Capital Adequacy Requirements (CAR) – Guideline (2026) — OSFI — CA

Consultation status: Closed
The consultation for the 2027 CAR Guideline closed on February 18, 2026. We'll keep the draft on the site until the final guideline is released.
Guideline (Effective January 2026)
Cover Letter
Chapter 1 - Overview of Risk-based Capital Requirements
Chapter 2 - Definition of Capital
Chapter 3 - Operational Risk
Chapter 4 - Credit Risk – Standardized Approach
Chapter 5 - Credit Risk – Internal Ratings-Based Approach
Chapter 6 - Securitization
Chapter 7 - Settlement and Counterparty Risk
Chapter 8 - Credit Valuation Adjustment (CVA) Risk
Chapter 9 - Market Risk
Frequently asked questions – Basel III reforms Basel Capital Adequacy Reporting (BCAR) Basel Capital Adequacy Reporting Manual (2026) Implementation Notes for IRB Institutions Collateral Management Principles for IRB Institutions Oversight Expectations for IRB Institutions The Use of Ratings and Estimates of Default and Loss at IRB Institutions Risk Quantification at IRB Institutions Validating Risk Rating Systems at IRB Institutions Data Maintenance at IRB Institutions Approvals Related to OSFI Guidelines AIRB Self Assessment Instructions Foreign DTI Subsidiary IRB Self Assessment Instructions

Consultation status: Closed
The consultation for chapter 1 of the 2027 CAR Guideline closed on February 18, 2026. We'll keep the draft on the site until the final guideline is released.
Note
For institutions with a fiscal year ending October 31 or December 31, respectively.

Subsections 485(1) and 949(1) of the Bank Act (BA), subsection 473(1) of the Trust and Loan Companies Act (TLCA) require banks (including federal credit unions), bank holding companies, federally regulated trust companies, and federally regulated loan companies to maintain adequate capital. The CAR Guideline is not made pursuant to subsections 485(2) or 949(2) of the BA, or to subsection 473(2) of the TLCA. However, the capital standards set out in this guideline together with the leverage requirements set out in the Leverage Requirements Guideline provide the framework within which the Superintendent assesses whether a bank, a bank holding company, a trust company, or a loan company maintains adequate capital pursuant to the Acts. For this purpose, the Superintendent has established two minimum standards: the leverage ratio described in the Leverage Requirements Guideline, and the risk-based capital ratio described in this guideline. Footnote 1 The first test provides an overall measure of the adequacy of an institution's capital. The second measure focuses on risk faced by the institution. Notwithstanding that a bank, bank holding company, trust company, or loan company may meet these standards, the Superintendent may direct a bank or bank holding company to increase its capital under subsections 485(3) or 949(3) of the BA, or a trust company or a loan company to increase its capital under subsection 473(3) of the TLCA.

OSFI, as a member of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, participated in the development of the Basel capital framework on which this guideline is based. Where relevant, the Basel framework paragraph numbers are provided in square brackets at the end of each paragraph referencing material from the Basel framework.

Please refer to OSFI's Corporate Governance Guideline for OSFI's expectations of institution Boards of Directors in regard to the management of capital and liquidity.

The Capital Adequacy Requirements (CAR) for banks (including federal credit unions), bank holding companies, federally regulated trust companies, and federally regulated loan companies are set out in nine chapters, each of which has been issued as a separate document. This document should be read in conjunction with the other CAR chapters. The complete list of CAR chapters is as follows:

Chapter 1 - Overview of Risk-based Capital Requirements  
Chapter 2 - Definition of Capital  
Chapter 3 - Operational Risk  
Chapter 4 - Credit Risk – Standardized Approach  
Chapter 5 - Credit Risk – Internal Ratings-Based Approach  
Chapter 6 - Securitization  
Chapter 7 - Settlement and Counterparty Risk  
Chapter 8 - Credit Valuation Adjustment (CVA) Risk  
Chapter 9 - Market Risk

Chapter 1 – Overview of Risk-based Capital Requirements
Outlined below is an overview of the capital adequacy requirements for banks (including federal credit unions), bank holding companies, federally regulated trust companies, and federally regulated loan companies, collectively referred to as 'institutions'.

This chapter is drawn from the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) Basel Framework published on the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) website.

Footnote 2
For reference, the Basel paragraph numbers that are associated with the text appearing in this chapter are indicated in square brackets at the end of each paragraph.
Footnote 3

1.1. Scope of Application
The capital adequacy requirements outlined in this guideline apply on a consolidated basis to the following institutions:

	all institutions designated by OSFI as domestic systemically important banks (D-SIBs); and small and medium-sized deposit-taking institutions (SMSBs Footnote 4 ), which fall into Categories I, II, or III as defined in OSFI's SMSB Capital and Liquidity Requirements Guideline. Footnote 5 The consolidated entity includes all subsidiaries except insurance subsidiaries. OSFI expects institutions to hold capital within the consolidated group in a manner that is consistent with the level and location of risk.

1.2. Regulatory Capital
Total capital consists of the sum of the following elements:

	Tier 1 capital, consisting of:

		Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) capital; and  
		Additional Tier 1 capital

	Tier 2 capital

The criteria for the capital elements comprising the two tiers, as well as the various limits, restrictions and regulatory adjustments to which they are subject, are described in Chapter 2.

1.3. Total Risk-weighted Assets
Risk-weighted assets (RWA) make up the denominator of the risk-based capital ratios, and is calculated as the higher of:

	the sum of the following three elements:

		RWA for credit risk;  
		RWA for market risk; and  
		RWA for operational risk; and

	the adjusted RWA determined as per the capital floor described in section 1.5.

[Basel Framework, RBC 20.4]

1.3.1. Credit Risk
RWA for credit risk (including counterparty credit risk) is calculated as the sum of:

	Credit RWA for banking book exposures which, except the RWA listed in (b) through (e) below, is calculated using:

		the standardized approach (as set out in Chapter 4); or the Internal Ratings-Based (IRB) approach (as set out in Chapter 5).

	RWA for counterparty credit risk from banking book exposures and trading book exposures (as set out in Chapter 7), except the exposures listed in (c) and (f) below.  
	Credit RWA for equity investments in funds that are held in the banking book calculated using one or more of the approaches set out in Chapter 4:

		The look-through approach  
		The mandate-based approach  
		The fall-back approach

	RWA for securitization exposures held in the banking book, calculating using one or more of the approaches set out in Chapter 6:

		Securitization Standardized Approach (SEC-SA) Securitization External Ratings-Based Approach (SEC-ERBA) Securitization Internal Ratings-Based Approach (SEC-IRBA) Securitization Internal Assessment Approach (SEC-IAA) A risk weight of 1250% in cases where the institution cannot use (i) to (iv) above.

	RWA for exposures to central counterparties in the banking book and trading book, calculated using the approach set out in Chapter 7.  
	RWA for the risk posed by unsettled transactions and failed trades, where the transactions are in the banking book or trading book and are within the scope of the rules set out in Chapter 7.  
	RWA for credit valuation adjustment (CVA) risk for exposures in the trading and banking book, calculated as set out in Chapter 8 using either:

		The standardized approach for CVA; or  
		The basic approach for CVA (either the reduced or full version); or The alternative approach for institutions below the materiality threshold.

