This chapter sets out the instruments to be included in the trading book (which are subject to market risk capital requirements) and those to be included in the banking book (which are subject to credit risk capital requirements).
Instruments comprise financial instruments, foreign exchange (FX), and commodities. A financial instrument is any contract that gives rise to both a financial asset of one entity and a financial liability or equity instrument of another entity. Financial instruments include both primary financial instruments (or cash instruments) and derivative financial instruments. A financial asset is any asset that is cash, the right to receive cash or another financial asset or a commodity, or an equity instrument. A financial liability is the contractual obligation to deliver cash or another financial asset or a commodity. Commodities also include non-tangible (ie non-physical) goods such as electric power.
FAQ1| FAQ1 | Does the credit spread risk (CSR) capital requirement under the market risk framework apply to money market instruments (eg bank bills with a tenor of less than one year and interbank placements)? Yes. The CSR capital requirement applies to money market instruments to the extent such instruments are covered instruments (ie they meet the definition of instruments to be included in the trading book as specified in RBC25.2 through RBC25.13. |
Banks may only include a financial instrument, instruments on FX or commodity in the trading book when there is no legal impediment against selling or fully hedging it.
Banks must fair value daily any trading book instrument and recognise any valuation change in the profit and loss (P&L) account.
FAQ1| FAQ1 | May instruments designated under the fair value option be allocated to the trading book? Instruments designated under the fair value option may be allocated to the trading book, but only if they comply with all the relevant requirements for trading book instruments set out in RBC25. |
Any instrument a bank holds for one or more of the following purposes must, when it is first recognised on its books, be designated as a trading book instrument, unless specifically otherwise provided for in RBC25.3 or RBC25.8:
| FAQ1 | Does evidence of periodic sale activity automatically imply that the condition regarding short-term resale in RBC25.5(1) has been met? No. Periodic sale activity on its own is insufficient to consider a position as held for short-term resale. |
Any of the following instruments is seen as being held for at least one of the purposes listed in RBC25.5 and must therefore be included in the trading book, unless specifically otherwise provided for in RBC25.3 or RBC25.8:
| 1 | A bank will have a net short risk position for equity risk or credit risk in the banking book if the present value of the banking book increases when an equity price decreases or when a credit spread on an issuer or group of issuers of debt increases. |
| FAQ1 | What are the operational calculation and frequency for determining instruments giving rise to net short equity or credit positions in the banking book? Banks should continuously manage and monitor their banking book positions to ensure that any instrument that individually has the potential to create a net short credit or equity position in the banking book is not actually creating a non-negligible net short position at any point in time. |
| FAQ2 | Per RBC25.6(2), must a credit default swap (CDS) that hedges loans in the banking book but which gives rise to a net short credit position be allocated to the trading book? As a general principle, instruments that give rise to a net short credit or equity position in the banking book must be assigned to the trading book unless a trading book treatment is explicitly excluded for the specific type of position. In this example, the net short position resulting from such instruments (ie the amount which cannot be offset against any long positions) must be treated as a trading book position and be subject to market risk capital requirements. |
The following instruments must be assigned to the banking book:
| FAQ1 | Based on RBC25.8(4), are retail and SME lending commitments excluded from the trading book? Yes. Retail and SME lending commitments are excluded from the trading book. |
There is a general presumption that any of the following instruments are being held for at least one of the purposes listed in RBC25.5 and therefore are trading book instruments, unless specifically otherwise provided for in RBC25.3 or RBC25.8:
| 2 | Under IFRS (IAS 39) and US GAAP, these instruments would be designated as held for trading. Under IFRS 9, these instruments would be held within a trading business model. These instruments would be fair valued through the P&L account. |
| 3 | Subject to supervisory review, certain listed equities may be excluded from the market risk framework. Examples of equities that may be excluded include, but are not limited to, equity positions arising from deferred compensation plans, convertible debt securities, loan products with interest paid in the form of “equity kickers”, equities taken as a debt previously contracted, bank-owned life insurance products, and legislated programmes. The set of listed equities that the bank wishes to exclude from the market risk framework should be made available to, and discussed with, the national supervisor and should be managed by a desk that is separate from desks for proprietary or short-term buy/sell instruments. |
| 4 | Repo-style transactions that are (i) entered for liquidity management and (ii) valued at accrual for accounting purposes are not part of the presumptive list of RBC25.9. |
| 5 | An embedded derivative is a component of a hybrid contract that includes a non-derivative host such as liabilities issued out of the bank’s own banking book that contain embedded derivatives. The embedded derivative associated with the issued instrument (ie host) should be bifurcated and separately recognised on the bank’s balance sheet for accounting purposes. |
