Response to consultation on Regulatory Technical Standards on the method for identifying the main risk driver of a position and for determining whether a transaction represents a long or a short position

1. Do you agree with the general method for identifying the main risk driver of a non-derivative position and for determining its direction?

While I do agree with the method and its implications posted by EBA, I believe that enhancements in flexibility, technology use, qualitative integration, and feedback mechanisms could further strengthen the approach.

2. Do you agree with the analysis proposed in the background section and with the inclusion of this simplified method for fixed-rate bonds, floating-rate notes and stocks?

Yes, I agree with the analysis in the background section and the inclusion of a simplified method for fixed-rate bonds, floating-rate notes, and stocks in the EBA guidelines. These methods offer a practical balance between accuracy and simplicity, making it feasible for banks to assess and manage risks efficiently. However, there is always room for enhancement, particularly in updating these methods to reflect current market conditions and integrating advanced analytical tools to improve precision.

1. Sector-Specific Adjustments for Stocks: For stocks, include adjustments for sector-specific risks and anomalies that might not be captured by a general market index, providing a more nuanced understanding of equity risks.
2. Credit Spread Sensitivity for Floating-Rate Notes: Improve the modeling of credit spread changes in floating-rate notes, especially in volatile market conditions, to better assess the credit risk beyond the initial simplified assumptions.

3. Do you think that other non-derivative instruments should be included in the simplified method? If yes, please provide rationale and proposed treatment.

Yes, including additional non-derivative instruments in the simplified method can be beneficial, especially for those instruments that are widely held by banks and have significant impact on their risk profiles. Here’s a rationale for including specific non-derivative instruments, along with a proposed treatment for each:

1. Commercial Real Estate Loans

• Rationale: Commercial real estate loans are a significant part of many banks' portfolios and are sensitive to both credit risks and market conditions (like property values and rental income). Simplified methods could help standardize risk assessment across the industry.
• Proposed Treatment: Use a standardized loan-to-value (LTV) ratio approach to assess default risk, complemented by regional market indices to capture fluctuations in property values.

2. Corporate Bonds

• Rationale: While similar to fixed-rate bonds, corporate bonds have varying degrees of credit risk depending on the issuer's financial health. A simplified method can streamline the risk management process.
• Proposed Treatment: Classify corporate bonds into simplified risk categories based on the credit ratings provided by major rating agencies, adjusted by sector-specific factors to account for cyclical vulnerabilities.

3. Municipal Bonds

• Rationale: Municipal bonds are generally considered lower risk but can vary greatly based on local government finances. Simplified risk assessment methods can provide a more uniform approach to managing these investments.
• Proposed Treatment: Apply a tiered risk framework based on the economic stability and fiscal health of the issuing municipality, using indicators such as debt-to-revenue ratios and demographic trends.

4. Leases

• Rationale: Leases are a common financial instrument for banks but carry risks related to the lessee's ability to make payments and the residual value of the leased asset.
• Proposed Treatment: Implement a model that estimates default risk based on lessee credit quality and a depreciation schedule for the asset, adjusting for the expected economic life and usage intensity of the asset.

4. Do you agree with the general method for identifying the main risk driver of a derivative position and for determining its direction?

While this method is robust and aligns with best practices in risk management, continuous enhancements can be made, particularly in integrating advanced computational techniques and real-time data analytics, to improve the accuracy and timeliness of risk assessments.

5. Do you agree with the analysis proposed in the background section and with the inclusion of this simplified method for futures, options and swaps?

While I agree with these simplified methods in principle, it is important to ensure they are regularly reviewed and updated to reflect new market conditions and advancements in financial modeling techniques. Moreover, institutions should be encouraged to complement these simplified approaches with more detailed analyses where their risk profile or the nature of their trading activities justifies the additional complexity.

6. Do you think that other derivative instruments should be included in the simplified method? If yes, please provide rationale and proposed treatment.

Equity-Linked Derivatives (e.g., Equity Options, Convertible Bonds)

• Rationale: These derivatives are sensitive to movements in equity markets but are not always thoroughly covered in simplified regulatory assessments. Including them could provide a more complete view of market risk, especially for institutions heavily invested in equity markets.
• Proposed Treatment: Implement a simplified approach similar to that used for plain vanilla options, using models like the Black-Scholes for pricing, but adjusted for equity-specific factors such as dividend yields and company-specific volatility.

2. Weather Derivatives

• Rationale: These are niche but increasingly relevant as industries related to agriculture, energy, and insurance use them to hedge against weather risks. A simplified approach could standardize risk management for such derivatives.
• Proposed Treatment: Use historical weather data and standard deviations to establish a baseline for expected payouts and apply a simplified valuation model that estimates potential financial impacts based on predicted weather patterns.

3. Inflation Derivatives (e.g., Inflation Swaps)

• Rationale: As inflation concerns grow globally, these instruments become critical for managing inflation risk. However, they are often complex to evaluate.
• Proposed Treatment: Adopt a simplified method based on inflation expectations derived from government bonds and inflation-linked securities, using a model that captures the spread between nominal and real yields.

4. Digital Asset Derivatives (e.g., Bitcoin Futures, Cryptocurrency Options)

• Rationale: The rapid growth of digital assets and their derivatives presents new challenges in risk management. Simplified regulatory approaches would help institutions navigate these relatively uncharted waters.
• Proposed Treatment: Establish a framework based on volatility metrics specific to digital assets, considering factors like trading volume, liquidity, and historical price fluctuations, similar to how commodity derivatives are treated but adjusted for the high volatility and emerging regulatory status of digital assets.

Name of the organization