[Basel Framework, RBC 20.6]

Institutions that have total regulatory capital (net of deductions) in excess of $5 billion, Footnote 6 or that have greater than 10% of total assets or greater than 10% of total liabilities that are international, Footnote 7 are expected to use IRB approaches for all material portfolios and credit businesses in Canada and the United States.

Under the IRB approaches, exposure at default (EAD) is determined gross of all specific allowances. The amount used in the calculation of EAD should normally be based on book value, except for the following where EAD should be based on amortized cost:

	loans fair valued under the fair value option or fair value hedge; and debt and loans fair valued through Other Comprehensive Income.

Under the standardized approach, on-balance sheet exposures should normally be measured at book value, except the following where exposures should be measured at amortized cost:

	loans fair valued under the fair value option or fair value hedge; debt and loans fair valued through Other Comprehensive Income; and own-use property, plant and equipment

For own-use property that is accounted for using the revaluation model, reported exposures should be based on an adjusted book value that reverses the impact of:

	the balance of any revaluation surplus included in Other Comprehensive Income; and accumulated net after-tax revaluation losses that are reflected in retained earnings or as a result of subsequent revaluations

The approaches listed in paragraph 8 specify how institutions should measure the size of their exposures (i.e. EAD) and determine their RWA. Certain types of transactions in the banking book and trading book (such as derivatives and securities financial transactions) give rise to counterparty credit risk, for which the measurement of the size of the exposure can be complex. Therefore, the approaches listed in paragraph 8 include, or cross refer to, the following methods available to determine the size of the counterparty exposures (refer to section 7.1 of Chapter 7 for an overview of the counterparty credit risk requirements including the types of transactions to which the methods below can be applied):

	The standardized approach for measuring counterparty credit risk exposures (SA-CCR), set out in section 7.1.7.  
	The comprehensive approach, set out in section 4.3.3(iii) of Chapter 4.  
	The value at risk (VaR) models approach, set out in section 5.4.1(iii) of Chapter 5.  
	The Internal Model Method (IMM), set out in section 7.1.5.

[Basel Framework, RBC 20.7]

For banks with OSFI approval to use IMM to calculate counterparty credit risk exposures, EAD for counterparty credit risk exposures must be calculated according to sections 7.1.3 through 7.1.5. [Basel Framework, RBC 20.8]

1.3.2. Market Risk
Market risk requirements, as outlined in Chapter 9, apply to internationally active institutions and all institutions designated by OSFI as D-SIBs. OSFI retains the right to apply the framework to other institutions, on a case-by-case basis, if trading activities are a large proportion of overall operations.

Institutions subject to market risk requirements must identify the instruments that are in the trading book following the requirements of Chapter 9. All instruments that are not in the trading book and all other assets of the institution (termed "banking book exposures") must be treated under one of the credit risk approaches. [Basel Framework, RBC 20.5]

RWA for market risk are calculated as RWA for market risk for instruments in the trading book and for foreign exchange risk and commodities risk for exposures in the banking book, calculated using:

	The standardized approach, as described in section 9.5; or The internal models approach set out in section 9.6.

[Basel Framework, RBC 20.9]

1.3.3. Operational Risk
All institutions are subject to operational risk requirements, as described in Chapter 3.

RWA for operational risk are calculated using either:

	The Simplified Standardized Approach, set out in section 3.3; or The Standardized Approach, set out in section 3.4.

D-SIBs and SMSBs that report adjusted gross income Footnote 8 greater than $1.5 billion must use the standardized approach. SMSBs with annual adjusted gross income less than $1.5 billion must use the simplified standardized approach, unless they have received approval from OSFI to use the standardized approach, as set out in section 3.2.

1.4. Approval to use Internal Model Based Approaches
Institutions must receive explicit prior approval from OSFI in order to use any of the following model-based approaches for regulatory capital purposes: the Foundation and Advanced IRB Approaches to credit risk, the IMM to counterparty credit risk, and the Internal Models Approach (IMA) to market risk. The steps involved in the application for approval of these approaches are outlined in OSFI Implementation Notes.

OSFI will consider approval with conditions for those institutions that have made a substantial effort and are found to satisfy most requirements of the internal model regime. The institution must also be able to provide out of sample back-testing and parallel reporting consistent with OSFI's capital models implementation note. Footnote 9 Institutions that do not receive approval will be required to employ a form of the Standardized Approach.

An institution achieving approval with conditions for one of the model-based approaches will normally be allowed to use the approach (in some cases only after OSFI confirms closure of certain deficiencies) but may be required to adhere to a higher initial capital floor. For institutions approved to use the IRB approach, upon approval, the floor adjustment factor will be set at 90%.

While an institution is working to address the approval conditions, it is possible that OSFI may permit the institution to use lower floor adjustment factors based on OSFI's assessment of the institution's progress. The decision to allow institutions to transition to lower floor adjustment factors will be communicated in writing by OSFI. Institutions may be eligible for a reduction of the floor adjustment factor by up to 7.5%, after at least four quarters at a set level. Floor adjustment factors will be lowered by a maximum of 7.5% at each review period, until the floor adjustment factor set out in paragraph 33 is reached.

In its assessment OSFI will consider, at a minimum, the following:

	If applicable, material progress to remedy approval conditions, or progress against key milestones in the institution's IRB rollout plan.  
	Ongoing compliance with minimum requirements of the IRB approach described in this guideline.  
	Demonstration that the institution has implemented a process to assess the performance of rating systems and make suitable amendments to estimates when needed.  
	Satisfactory quarterly model performance results.

OSFI may also consider results of relevant supervisory or third-party work conducted during the period. OSFI retains discretion to lower floor adjustment factors by less than 7.5%, as well as subjecting institutions to higher floor adjustment factors and/or longer timeframes at given floor levels based on individual circumstances and supervisory judgment. Once the institution achieves full compliance with all rollout and data requirements, and OSFI has agreed, the institution may proceed to the capital floor set out in paragraph 33. OSFI will not rule out the possibility of requiring floors on individual asset classes or reviewing approval conditions based on implementation progress.

Once approved, institutions are expected to meet the qualitative and quantitative requirements for the internal model approach as set out in the guideline and the supporting implementation notes on an ongoing basis.

1.4.1. Approval to use the IRB Approaches to Credit Risk
For IRB credit risk approval, besides meeting the qualitative and quantitative requirements for an IRB rating system, institutions will need, at a minimum, to satisfy the following requirements to obtain approval with conditions (with a possibly higher initial floor):

	The institution is meeting the IRB use test principles.

Footnote 10
The use test prohibits institutions from using default and loss estimates from their own internal ratings that are developed for the sole purpose of calculating regulatory capital, these systems must be used in other operations of the institution.
On implementation, the institution will have rolled out the Advanced IRB (AIRB) or Foundation IRB (FIRB) approach to approximately 80% of its consolidated credit exposures, as of the end of the fiscal year prior to the fiscal year in which the institution receives approval to use the IRB approach, measured in terms of gross exposure and total credit RWA.

