• We are pleased to announce that the winner of our Feedback Prize Draw for the Winter 2024-25 session and winning £150 of gift vouchers is Zhao Liang Tay. Congratulations to Zhao Liang. If you fancy winning £150 worth of gift vouchers (from a major UK store) for the Summer 2025 exam sitting for just a few minutes of your time throughout the session, please see our website at https://www.acted.co.uk/further-info.html?pat=feedback#feedback-prize for more information on how you can make sure your name is included in the draw at the end of the session.
  • Please be advised that the SP1, SP5 and SP7 X1 deadline is the 14th July and not the 17th June as first stated. Please accept out apologies for any confusion caused.

Chapter 30 off balance sheet assets

A

ALEX_AK

Member
I do not understand why securitized loans are treat as off balance sheet. And under Basel II, these are treated on balance sheet to calculate the credit risk requirement.
Since the bank has sold off the loan to investors and transferred the credit risk to them, why is this still a concern when calculating credit risk for the bank?
 
This is a fairly complex area. You are right that as credit risk is transferred, so the capital requirement should go down - indeed this is often given as a reason why a bank may undertake a securitisation.

But it is possible that some residual credit risk remains. And the rules for something being off balance sheet from an IFRS accounting point of view can be different from the BIS view of what is off balance sheet.

Under older standards, it may have been possible to securitise one asset, buy a similar securitised asset from another party and have a net reduction in capital.

Also, in the past, it was possible for 100% of an asset to be moved off balance sheet by transferring a relatively small % to investors. Indeed this was a significant issue in the Enron collapse.

Rules have been toughened up since to make such arrangements less attractive (even penal) from a capital perspective.
 
Under older standards, it may have been possible to securitise one asset, buy a similar securitised asset from another party and have a net reduction in capital.
There are 2 transactions here,
1) securitise and sell the asset (eg loan)
2) buy a similar securitised asset from the market
Must the second transaction take place? Why is there a need to buy? Is it simply to make use of the cash derived from first transaction?
 
ALEX_AK said:
Under older standards, it may have been possible to securitise one asset, buy a similar securitised asset from another party and have a net reduction in capital.
There are 2 transactions here,
1) securitise and sell the asset (eg loan)
2) buy a similar securitised asset from the market
Must the second transaction take place? Why is there a need to buy? Is it simply to make use of the cash derived from first transaction?
Click to expand...
There is no compulsion to do this - but it is an example of regulatory arbitrage. Say I have to hold a certain amount of capital against an asset. If I can "sell" that asset (through a securitisation) and buy a similar asset (eg someone else's securitisation) and the asset I'm buying is treated more favourably in capital requirements, then I will. And so will lots of others!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top