• Login
    Your ProfileLogout
  • join
  • about reply
Avantage Reply Logo
Menu
  • About Us
    About Us
    • About Us
    • History
    • Our Approach
    • Values
    • Alumni
    • Strategic Partners
    • Media Contacts
    • Contact Us
  • Our Capabilities
    Our Capabilities
    • Our Capabilities
    • Risk
    • Finance
    • Conduct & Compliance
    • Technology
  • Newsroom
    Newsroom
    • Newsroom
    • News
    • Events
    • Press Articles
    • Blog
    • Academy
  • Publications
    Publications
    • Publications
    • Briefing Notes
    • White Papers & Practical Guides
    • Case Studies
    • CRO Insights Journals
  • Career
    Career
    • Career
    • BELGIUM
    • FRANCE
    • ITALY
    • LUXEMBOURG
    • NETHERLANDS
    • UK
  • about Reply
  • join
Avantage Reply Logo

Search

Focus On

Case Study

FORWARD FLOW ARRANGEMENT

FOCUS ON: Case studies,

SUMMARY

The client was reviewing a potential transaction as part of a strategy to take on selected exposures to second charge mortgages and efficiently deploy its capital resources.

As part of its broader review, the client asked Avantage Reply to review their internal materials, identify relevant considerations (primarily from a capital and liquidity perspective) and provide an evaluation of the proposed structure of the transaction.

THE CHALLENGE

Our customer had one main objective, namely understanding the classification of the transactional arrangement i.e. ‘Look-Through Approach’, ‘Traditional Securitisation’ or ‘Synthetic Securitisation’ and the complexities associated in terms of impact on capital and liquidity with respect to Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 RWA calculations.

APPROACH AND SOLUTION

The foundation of our approach was based on reviewing the proposed transaction structure and key covenants in order to identify the key regulatory requirements that may be applicable to assess the relevant capital and liquidity impacts.

Our analysis identified the classification of the transactional arrangements as either ‘Look-Through Approach’ or ‘Synthetic Securitisation’.

If ‘Look-Through Approach’ classification is used, the capital requirement applied would be equivalent to the capital requirement if the underlying positions were directly held (CRR2 268).

Whereas the Securtised - Standardised Approach (SEC-SA) for the 'Synthetic Securitisation‘ requires a much more complex RWA calculation, but with potential for a lower capital requirement.

Our insights and considerations drew upon our experience of working with a wide range of similarly positioned banks, as well as our experience in capital and liquidity analysis. Where required, we also accessed insights from some of our existing clients, to get a sense of the most recent practices in context of some of our observations.

RELATED CONTENTS

Case Study

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS POLICY PROPOSAL

A leading trade association for the UK banking and financial services sector was looking to respond to one of the UK government bodies’ call for evidence on regulatory coordination in respect of recommendations for improving Cost/Benefit Analysis (CBA) by financial-services regulators in the UK. Avantage Reply was able to finalise the policy paper for the client to successfully submit their response to the UK regulator within the required timeframe.

Case Study

Operational Risk Scenarios and Stress Testing

Avantage Reply assisted a UK asset manager that provides services to both retail and institutional clients, in ensuring its operational risk framework and stress testing approach meet the regulatory requirements and are aligned with the industry best practice.

Case Study

Transition to direct supervision by the European Central Bank

The ECB banking supervision is based on the same rules as local supervision (single rulebook), public information on the differences between both is not commonly available. While there are differences, these are on a practical level and only known to experts with insights on both locally and directly supervised banks. Avantage Reply prepared a review of these differences and the gaps of the client to these the previous year. The client wanted to have an update on these recommendations based on the progress that was made during the year, also with regard to the updated timeline to ECB supervision. To address these topics, Avantage Reply organised workshops with its subject matter experts and the client and reviewed the relevant documents provided by the client.

 ​
 
 
 
Reply ©​​ 2021 - Company Information
  • Abou​t Reply​​
  • Investors​​​
  • Newsroom
  • Follow Reply on
  • ​
​
  • ​About Avantage ​​Reply
  • Privacy Policy
  • Information (Client)​
  • Information (Supplier)
  • Information (Candidate)