Once an institution has received an approval to use the IRB Approach, OSFI will monitor, on a quarterly basis, the institution's compliance with the 80% IRB threshold for its consolidated credit exposures for which an IRB approach is permitted. In the post-approval period, compliance will be measured in terms of gross exposure and total credit risk-weighted assets as at the applicable quarter.

1.5. Capital Floor – Internal Model Based Approaches
To reduce excessive variability of RWA and to enhance the comparability of risk-based capital ratios, institutions using internal model-based approaches for credit risk, counterparty credit risk, or market risk are subject to a floor requirement that is applied to RWA. The capital floor ensures that institutions' capital requirements do not fall below a certain percentage of capital requirements derived under standardized approaches. The calculation of the floor is set out below for institutions that have implemented the IRB approach for credit risk, IMM for counterparty credit risk, or IMA for market risk. Institutions that have only implemented the standardized approaches for credit risk, counterparty credit risk, and market risk are not subject to the capital floor.

Institutions that have implemented one of the internal model-based approaches for credit risk, counterparty credit risk, or market risk must calculate the difference between:

	the capital floor as defined in section 1.5.1, and an adjusted capital requirement as defined in section 1.5.2.

[Basel Framework, RBC 20.11]

If the capital floor amount is larger than the adjusted capital requirement (i.e. the difference is positive), institutions are required to add the difference to the total RWAs otherwise calculated under this guideline. This adjusted RWA figure must be used as the denominator in the calculation of the risk-based capital ratios.

1.5.1. The Capital Floor
The base of the capital floor includes the standardized approaches to credit risk and operational risk as described in paragraphs 34 through 38. The specific approach for market risk is described in paragraph 36. The capital floor is derived by applying a floor adjustment factor to the net total of the following amounts:

	total risk-weighted assets for the capital floor, less  
	12.5 times the amount of any general allowance that may be recognized in Tier 2 capital following the standardized approach methodology as outlined in Chapter 2 of this guideline.

The floor adjustment factor is set at 67.5% until further notice. OSFI will provide at least two years prior notice to resuming an increase in the floor adjustment factor. OSFI may set a higher floor adjustment factor for individual institutions.

Credit risk RWAs are calculated using the standardized approach as outlined in Chapter 4 of this guideline for all asset classes except securitization. The treatment of securitization exposures under the capital floor is outlined in section 6.11 of Chapter 6. Credit risk RWAs also include charges for central counterparty (CCP) exposures and non-Delivery-versus-Payment (DvP) trades outlined in Chapter 7.

For the exposure values used in the calculation of credit risk RWAs, the treatment of credit risk mitigation should follow the standardized approach outlined in section 4.3 of Chapter 4 of this guideline, while counterparty credit risk exposures must be determined using the standardized approach to counterparty credit risk outlined in section 7.1.7 of Chapter 7 of this guideline. Additionally, in order to reduce the operational complexity of implementing the capital floor, institutions may choose to apply the IRB definition of default for IRB portfolios rather than applying the standardized approach default definition.

Market risk RWAs are calculated using the standardized approach as outlined in Chapter 9 of this guideline and CVA RWAs are calculated using the approaches described in chapter 8.

Operational risk RWAs are calculated using either the Standardized Approach or the Simplified Standardized Approach, outlined in Chapter 3 of this guideline.

The following approaches are not permitted to be used, directly or indirectly, in the calculation of the capital floor:

	IRB approach to credit risk;  
	SEC-IRBA; the IMA for market risk; the VaR models approach to securities financing transactions; and the IMM for counterparty credit risk.

[Basel Framework, RBC 20.12]

1.5.2. Adjusted Capital Requirement
The adjusted capital requirement is based on application of all of the chapters of this guideline and is equal to the net total of the following amounts:

	total risk-weighted assets, plus  
	12.5 times the provisioning shortfall deduction, less  
	12.5 times excess provisions included in Tier 2, less  
	12.5 times the amount of general allowances that may be recognized in Tier 2 in respect of exposures for which the standardized approach is used.

The provisioning shortfall deduction, excess provisions included in Tier 2, and general allowances in Tier 2 in respect of standardized portfolios are defined in section 2.1.3.7 of Chapter 2 of this guideline.

1.6. Calculation of OSFI Minimum Capital Requirements

1.6.1. Risk-Based Capital Ratios for D-SIBs and Category I and II SMSBs
Institutions are expected to meet minimum risk-based capital requirements for exposures to credit risk, operational risk and, where they have significant trading activity, market risk. Total risk-weighted assets are determined by multiplying the capital requirements for market risk and operational risk by 12.5 and adding the resulting figures to risk-weighted assets for credit risk. The capital ratios are calculated by dividing regulatory capital by total risk-weighted assets. The three ratios measure CET1, Tier 1 and Total capital adequacy and are calculated as follows:

 Risk Based Capital Ratios =  Capital RWA

Where:

	Capital = CET1, Tier 1, or Total capital as set out in Chapter 2.  
	RWA = Risk-weighted assets, calculated as described in paragraph 7.

Table 2 provides the minimum CET1, Tier 1 and Total capital ratios for institutions before application of the capital conservation buffer.

	Table 2: Minimum capital requirements (in RWA)

			CET1  
			4.5%

			Tier 1  
			6.0%

			Total  
			8.0%

1.6.2. Simplified Risk-Based Capital Ratio for Category III SMSBs
Category III SMSBs are subject to a Simplified Risk-Based Capital Ratio (SRBCR), calculated as follows:

 SRBCR =    Capital   Adjusted Total Assets  +    RWA   Operational Risk

Where:

	Capital = CET1, Tier 1, or Total capital as set out in Chapter 2.  
	Adjusted Total Assets = Total Assets from the Balance Sheet, less the aggregate of all adjustments to regulatory capital as set out in Chapter 2.  
	RWA Operational Risk = Risk-Weighted Assets for operational risk, calculated as detailed in Chapter 3.

Table 3 provides the minimum CET1, Tier 1 and Total capital ratios for Category III SMSBs before application of the capital conservation buffer.

	Table 3: Minimum Capital Requirements (measured as SRBCR)

			CET1  
			4.5%

			Tier 1  
			6.0%

			Total  
			8.0%

1.7. Mandated Capital Buffers
In addition to the minimum capital ratios, institutions are required to hold a capital conservation buffer and, where applicable, a countercyclical buffer.

