentage of positive mark-to-market, which would provide the purest view into absolute exposure coverage. Alternatively, a bank may choose to measure materiality as a percentage of total eligible trades or percentage of total risk-weighted assets, both of which provide a nuanced variation on population coverage.
If the actual coverage differs widely between measures, it may be useful to establish more than one materiality threshold. We recommend that banks consider materiality from multiple angles, defining a suite of metrics and thresholds that provide the most comprehensive and objective assessment of progress.
In our next blog, we will look at the second step towards IMM implementation: Setting Program Metrics.
For more information, see SlideShare deck: “Considerations for an Effective Internal Model Method Implementation”
Visit www.accenture.com/RegulatoryCompliance for latest insights on regulatory remediation and compliance transformation.
This blog is intended for general informational purposes only, does not take into account the reader’s specific circumstances, may not reflect the most current developments, and is not intended to provide advice on specific circumstances. Accenture disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, all liability for the accuracy and completeness of the information in this blog and for any acts or omissions made based on such information. Accenture does not provide legal, regulatory, audit or tax advice. Readers are responsible for obtaining such advice from their own legal counsel or other licensed professional.
Accenture is a leading global professional services company, providing a broad range of services and solutions in strategy, consulting, digital, technology and operations. Combining unmatched experience and specialized skills across more than 40 industries and all business functions—underpinned by the world’s largest delivery network—Accenture works at the intersection of business and technology to help clients improve their performance and create sustainable value for their stakeholders. With more than 373,000 people serving clients in more than 120 countries, Accenture drives innovation to improve the way the world works and lives. Its home page is www.accenture.com.
Copyright © 2016 Accenture. All rights reserved.
Accenture, its logo, and High Performance Delivered are trademarks of Accenture. This document is produced by Accenture as general information on the subject. It is not intended to provide advice on your specific circumstances.
If you require advice or further details on any matters referred to, please contact your Accenture representative.