Article 25
Integrity of assignment process
1. When assessing the independence of the assignment process in accordance with Article 173 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, competent authorities shall verify that:
(a) |
the staff and management responsible for the final approval of the assignment or of the review of the assignment of exposures to grades or pools are not involved in or responsible for the origination or renewal of exposures; |
(b) |
senior managers of units responsible for the final approval of the assignment or of the review of the assignment of exposures to grades or pools and senior managers of units responsible for the origination or renewal of exposures report to different members of the management body or the relevant designated committee of the institution; |
(c) |
the remuneration of the staff and management responsible for the final approval of the assignment or of the review of the assignment of exposures to grades or pools is not linked to the performance of the tasks relating to the origination or renewal of exposures; |
(d) |
the same practices as those referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) apply to overrides in the retail exposure class. |
2. When assessing the adequacy and frequency of the assignment process as set out in Article 173 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, competent authorities shall verify that:
(a) |
adequate and detailed policies specify the frequency of the review, and the criteria for the necessity of more frequent reviews having regard to the higher risk of obligors or problematic exposures and that those policies are applied consistently over time; |
(b) |
a review of the assignment is carried out within a maximum of 12 months after the approval of the assignment and that any adjustments to it that are found during the review to be necessary are made within that time-limit; |
(c) |
a review of the assignment is carried out when new material information on the obligor or the exposure becomes available and that any adjustments to it that are found during the review to be necessary are made without undue delay; |
(d) |
the institution has defined criteria and processes for assessing the materiality of new information and the subsequent need for reassignment and that these criteria and processes are applied consistently; |
(e) |
the most recent information available is used in the review of the assignment; |
(f) |
where for practical reasons the assignment has not been reviewed as set out in points (a) to (e), that adequate policies to identify, monitor and remedy the situation are in place and that measures are taken to ensure return to compliance with points (a) to (e); |
(g) |
senior management is regularly informed about the reviews of assignment of exposures to grades or pools and of any delays of the reviews of the assignment referred to in point (f); |
(h) |
there are adequate policies for effectively obtaining and regularly updating relevant information, and that this is reflected appropriately in the terms of the contracts with the obligors. |
3. For the purposes of the verification under paragraph 2, competent authorities shall assess the value and number of exposures that have not been reviewed in accordance with points (a) to (e) of paragraph 2, and verify that those exposures are treated in a conservative manner when calculating the risk-weighted exposure amounts. The assessment and verification shall be carried out separately for each rating system and each risk parameter.