Outside of periods of stress, institutions should hold buffers of capital above the regulatory minimum. The intent of these buffers is to increase institutions' resilience going into a downturn and provide a mechanism for rebuilding capital during the early stages of economic recovery. Retaining a greater proportion of earnings during a downturn will help to ensure that capital becomes available to support the ongoing business operations of institutions through periods of stress. [Basel Framework, RBC 30.20]

When buffers have been drawn down, there is a range of actions that can be taken to rebuild buffers including reducing discretionary distributions of earnings. This could include reducing dividends or other discretionary payments on shares or other capital instruments, share buy-backs and, to the extent they are discretionary, staff bonus payments. Footnote 11 Institutions may also choose to raise new capital from the private sector as an alternative to conserving internally generated capital. Should buffers be drawn down, institutions should implement a capital restoration plan for rebuilding buffers within a reasonable timeframe or, where the breach is expected to be corrected promptly, a plan that provides assurance that the capital conservation buffer will be restored on a sustained basis. The capital restoration plan should be discussed with OSFI as part of the capital planning process. [Basel Framework, RBC 30.21]

Greater efforts should be made to rebuild buffers the more they have been depleted. In the absence of raising capital in the private sector, the share of earnings retained by institutions for the purpose of rebuilding capital buffers should increase the nearer their actual capital levels are to the minimum capital requirements. [Basel Framework, RBC 30.22]

It is not acceptable for institutions which have depleted their capital buffers to use future predictions of recovery as justification for maintaining generous distributions to shareholders, other capital providers and employees. These stakeholders, rather than depositors, must bear the risk that recovery will not be forthcoming. It is also not acceptable for institutions that have depleted their capital buffers to use the distribution of capital as a way to signal their financial strength. [Basel Framework, RBC 30.23]

1.7.1. Capital Conservation Buffer
The capital conservation buffer establishes a safeguard above the minimum capital requirements and can only be met with CET1 capital. The capital conservation buffer is 2.5% of RWA.
Footnote 12
Table 4 provides the minimum capital ratios plus the 2.5% capital conversation buffer. [Basel Framework, RBC 30.2]

	Table 4: Capital conservation buffer (as % of RWA)

			Capital conservation buffer  
			2.5%

			Minimum capital ratios plus the 2.5% capital conservation buffer

			CET1  
			7.0%

			Tier 1  
			8.5%

			Total  
			10.5%

Capital distribution constraints will be imposed on an institution when capital levels fall within the buffer conservation range. Institutions will be able to conduct business as normal when their capital levels fall within the buffer range as they experience losses. The constraints imposed relate only to distributions, not the operations of the institution. The distribution constraints increase as institutions' capital levels approach the minimum requirements. By design, the constraints imposed on institutions with capital levels at the top of the range would be minimal. This reflects an expectation that institutions' capital levels may fall into this range from time to time. [Basel Framework, RBC 30.2 and 30.3]

Table 5 sets out the minimum capital conservation ratios an institution must meet at various levels of CET1 capital.

Footnote 13
The applicable conservation ratio must be recalculated at each distribution date. Once imposed, conservation ratios will remain in place until such time as capital ratios have been restored. If an institution wants to make payments in excess of the constraints set out in Table 5, sufficient capital must be raised in the private sector to fully compensate for the excess distribution. This alternative should be discussed with OSFI as part of an institution's Internal Capital Adequacy Assessment Process (ICAAP). For the purposes of determining the minimum capital conservation ratio, the CET1 ratio includes amounts used to meet the 4.5% minimum CET1 requirement, but excludes any additional CET1 needed to meet the 6% Tier 1 and 8% Total Capital requirements, as well as any CET1 capital needed to meet D-SIBs' Total Loss Absorbing Capacity (TLAC) requirements where applicable. For example, an institution with 8% CET1 and no Additional Tier 1 or Tier 2 capital would meet all minimum capital requirements, but would have a 0% capital conservation buffer and therefore be subject to the 100% constraint on capital distributions. [Basel Framework, RBC 30.4]

	Table 5: Minimum capital conservation ratios for corresponding levels of CET1

			CET1 Ratio  
			Minimum Capital Conservation Ratios (expressed as percentage of earnings)

			4.5% - 5.125%  
			100%

			>5.125% - 5.75%  
			80%

			>5.75% - 6.375%  
			60%

			>6.375% - 7.0%  
			40%

			>7.0%  
			0%

If an institution's capital ratio falls below the levels set out in Table 4, capital conservation ratios will be imposed that automatically limit distributions. As outlined in Table 5, these limits increase as an institution's capital levels approach the minimum requirements. For example, an institution with a CET1 capital ratio in the range of 5.125% to 5.75% would be required to maintain the equivalent of 80% of its earnings in the subsequent payment period (i.e. pay out no more than 20% in capital distributions). For clarity, where an institution's disclosed ratio is within the ranges where restrictions apply, distributions for the following payment period will be constrained based on the most recently reported ratio irrespective of the current capital position of the institution. Restrictions will remain in place until the capital conservation buffer is restored. [Basel Framework, RBC 30.4]

Items considered to be distributions include dividends and share buybacks, discretionary payments on CET1 and Additional Tier 1 capital instruments and discretionary bonus payments to staff. Payments that do not result in a depletion of CET1, which may for example include certain stock dividends, are not considered distributions. The distribution restrictions do not apply to dividends which satisfy all of the following conditions:

	the dividends cannot legally be cancelled by the institution; the dividends have already been removed from CET1; and the dividends were declared in accordance with the applicable capital conservation ratio set out in Table 5 at the time of the declaration.

[Basel Framework, RBC 30.5]

Earnings are defined as distributable profits calculated prior to the deduction of elements subject to the restriction on distributions. Earnings are calculated after the tax which would have been reported had none of the distributable items been paid. As such, any tax impacts of making such distributions are reversed out. Where an institution does not have positive earnings and has a shortfall in its CET1, Tier 1, or Total Capital ratio, it will be restricted from making positive net distributions. [Basel Framework, RBC 30.5]

1.7.2. Countercyclical Buffer
The countercyclical buffer aims to ensure that banking sector capital requirements take account of the macro-financial environment in which institutions operate. It will be deployed when excess aggregate credit growth is judged to be associated with a build-up of system-wide risk to ensure the banking system has a buffer of capital to protect it against future potential losses. [Basel Framework, RBC 30.7]

The countercyclical buffer regime consists, in Canada, of the following elements:

	OSFI, in consultation with its Senior Advisory Committee Footnote 14 (SAC) partners, will monitor credit growth and other indicators Footnote 15 that may signal a build-up of system-wide risks Footnote 16 and make an assessment of whether credit growth is excessive and is leading to the build-up of system-wide risks. Based on this assessment, a countercyclical buffer requirement, ranging from 0% to 2.5% of total risk-weighted assets, Footnote 17 will be put in place when circumstances warrant. This requirement will be released when OSFI, in consultation with its SAC partners, assesses that system-wide risks have dissipated or crystallized.

	Institutions with private sector credit exposures outside Canada will look at the geographic location of those exposures and calculate their consolidated countercyclical buffer requirement as a weighted average of the countercyclical buffers that are being applied in jurisdictions to which they have credit exposures.

	The countercyclical buffer to which the institution is subject will be implemented by way of an extension of the capital conservation buffer described in section 1.7.1. Institutions will be subject to restrictions on distributions of earnings if they breach the extended buffer.