| FAQ1 | What is the definition of “trading-related repo-style transactions”? Trading-related repo-style transactions comprise those entered into for the purposes of market-making, locking in arbitrage profits or creating short credit or equity positions. |
| FAQ2 | How should a bank treat the bifurcation of embedded derivatives per RBC25.9(6)? Liabilities issued out of the bank’s own banking book that contain embedded derivatives and thereby meet the criteria of RBC25.9(6) should be bifurcated. This means that banks should split the liability into two components: (i) the embedded derivative, which is assigned to the trading book; and (ii) the residual liability, which is retained in the banking book. No internal risk transfers are necessary for this bifurcation. Likewise, where such a liability is unwound, or where an embedded option is exercised, both the trading and banking book components are conceptually unwound simultaneously and instantly retired; no transfers between trading and banking book are necessary. |
| FAQ3 | To which book must an FX option be assigned if it hedges the FX risk of a banking book position? An option that manages FX risk in the banking book is covered by the presumptive list of trading book instruments included in RBC25.9(6). Only with explicit supervisory approval may a bank include in its banking book an option that manages banking book FX risk. |
| FAQ4 | Does the reference in RBC25.9(6) to options that relate to credit or equity risk include floors to an equity-linked bond? Yes. A floor to an equity-linked bond is an embedded option with an equity as part of the underlying, and therefore the embedded option should be bifurcated and included in the trading book. |
Banks are allowed to deviate from the presumptive list specified in RBC25.9 according to the process set out below.6
| 6 | The presumptions for the designation of an instrument to the trading book or banking book set out in this text will be used where a designation of an instrument to the trading book or banking book is not otherwise specified in this text. |
Notwithstanding the process established in RBC25.10 for instruments on the presumptive list, the supervisor may require the bank to provide evidence that an instrument in the trading book is held for at least one of the purposes of RBC25.5. If the supervisor is of the view that a bank has not provided enough evidence or if the supervisor believes the instrument customarily would belong in the banking book, it may require the bank to assign the instrument to the banking book, except if it is an instrument listed under RBC25.6.
The supervisor may require the bank to provide evidence that an instrument in the banking book is not held for any of the purposes of RBC25.5. If the supervisor is of the view that a bank has not provided enough evidence, or if the supervisor believes such instruments would customarily belong in the trading book, it may require the bank to assign the instrument to the trading book, except if it is an instrument listed under RBC25.8.
A bank must have clearly defined policies, procedures and documented practices for determining which instruments to include in or to exclude from the trading book for the purposes of calculating their regulatory capital, ensuring compliance with the criteria set forth in this section, and taking into account the bank’s risk management capabilities and practices. A bank’s internal control functions must conduct an ongoing evaluation of instruments both in and out of the trading book to assess whether its instruments are being properly designated initially as trading or non-trading instruments in the context of the bank’s trading activities. Compliance with the policies and procedures must be fully documented and subject to periodic (at least yearly) internal audit and the results must be available for supervisory review.
Apart from moves required by RBC25.5 through RBC25.10, there is a strict limit on the ability of banks to move instruments between the trading book and the banking book by their own discretion after initial designation, which is subject to the process in RBC25.15 and RBC25.16. Switching instruments for regulatory arbitrage is strictly prohibited. In practice, switching should be rare and will be allowed by supervisors only in extraordinary circumstances. Examples are a major publicly announced event, such as a bank restructuring that results in the permanent closure of trading desks, requiring termination of the business activity applicable to the instrument or portfolio or a change in accounting standards that allows an item to be fair-valued through P&L. Market events, changes in the liquidity of a financial instrument, or a change of trading intent alone are not valid reasons for reassigning an instrument to a different book. When switching positions, banks must ensure that the standards described in RBC25.5 to RBC25.10 are always strictly observed.
FAQ1| FAQ1 | Does the term “change in accounting standards” in RBC25.14 mean a change in the accounting standards themselves or a reclassification within the current accounting standards? In the context of RBC25.14, “change in accounting standards” refers to the accounting standards themselves changing, rather than the accounting classification of an instrument changing. |
Without exception, a capital benefit as a result of switching will not be allowed in any case or circumstance. This means that the bank must determine its total capital requirement (across the banking book and trading book) before and immediately after the switch. If this capital requirement is reduced as a result of this switch, the difference as measured at the time of the switch will be imposed on the bank as a disclosed Pillar 1 capital surcharge. This surcharge will be allowed to run off as the positions mature or expire, in a manner agreed with the supervisor. To maintain operational simplicity, it is not envisaged that this additional capital requirement would be recalculated on an ongoing basis, although the positions would continue to also be subject to the ongoing capital requirements of the book into which they have been switched.
