• 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
    • Insurance
    • Finance
    • Conduct & Compliance
    • Technology
  • Newsroom
    Newsroom
    • Newsroom
    • News
    • Events
    • Press Articles
    • Blog
    • Academy
  • Publications
    Publications
    • Publications
    • Briefing Notes
    • Case Studies
    • CRO Insights Journals
    • Infographics
    • White Papers & Practical Guides
  • Career
    Career
    • Career
    • BELGIUM
    • FRANCE
    • ITALY
    • LUXEMBOURG
    • NETHERLANDS
    • UK
  • about Reply
Avantage Reply Logo

Search

Case Studies

Case Study

IRRBB – Support the transition of the IRRBB metrics computation tool and reconciliation exercise between both outcomes regarding EVE (Economics Value of Equity) and NII (Net Interest Income).

FOCUS ON: Case studies,

The Client, a huge international bank, request the support of Avantage Reply to further understand and quantify the differences arising between both of their IRRBB metrics calculators. The first, is a hand-made tool provided by the headquarter and the second is a well-known risk software solution used locally. Avantage Reply helps isolating and assessing each of the differences, and in case of materiality, set processes in order to compute overlays. Avantage Reply further helps to add and validate missing products. Validations cover parametrization of the tool, alinement of IRRBB inputs (margin and reference rate) and models (non-maturing products, prepayment, caps, floors,..).

CUSTOMER GOALS

The customer was looking to have a proper understanding on both outcomes in order to simplify and align the explanation of the quarterly variations arising from both calculators.

CHALLENGES

Reconciliation exercise on IRRBB figures can be challenging as source of differences can be numerous. Difference between EVE and NII can arise from a broad range of parameters; as margin, market rates, prepayments, compounding frequency, valuation method, etc...

SOLUTION

Both top-down and bottom-up approached have been conducted in order to isolate and quantify each differences separately.

Two main type of differences have been spotted:
  • Differences due to methodology (curves used, compounding frequency, treatment of floating rate position, static vs dynamic balance sheet, etc..)
  • Differences due to scope (some products have been waivered from one or another calculator)

RELATED CONTENTS

Case Study

Enhancement of Internal Rating Based Framework

The client, a major universal bank featuring a significant wealth management activity, was in the process of enhancing its IRB framework (Internal Ratings Based) following Basel IV requirements and feedback from the European Central Bank (ECB). This program has been launched to repair internal models used to calculate own funds requirements for credit risk under the Internal Ratings Based (IRB) approach.

Case Study

Remediation of the outsourcing control framework

In 2021, an internal systemic Bank launched a holistic risk assessment of its Depositary Bank (DB) business. As part of this review, Avantage Reply performed a review of DB exposure to risks related to outsourcing arrangements including the effectiveness of controls to mitigate associated risks.

Case Study

Testing and management of migration to a new accounting system

Avantage Reply assisted a Finance department of a well-known private bank in their migration to a new accounting system and in the early post-migration phase. The project covered a wide range of activities such as...

 ​
 
 ​
 
Reply ©​​ 2023 - Company Information -
 Privacy Cookie Settings​
  • Abou​t Reply​​
  • Investors​​​
  • Newsroom
  • Follow Reply on
  • ​
​
  • ​About Avantage ​​Reply
  • Privacy & Cookies Policy
  • Information (Client)​
  • Information (Supplier)
  • Information (Candidate)