[Basel Framework, RBC 30.8]

Institutions must meet the countercyclical buffer with CET1. Consistent with the capital conservation buffer, the CET1 ratio in this context includes amounts used to meet the 4.5% minimum CET1 requirement, but excludes any additional CET1 needed to meet the 6% Tier 1 and 8% Total Capital requirements as well as D-SIBs' minimum 21.5% TLAC requirement. [Basel Framework, RBC 30.17]

Table 6 provides the minimum capital conservation ratios an institution must meet at various levels of the CET1 capital ratio.

Footnote 18
[Basel Framework, RBC 30.17]

	Table 6: Individual institution minimum capital conservation standards

			CET1  
			Minimum Capital Conservation Ratios (expressed as a percentage of earnings)

			Within first quartile of buffer  
			100%

			Within second quartile of buffer  
			80%

			Within third quartile of buffer  
			60%

			Within fourth quartile of buffer  
			40%

			Above top of buffer  
			0%

The consolidated countercyclical buffer will be a weighted average of the buffers deployed in Canada and across BCBS member jurisdictions and selected non-member jurisdictions Footnote 19 to which the institution has private sector credit exposures. [Basel Framework, RBC 30.14]

Institutions will look at the geographic location of their private sector credit exposures and calculate their consolidated countercyclical buffer as a weighted average of the buffers that are being applied in each jurisdiction to which they have such exposures. The buffer that will apply to an institution will thus reflect the geographic composition of its portfolio of private sector credit exposures. Footnote 20 [Basel Framework, RBC 30.13]

The weighting applied to the buffer in place in each jurisdiction will be the institution's credit risk RWA that relates to private sector credit exposures in that jurisdiction divided by the institution's credit risk RWA that relates to private sector credit exposures across all jurisdictions. Footnote 21 [Basel Framework, RBC 30.14]

Institutions will be subject to a consolidated countercyclical buffer that varies between 0%, where no jurisdiction in which the institution has private sector credit exposures has activated a buffer, and 2.5% of total RWA.

Footnote 22
The consolidated countercyclical buffer applies to consolidated total RWA (including credit, market, and operational risk) as used in the calculation of all risk-based capital ratios, consistent with it being an extension of the capital conservation buffer. [Basel Framework, RBC 30.12 FAQ1]

Private sector credit exposures in this context refers to exposures to private sector counterparties which attract a credit risk capital charge in the banking book or a risk-weighted equivalent market risk charge for banks' exposures in the trading book as described in Chapter 9.

	If the SA is applied, the risk-weighted equivalent market risk capital charge for default risk is described in section 9.5.  
	If the IMA is applied, the risk-weighted equivalent market risk capital charge for default risk is described in section 9.6.

[Basel Framework, RBC 30.13 FAQ1]

When considering the jurisdiction to which a private sector credit exposure relates, institutions should use an ultimate risk basis. Ultimate risk refers to the jurisdiction where the final risk lies Footnote 23 as opposed to the jurisdiction of the immediate counterparties or where the exposure is booked. [Basel Framework, RBC 30.14]

The decision to activate, increase, decrease or release the countercyclical buffer will be formally communicated. The Superintendent may exempt groups of institutions, other than D-SIBs and foreign bank subsidiaries in Canada, from the countercyclical buffer requirements if the application would not meet the stated objectives of the countercyclical buffer. Footnote 24

Footnote 25
The scope of application and the rationale would be described in the OSFI communication. To give institutions time to adjust to a buffer level, OSFI will pre-announce its decision, to activate or raise the level of the countercyclical buffer, by up to 12 months but no less than 6 months. Conversely, decisions to release the countercyclical buffer will normally take effect immediately. Institutions with foreign exposures are expected to match host jurisdictions' implementation timelines unless the announcement period is shorter than 6 months in which case compliance will only be required 6 months after the host's announcement. Footnote 26 [Basel Framework, RBC 30.11]

The maximum countercyclical buffer relating to foreign private sector credit exposures will be 2.5% of total RWAs.

Footnote 27
Jurisdictions may choose to implement a buffer in excess of 2.5%, if deemed appropriate in their national context; in such cases the international reciprocity provisions will not apply to the additional amounts. In addition, institutions are not expected to replicate sectoral buffers or similar measures adopted by foreign jurisdictions that depart from the internationally agreed countercyclical buffer. [Basel Framework, RBC 30.9]

Institutions must ensure that their countercyclical buffer is calculated and publicly disclosed with at least the same frequency as their minimum capital requirements. In addition, when disclosing their buffers, if any, institutions must also disclose the geographic breakdown of their private sector credit exposures used in the calculation of the buffer. [Basel Framework, RBC 30.19]

1.8. Domestic Systemically Important Bank (D-SIB) Surcharge
OSFI has designated six Canadian institutions as D-SIBs: Bank of Montreal, Bank of Nova Scotia, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, National Bank of Canada, Royal Bank of Canada, and Toronto-Dominion Bank.
Footnote 28
D-SIBs will be subject to a CET1 surcharge equal to 1% of RWAs. The 1% capital surcharge will be periodically reviewed in light of national and international developments. This is consistent with the levels and timing set out in the BCBS D-SIB framework. [BCBS Consolidated framework RBC 40.7 to 40.23]

The 1% surcharge will be implemented through an extension of the capital conservation buffer. This is in line with the treatment of the higher loss absorbency requirement for global systemically important banks (G-SIBs) prescribed by the BCBS.

Footnote 29
Table 7 below sets out the minimum capital conservation ratios a D-SIB must meet at various CET1 capital ratios and Tier 1 leverage ratios.
Footnote 30
D-SIBs will thus be subject to a pre-determined set of restrictions on the ability to make distributions, such as dividends and share buy-backs, if they do not meet these requirements (see relevant provisions of section 1.7.1).

	Table 7: Minimum capital conservation ratios for D-SIBs at various ranges of CET1 or Tier 1 Leverage Ratios

			CET1 Ratio  
			Tier 1 Leverage Ratio  
			Minimum Capital Conservation Ratio

			4.5% - 5.375%  
			3%–3.125%  
			100%

			>5.375% - 6.250%  
			> 3.125%–3.25%  
			80%

			>6.250% - 7.125%  
			> 3.25%–3.375%  
			60%

			>7.125% - 8.0%  
			> 3.375%–3.50%  
			40%

			>8.0%  
			> 3.50%  
			0%

1.9. Domestic Stability Buffer
In addition to the buffers described in sections 1.7.1, 1.7.2, and 1.8, D-SIBs are subject to a Domestic Stability Buffer (DSB).
Footnote 31
The DSB is intended to cover a range of systemic vulnerabilities that, in OSFI's supervisory judgement, are not adequately captured in the Pillar 1 capital requirements described in this guideline. In addition to the DSB, D-SIBs may be required to hold further Pillar II capital, as warranted, to address idiosyncratic or systemic risks that are not adequately captured by the Pillar I requirements and buffers. Decisions on the calibration of the DSB are based on supervisory judgement, informed by analytical work on a range of vulnerabilities, and are made in consultation with the Financial Institutions Supervisory Committee (FISC). Footnote 32 The level of the DSB will range between 0 and 4.0% of a D-SIB's total RWA calculated under this guideline. The level of the DSB will be the same for all D-SIBs and must be met with CET1 capital.

