Updated 23/05/2024
In force

Version from: 09/01/2024
There is currently no Level 2 legal act based on or specifying Article 292.
Search within this legal act

Article 292 - Integrity of the modelling process

Article 292

Integrity of the modelling process


An institution shall ensure the integrity of modelling process as set out in Article 284 by adopting at least the following measures:


the model shall reflect transaction terms and specifications in a timely, complete, and conservative fashion;


those terms shall include at least contract notional amounts, maturity, reference assets, margining arrangements and netting arrangements;


those terms and specifications shall be maintained in a database that is subject to formal and periodic audit;


a process for recognising netting arrangements that requires legal staff to verify that netting under those arrangements is legally enforceable;


the verification required under point (d) shall be entered into the database mentioned in point (c) by an independent unit;


the transmission of transaction terms and specification data to the EPE model shall be subject to internal audit;


there shall be processes for formal reconciliation between the model and source data systems to verify on an ongoing basis that transaction terms and specifications are being reflected in EPE correctly or at least conservatively.

Current market data shall be used to determine current exposures. An institution may calibrate its EPE model using either historic market data or market implied data to establish parameters of the underlying stochastic processes, such as drift, volatility and correlation. If an institution uses historical data, it shall use at least three years of such data. The data shall be updated at least quarterly, and more frequently if necessary to reflect market conditions.

To calculate the Effective EPE using a stress calibration, an institution shall calibrate Effective EPE using either three years of data that includes a period of stress to the credit default spreads of its counterparties or market implied data from such a period of stress.

The requirements in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 shall be applied by the institution for that purpose.

An institution shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the competent authority, at least quarterly, that the stress period used for the calculation under this paragraph coincides with a period of increased credit default swap or other credit (such as loan or corporate bond) spreads for a representative selection of its counterparties with traded credit spreads. In situations where the institution does not have adequate credit spread data for a counterparty, it shall map that counterparty to specific credit spread data based on region, internal rating and business types.
The EPE model for all counterparties shall use data, either historic or implied, that include the data from the stressed credit period and shall use such data in a manner consistent with the method used for the calibration of the EPE model to current data.
To evaluate the effectiveness of its stress calibration for EEPE, an institution shall create several benchmark portfolios that are vulnerable to the main risk factors to which the institution is exposed. The exposure to these benchmark portfolios shall be calculated using (a) a stress methodology, based on current market values and model parameters calibrated to stressed market conditions, and (b) the exposure generated during the stress period, but applying the method set out in this Section (end of stress period market value, volatilities, and correlations from the 3-year stress period).

The competent authorities shall require an institution to adjust the stress calibration if the exposures of those benchmark portfolios deviate substantially from each other.


An institution shall subject the model to a validation process that is clearly articulated in the institutions' policies and procedures. That validation process shall:


specify the kind of testing needed to ensure model integrity and identify conditions under which the assumptions underlying the model are inappropriate and may therefore result in an understatement of EPE;


include a review of the comprehensiveness of the model.


An institution shall monitor the relevant risks and have processes in place to adjust its estimation of Effective EPE when those risks become significant. In complying with this paragraph, the institution shall:


identify and manage its exposures to Specific Wrong-Way risk arising as specified in Article 291(1)(b) and exposures to General Wrong-Way risk arising as specified in Article 291(1)(a);


for exposures with a rising risk profile after one year, compare on a regular basis the estimate of a relevant measure of exposure over one year with the same exposure measure over the life of the exposure;


for exposures with a residual maturity below one year, compare on a regular basis the replacement cost (current exposure) and the realised exposure profile, and store data that would allow such a comparison.

An institution shall have internal procedures to verify that, prior to including a transaction in a netting set, the transaction is covered by a legally enforceable netting contract that meets the requirements set out in Section 7.
An institution that uses collateral to mitigate its CCR shall have internal procedures to verify that, prior to recognising the effect of collateral in its calculations, the collateral meets the legal certainty standards set out in Chapter 4.
EBA shall monitor the range of practices in this area and shall, in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, issue guidelines on the application of this Article.