FAQ1| FAQ1 | If an instrument is reclassified for accounting purposes (eg reclassification to accounting trading assets or liabilities through P&L), an automatic prudential switch may be necessary given the requirements set out in RBC25.5 and RBC25.10(1). In this situation, does RBC25.15 (regarding an additional Pillar 1 capital requirement) apply? The disallowance of capital benefits as a result of switching positions from one book to another applies without exception and in any case or circumstance. It is therefore independent of whether the switch has been made at the discretion of the bank or is beyond its control, eg in the case of the delisting of an equity. |
Any reassignment between books must be approved by senior management and the supervisor as follows. Any reallocation of securities between the trading book and banking book, including outright sales at arm's length, should be considered a reassignment of securities and is governed by requirements of this paragraph.
| FAQ1 | Does the treatment specified for internal risk transfers apply only to risk transfers done via internal derivatives trades, or does it apply to transfer of securities internally at market value as well? The treatment specified for internal risk transfers applies only to risk transfers done via internal derivatives trades. The reallocation of securities between trading and banking book should be considered a re-assignment of securities and is governed by RBC25.16. |
| FAQ2 | Per RBC25.16, if an instrument is re-classified as an accounting trading asset or liability, the switch from the banking book to the trading book can be automatic without supervisory approval. However, the movement of an instrument from the trading book to the banking book requires supervisory approval. Is this interpretation correct? Yes. Moving instruments between the trading book and the banking book should be rare. Although some national accounting regimes provide flexibility to change the accounting classification for an instrument, reallocating positions to the banking book due to changes in accounting classification without supervisory approval is not permitted by this standard. In all cases, including a case where an instrument is reclassified as an accounting trading asset or liability and per RBC25.16(3) accordingly switched to a trading book instrument for capital requirement purposes without approval of the supervisor, the disallowance of capital requirement benefits specified in RBC25.15 will apply. |
A bank must adopt relevant policies that must be updated at least yearly. Updates should be based on an analysis of all extraordinary events identified during the previous year. Updated policies with changes highlighted must be sent to the appropriate supervisor. Policies must include the following:
An internal risk transfer is an internal written record of a transfer of risk within the banking book, between the banking and the trading book or within the trading book (between different desks).
There will be no regulatory capital recognition for internal risk transfers from the trading book to the banking book. Thus, if a bank engages in an internal risk transfer from the trading book to the banking book (eg for economic reasons) this internal risk transfer would not be taken into account when the regulatory capital requirements are determined.
When a bank hedges a banking book credit risk exposure or equity risk exposure using a hedging instrument purchased through its trading book (ie using an internal risk transfer),
Where the requirements in RBC25.21 are fulfilled, the banking book exposure is deemed to be hedged by the banking book leg of the internal risk transfer for capital purposes in the banking book. Moreover both the trading book leg of the internal risk transfer and the external hedge must be included in the market risk capital requirements.
Where the requirements in RBC25.21 are not fulfilled, the banking book exposure is not deemed to be hedged by the banking book leg of the internal risk transfer for capital purposes in the banking book. Moreover, the third-party external hedge must be fully included in the market risk capital requirements and the trading book leg of the internal risk transfer must be fully excluded from the market risk capital requirements.
A banking book short credit position or a banking book short equity position created by an internal risk transfer8 and not capitalised under banking book rules must be capitalised under the market risk rules together with the trading book exposure.
| 8 | Banking book instruments that are over-hedged by their respective documented internal risk transfer create a short (risk) position in the banking book. |
When a bank hedges a banking book interest rate risk exposure using an internal risk transfer with its trading book, the trading book leg of the internal risk transfer is treated as a trading book instrument under the market risk framework if and only if:
| FAQ1 | Do the trading desk attributes set out in MAR12.4 apply to a general interest rate risk (GIRR) internal risk transfer (IRT) trading desk as defined in paragraph RBC25.25(2)? Similar to the notional trading desk treatment set out in MAR12.6 for foreign exchange or commodities positions held in the banking book, GIRR IRTs may be allocated to a trading desk that need not have traders or trading accounts assigned to it. For a GIRR IRT trading desk, only the quantitative trading desk requirements (ie profit and loss attribution test and backtesting) set out in MAR32 apply. The qualitative criteria for trading desks as set out in MAR12.4 do not apply to GIRR IRT trading desks. A GIRR IRT desk must not have any trading book positions allocated to it, except GIRR IRTs between the trading book and the banking book as well as any external hedges that meet the conditions specified in RBC25.27. |
Where the requirements in RBC25.25 are fulfilled, the banking book leg of the internal risk transfer must be included in the banking book’s measure of interest rate risk exposures for regulatory capital purposes.