Unlike the other buffers described in this guideline, the DSB is not a Pillar 1 buffer and breaches will not result in D-SIBs being subject to the automatic constraints on capital distributions described in section 1.7. If a D-SIB breaches the buffer (i.e. dips into the buffer when it has not been released), OSFI will require a remediation plan. Supervisory interventions pursuant to OSFI's Guide to Intervention Footnote 33 would occur in cases where a remediation plan is not produced or executed in a timely manner satisfactory to OSFI.

D-SIBs should take into account the DSB in their internal capital planning process. Additionally, D-SIBs should report the DSB in their quarterly public disclosures and include a brief narrative on any changes to the buffer level. Breaches of the buffer by an individual D-SIB will require public disclosure pursuant to International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).

The specific vulnerabilities covered by the DSB are expected to evolve over time, as they are based on current market conditions in combination with forward-looking expectations around the materialization of risks to key vulnerabilities and will be communicated as part of the semi-annual DSB level-setting announcements. The decision to include a vulnerability will be based on whether it is measurable, material, cyclical and has a system-wide impact that could materialize in the foreseeable future.

OSFI will undertake a review of the buffer on a semi-annual basis, and any changes to the buffer will be made public, in June and December, along with supporting rationale. In exceptional circumstances, OSFI may make and announce adjustments to the buffer in-between scheduled review dates. Transparency in setting the DSB will support institutions' ability to use this capital in times of stress by improving the understanding of the purpose of the buffer and how it should be used.

Decreases of the buffer may occur in a situation when OSFI identifies that D-SIBs' exposures to the vulnerabilities have diminished or that risks have materialized. In the latter case, a decrease would be intended to allow D-SIBs to continue to provide loans and services to credit worthy households and businesses and/or to incur losses without breaching their capital targets. Increases to the buffer may occur when OSFI is of the view that it would be prudent for D-SIBs to hold additional capital to protect against the identified vulnerabilities. Increases will be subject to a phase-in period; decreases will be effective immediately.

1.10. Capital Targets
In addition to the minimum capital requirements described in section 1.6, OSFI expects all institutions to maintain target capital ratios equal to or greater than the minimum capital ratios plus the conservation buffer.
Footnote 34
For SMSBs, this means target ratios of at least 7% for CET1, 8.5% for Tier 1 and 10.5% for Total capital. D-SIBs are expected to maintain target capital ratios equal to or greater than the minimum capital ratios plus the sum of the conservation buffer, the D-SIB surcharge and the DSB. For D-SIBs, this equates to target ratios of least 8% for CET1, 9.5% for Tier 1, and 11.5% for Total capital plus the DSB. Footnote 35 The target capital ratios for SMSBs and D-SIBs are summarized below in Table 8 below and illustrated in Annex 2.

	Table 8: Target Capital Ratios


			SMSBs  
			D-SIBs

			Target CET1 capital  
			7.0%  
			8.0% plus DSB

			Target Tier 1 capital  
			8.5%  
			9.5% plus DSB

			Target Total capital  
			10.5%  
			11.5% plus DSB

These targets are applicable to all institutions and are triggers for supervisory intervention consistent with OSFI's Guide to Intervention.

Footnote 36
If an institution is offside the relevant target ratios, supervisory action will be taken proportional to the shortfall and circumstances that caused the shortfall and may include a range of actions, including, but not limited to, restrictions on distributions.

The Superintendent may set higher target capital ratios for individual institutions or groups of institutions where circumstances warrant, including in respect of idiosyncratic and/or systemic risks that are not adequately captured by institutions' Pillar I capital requirements and buffers. The need for Pillar II capital and corresponding higher target capital ratios would consider how robust existing capital ratios are in light of an institution's allowances, stress testing program, and ICAAP results. Footnote 37

Annex 1 – Domestic Systemic Importance and Capital Targets
The framework
Footnote 38 for dealing with D-SIBs set out by the BCBS indicates that domestic systemic importance should be assessed with reference to the impact that an institution's failure could have on the domestic economy. Further, it notes that this assessment should consider institution-specific characteristics of systemic importance, such as size, inter-connectedness and substitutability, which are correlated with the systemic impact of failure. Accordingly, OSFI's assessment of domestic systemic importance for Canadian institutions considers a range of indicators such as asset size, intra-financial claims and liabilities, and an institution's roles in domestic financial markets and in financial infrastructures. This section describes OSFI's inferences from various measures of systemic importance. Size In general, an institution's distress or failure is more likely to damage the Canadian financial system or economy if its activities comprise a large share of domestic banking activity. When Canadian institutions are compared according to their size as measured by total consolidated assets, and by place of booking of assets, that is, according to whether the assets are booked in Canada or abroad, the data show that:

	the largest six banks account for more than 90% total banking assets; the differences among the largest banks are smaller if only domestic assets are considered; and relative systemic importance declines rapidly after the top five banks and after the sixth bank.

Inter-connections
The more inter-connected an institution is to other financial institutions, the greater is the potential for the failure of that institution to transmit problems throughout the financial system and to the broader economy. As a result, measurements of inter-connectedness also inform institutions' systemic importance. Comparing Canadian institutions according to measures of intra-financial assets (i.e. claims on other financial institutions) and intra-financial liabilities (i.e. obligations to other financial institutions) again points to the dominance of the largest Canadian banks. The rank-ordering among these banks, however, depends on the specific inter-connectedness measure under consideration. Substitutability The systemic impact of an institution's distress or failure is greater the less easily it can be replaced as both a market participant and a financial service provider. As a result, OSFI's identification of D-SIBs also takes into account the types of roles that institutions play in domestic financial markets and in domestic financial infrastructures, which inform views regarding substitutability. For example, this includes underwriter rankings in Canadian financial markets, and an institution's shares of Canadian dollar payments made through Canada's Large Value Transfer System (LVTS) and the Automated Clearing and Settlement System (ACSS) Footnote 39 . Again, activity and volume in both LVTS and ACSS are dominated by the largest Canadian banks, and bank relative importance varies according to the measure of interest. The largest banks are also the dominant participants in CDSX, the clearing and settlement system for securities transactions in Canada. Some large Canadian banks also play key roles as members of the CLS Bank, the global institution that settles foreign exchange transactions between banks in Canadian dollars and other major currencies Footnote 40 . For example, the Royal Bank of Canada and the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce are the key Canadian-dollar liquidity providers for settling Canadian dollar foreign exchange transactions through the CLS network.

A variety of additional information has been assessed and recurring themes across the range of evidence are the following:

	The five largest banks are by far the dominant banks in Canada, and consistently play central roles in a range of activities in the Canadian financial system; and The rank-order importance of the largest banks, as well as the relative differences between them, varies somewhat according to the measure considered.