The supervisor-approved internal risk transfer desk may include instruments purchased from the market (ie external parties to the bank). Such transactions may be executed directly between the internal risk transfer desk and the market. Alternatively, the internal risk transfer desk may obtain the external hedge from the market via a separate non-internal risk transfer trading desk acting as an agent, if and only if the GIRR internal risk transfer entered into with the non-internal risk transfer trading desk exactly matches the external hedge from the market. In this latter case the respective legs of the GIRR internal risk transfer are included in the internal risk transfer desk and the non-internal risk transfer desk.
Internal risk transfers between trading desks within the scope of application of the market risk capital requirements (including FX risk and commodities risk in the banking book) will generally receive regulatory capital recognition. Internal risk transfers between the internal risk transfer desk and other trading desks will only receive regulatory capital recognition if the constraints in RBC25.25 to RBC25.27 are fulfilled.
FAQ1| FAQ1 | Does the standard require a specific treatment for internal risk transfers (IRTs) between a trading desk that has an internal model approval and a trading desk without an internal model approval? No. There are no constraints on IRTs between trading desks with regard to the scope of the application of the market risk capital requirements. The aggregation of the capital requirements calculated using the standard’s standardised approach and its internal models approach does not recognise portfolio effects between trading desks that use either the standardised approach or the internal models approach in order to ensure a sufficiently conservative aggregation of risks. |
The trading book leg of internal risk transfers must fulfil the same requirements under RBC25 as instruments in the trading book transacted with external counterparties.
Eligible external hedges that are included in the credit valuation adjustment (CVA) capital requirement must be removed from the bank’s market risk capital requirement calculation.
FAQ1| FAQ1 | Would FX and commodity risk, arising from CVA hedges that are eligible under the CVA standard, also be excluded from the bank’s market risk capital requirements calculation? Yes. |
Banks may enter into internal risk transfers between the CVA portfolio and the trading book. Such an internal risk transfer consists of a CVA portfolio side and a non-CVA portfolio side. Where the CVA portfolio side of an internal risk transfer is recognised in the CVA risk capital requirement, the CVA portfolio side should be excluded from the market risk capital requirement, while the non-CVA portfolio side should be included in the market risk capital requirement.
In any case, such internal CVA risk transfers can only receive regulatory capital recognition if the internal risk transfer is documented with respect to the CVA risk being hedged and the sources of such risk.
Internal CVA risk transfers that are subject to curvature, default risk or residual risk add-on as set out in MAR20 through MAR23 may be recognised in the CVA portfolio capital requirement and market risk capital requirement only if the trading book additionally enters into an external hedge with an eligible third-party protection provider that exactly matches the internal risk transfer.
Independent from the treatment in the CVA risk capital requirement and the market risk capital requirement, internal risk transfers between the CVA portfolio and the trading book can be used to hedge the counterparty credit risk exposure of a derivative instrument in the trading or banking book as long as the requirements of RBC25.21 are met.
This standard describes the scope of application of the Basel Framework.
This standard describes the criteria that bank capital instruments must meet to be eligible to satisfy the Basel capital requirements, as well as necessary regulatory adjustments and transitional arrangements.
This standard describes the framework for risk-based capital requirements.
This standard describes how to calculate capital requirements for credit risk.
This standard describes how to calculate capital requirements for market risk and credit valuation adjustment risk.
This standard describes how to calculate capital requirements for operational risk.
This standard describes the simple, transparent, non-risk-based leverage ratio. This measure intends to restrict the build-up of leverage in the banking sector and reinforce the risk-based requirements with a simple, non-risk-based "backstop" measure.
This standard describes the Liquidity Coverage Ratio, a measure which promotes the short-term resilience of a bank's liquidity risk profile.
The net stable funding ratio requires banks to maintain a stable funding profile in relation to the composition of their assets and off-balance-sheet activities.
Large exposures regulation limits the maximum loss that a bank could face in the event of a sudden counterparty failure to a level that does not endanger the bank's solvency. This standard requires banks to measure their exposures to a single counterparty or a group of connected counterparties and limit the size of large exposures in relation to their capital.
This standard establishes minimum standards for margin requirements for non-centrally cleared derivatives. Such requirements reduce systemic risk with respect to non-standardised derivatives by reducing contagion and spillover risks and promoting central clearing.
The Pillar 2 supervisory review process ensures that banks have adequate capital and liquidity to support all the risks in their business, especially with respect to risks not fully captured by the Pillar 1 process, and encourages good risk management.
This standard sets out disclosure requirements, which aim to encourage market discipline.
The Basel Core Principles provide a comprehensive standard for establishing a sound foundation for the regulation, supervision, governance and risk management of the banking sector.