This suggests that there are strong grounds for treating these banks in the same way, rather than relying on arbitrary weights to develop a single index of systemic importance. Further, distinguishing reliably between the adverse effects on the Canadian economy from individual D-SIB failures is largely moot, given the difficulty of credibly differentiating between the large adverse impacts on the Canadian economy from the failure of any one of the largest banks. This also argues against making distinctions between identified Canadian D-SIBs to assign degrees of systemic importance.

Given these various considerations, the Canadian D-SIBs are judged to be Bank of Montreal, The Bank of Nova Scotia, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Royal Bank of Canada, and The Toronto-Dominion Bank, without further distinction between them. National Bank of Canada has also been designated as a D-SIB given its importance relative to other less prominent banks and in the interest of prudence given the inherent challenges in identifying ahead of time which banks are likely to be systemic in times of stress. The designation of D-SIB status will be periodically reviewed and updated as needed. Higher Loss Absorbency Targets The goal of a higher loss absorbency target is to reduce further the probability of failure of a D-SIB relative to non-systemic institutions, reflecting the greater impact that a D-SIB failure may have on the domestic financial system and the economy. This surcharge takes into account the structure of the Canadian financial system, the importance of large banks to the financial architecture, and the expanded regulatory toolkit required to resolve a troubled financial institution. The BCBS D-SIB framework provides for national discretion to accommodate characteristics of the domestic financial system and other local features, including the domestic policy framework. The additional capital surcharge for banks designated as systemically important provides credible additional loss absorbency given:

	extreme loss events as a percentage of RWA among this peer group over the past 25 years would be less than the combination of the CET1 (2.5%) capital conservation buffer and an additional 1%; and current business models of the six largest banks are generally less exposed to the fat tailed risks associated with investment banking than some international peers, and the six largest banks have a greater reliance on retail funding models compared to wholesale funding than some international peers – features that proved beneficial in light of the experience of the 2008-2009 financial crisis.

From a forward-looking perspective:

	Canadian D-SIBs that hold capital at current targets plus a 1% surcharge (i.e. 8%) should be able to weather a wide range of severe but plausible shocks without becoming non-viable; and the higher loss absorbency in a crisis scenario achieved by the conversion to common equity) of the 2% to 3% in Additional Tier 1 and Tier 2 NVCC capital instruments promoted by Basel III also adds to the resiliency of banks. Relationship with Basel Committee G-SIB Framework OSFI has adopted the Basel Committee's framework on the assessment methodology for G-SIBs. The assessment methodology for G-SIBs follows an indicator-based approach agreed by the BCBS that will determine which institutions are to be designated as G-SIBs and subject to additional loss absorbency requirements that range from 1% to 3.5% RWA, depending on an institution's global systemic importance. Footnote 41 For Canadian D-SIBs that are also designated as G-SIBs, the higher of the D-SIB and G-SIB surcharges will apply. Footnote 42

Supervisory Implications
Canadian D-SIBs are expected to have advanced practices in terms of the design and operation of oversight functions and internal controls. OSFI expects these practices to continue to improve as supervision becomes more intensive and international best practices evolve. The institutions designated as D-SIBs have historically had, and will continue to be subject to, more intensive supervision because of their larger size, broader and more complex business models and consequently more significant risk profiles. The principles of risk based supervisory intensity are reflected in OSFI's Supervisory Framework. Footnote 43 The Framework is applied on a consolidated basis to all Canadian institutions and requires OSFI supervisors to determine the level, extent and intensity of the supervision of institutions based on the size, nature, complexity and risk profile of the institution. OSFI's enhanced supervision of D-SIBs includes the following:

	extensive use of supervisory colleges to share and coordinate supervision, including the execution of supervisory plans, with the relevant host country authorities of Canadian D-SIBs' major foreign subsidiaries and affiliates; greater frequency and intensity of on- and off-site monitoring of institutions' risk management activities and corporate governance, including more granular reporting to OSFI and more structured interactions with boards and senior management; more extensive use of specialist expertise relating to credit risk, market risk, operational risk, corporate governance, and AML/compliance; stronger control expectations for important businesses, including the use of 'advanced' approaches credit, market and operational risks; greater use of cross-institution reviews, both domestically and internationally, in order to confirm the use of good risk management, corporate governance and disclosure practices; selective use of external reviews to benchmark leading risk-control practices, especially for instances where best practices may reside outside Canada; regular use of stress tests to inform capital and liquidity assessments; setting, monitoring, and enforcing minimum and target TLAC ratios as set out in OSFI's TLAC Guideline; and assessing D-SIBs' recovery and resolution plans, as well as discussion of such plans with FISC partners and at crisis management groups. Footnote 44

Information Disclosure Practices
Canadian D-SIBs are expected to have public information disclosure practices covering their financial condition and risk management activities that are among the best of their international peers.
Footnote 45
Enhanced disclosure of institutions' risk models and risk management practices can play a helpful role in enhancing market confidence. As a result, D-SIBs are expected to adopt the recommendations of the Financial Stability Board's (FSB) Enhanced Disclosure Task Force, Footnote 46 future disclosure recommendations in the banking arena that are endorsed by international standard setters and the FSB, as well as evolving domestic and international bank risk disclosure best practices.
Annex 2 – Supervisory Target Capital Requirements
Figure 1: DTI capital expectations (% of RWA)

DTI capital expectations (percentage of risk weight assets) – Text description

This figure shows the capital requirements for big banks and small and medium sized banks in two columns. For both big banks, and small and medium sized banks, the minimum total capital requirements are 8% of risk weighted assets and the Pillar 1 buffers are from 8% to 10.5%. Big banks are also required to hold a further 1% in Pillar 1 capital from 10.5% to 11.5 % for the Domestic Systemically Important Bank surcharge. Pillar 2 buffers for big banks include an additional 1% Domestic Stability Buffer (as at May 1, 2020) as well as bank specific buffers in excess of this amount. Pillar 2 buffers for small and medium sized banks are bank specific buffers in excess of 10.5%. Notes The size of DTI-specific Pillar II buffers will vary by institution as they are determined by each institution. Where applicable, the size of institutions' Countercyclical Buffer add-ons will vary. Calibration of the DSB is reviewed by OSFI semi-annually and is set between 0% to 4.0% of RWA. For Category III SMSBs, the DTI capital expectations in the chart are as a % of [Adjusted Total Assets + RWAOperational Risk] Footnotes Footnote 1

The capital and leverage requirements for domestic systemically important banks are supplemented by the requirements described in OSFI's Total Loss Absorbing Capacity (TLAC) Guideline.

Return to footnote 1 referrer

Footnote 2

The Basel Framework

Return to footnote 2 referrer

Footnote 3

Following the format: [Basel Framework, XXX yy.zz]

Return to footnote 3 referrer

Footnote 4

SMSBs are banks (including federal credit unions), bank holding companies, federally regulated trust companies, and federally regulated loan companies that have not been designated by OSFI as domestic systemically important banks (D-SIBs). This includes subsidiaries of SMSBs or D-SIBs that are banks (including federal credit unions), federally regulated trust companies or federally regulated loan companies.

Return to footnote 4 referrer

Footnote 5

SMSB Capital and Liquidity Guideline

Return to footnote 5 referrer

Footnote 6

All dollar values in this guideline are in Canadian dollars, unless otherwise noted.

Return to footnote 6 referrer

Footnote 7

This includes assets and liabilities booked outside of Canada as well as assets and liabilities of non-residents booked in Canada.

Return to footnote 7 referrer

Footnote 8

Adjusted gross income is defined in section 3.3.

Return to footnote 8 referrer

Footnote 9

Assessment of Regulatory Capital Models for Deposit-Taking Institutions

Return to footnote 9 referrer

Footnote 10

The Use of Ratings and Estimates of Default and Loss at IRB Institutions – Implementation Note

Return to footnote 10 referrer

Footnote 11

Applies only to performance bonuses issued to institutions' senior management. The term "senior management" is defined in OSFI's Corporate Governance Guideline.

Return to footnote 11 referrer

Footnote 12

For Category III SMSBs, the capital conservation buffer is 2.5% of [Adjusted Total Assets + RWA Operational Risk]

Return to footnote 12 referrer

Footnote 13

Similar capital conservation ratios apply where an institution breaches its Tier 1 capital or Total capital requirements. In the event that an institution simultaneously breaches more than one capital requirement (e.g. 7% CET1, 8.5% Tier 1, 10.5% Total capital) it must apply the most constraining capital conservation ratio.

Return to footnote 13 referrer

Footnote 14

SAC is a non-statutory body chaired by the Deputy Minister of Finance. Its membership is the same as the Financial Institutions Supervisory Committee ("FISC"), i.e. OSFI, the Department of Finance, the Bank of Canada, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada. The SAC operates as a consultative body and provides a forum for policy discussion on issues pertaining to the financial sector.

Return to footnote 14 referrer

Footnote 15

The document entitled Guidance for national authorities operating the countercyclical capital buffer (PDF), sets out the principles that national authorities have agreed to follow in making buffer decisions. This document provides information that should help institutions to understand and anticipate the buffer decisions made by national authorities in the jurisdictions to which they have credit exposures. [BCBS Consolidated framework RBC 30.10]

Return to footnote 15 referrer

Footnote 16

The Bank of Canada will be the primary source of public information on macro-financial developments and the state of vulnerabilities in Canada with regard to the countercyclical buffer, including as published in its Financial System Review (FSR).

Return to footnote 16 referrer

Footnote 17

For Category III SMSBs, the countercyclical buffer requirement would be applied as a % of [Adjusted Total Assets + RWA Operational Risk]

Return to footnote 17 referrer

Footnote 18

Similar constraints apply with respect to breaches of Tier 1 capital and Total capital requirements. Institutions should apply the most constraining capital conservation ratio where they breach more than one requirement.

Return to footnote 18 referrer

Footnote 19

Institutions are expected to reciprocate the buffers implemented by every jurisdiction listed on the dedicated page of the BIS website: Countercyclical capital buffer (CCyB). Reciprocity is mandatory, for all Basel Committee member jurisdictions, up to a maximum of 2.5% RWA, irrespective of whether host authorities require a higher add-on. [BCBS Consolidated framework RBC 30.13 FAQ3 and FAQ4]

Return to footnote 19 referrer

Footnote 20

The geographic location of an institution's private sector exposures is determined by the location of the counterparties that make up the capital charge irrespective of the institution's own physical location or its country of incorporation. The location is identified according to the concept of ultimate risk (i.e. based on the country where the final risk lies, not where the exposure has been booked). The geographic location identifies the jurisdiction whose announced countercyclical buffer add-on is to be applied by the institution to the corresponding credit exposure, appropriately weighted. [BCBS Consolidated framework RBC 30.13 FAQ2 and 30.14 FAQ1]

Return to footnote 20 referrer

Footnote 21

For Category III SMSBs, the weighting will be based on the institution's private sector credit exposures in a particular jurisdiction divided by its total private sector credit exposures across all jurisdictions.

Return to footnote 21 referrer

Footnote 22

For Category III SMSBs, the consolidated countercyclical buffer requirement would be applied as a % of [Adjusted Total Assets + RWA Operational Risk].

Return to footnote 22 referrer

Footnote 23

For purposes of determining the country of residence of the ultimate obligor, guarantees and credit derivatives are considered but not collateral with the exception of exposures where the lender looks primarily to the revenues generated by the collateral, both as the source of repayment and as security for the exposure, such as Project Finance. The location of a securitization exposure is the location of the underlying obligor or, where the exposures are located in more than one jurisdiction, the institution can allocate the exposure to the country with the largest aggregate unpaid principal balance.

Return to footnote 23 referrer

Footnote 24

The Superintendent will consider factors such as whether an institution's business model involves providing credit through intermediation of funds or whether the conditions that give rise to financial system-wide issues are explicitly addressed in a robust manner in the institution's internal capital targets.

Return to footnote 24 referrer

Footnote 25

The countercyclical buffer is to be computed and applied at the consolidated FRFI parent level, i.e. OSFI regulated deposit-taking institutions who are subsidiaries of an OSFI regulated deposit-taking institution are not subject to the countercyclical buffer.

Return to footnote 25 referrer

Footnote 26

The pre-announced buffer decision and actual buffer in place will be published on the BIS website.

Return to footnote 26 referrer

Footnote 27

For Category III SMSBs, the countercyclical buffer would be applied as a % of [Adjusted Total Assets + RWA Operational Risk].

Return to footnote 27 referrer

Footnote 28

Annex 1 contains additional details around OSFI's process for designating Canadian institutions as D-SIBs.

Return to footnote 28 referrer

Footnote 29

BCBS Consolidated framework RBC 40.1 to 40.6

Return to footnote 29 referrer

Footnote 30

Similar capital conservation ratios apply where a D-SIB breaches its Tier 1 capital or Total capital requirements. In the event that a D-SIB simultaneously breaches more than one capital requirement (e.g. 8% CET1, 9.5% Tier 1, 11.5% Total Capital) it must apply the most constraining capital conservation ratio.

Return to footnote 30 referrer

Footnote 31

Details related to the DSB are included on OSFI's website: Domestic Stability Buffer

Return to footnote 31 referrer

Footnote 32

Established under section 18 of the OSFI Act, the Financial Institutions Supervisory Committee consists of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, the Commissioner of the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, the Chief Executive Officer of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Deputy Minister of Finance.

Return to footnote 32 referrer

Footnote 33

Guide to Intervention for Federally Regulated Deposit-Taking Institutions

Return to footnote 33 referrer

Footnote 34

The conservation buffer is the sum of the 2.5% capital conservation buffer plus any countercyclical buffer add-ons, where applicable.

Return to footnote 34 referrer

Footnote 35

As an example, where the DSB is set to 2% of RWA, D-SIBs' target capital ratios would be at least 10% for CET1, 11.5% for Tier 1 and 13.5% for Total capital. This reflects a conservation buffer of 2.5% and a D-SIB surcharge of 1.0%.

Return to footnote 35 referrer

Footnote 36

Guide to Intervention for Federally Regulated Deposit-Taking Institutions

Return to footnote 36 referrer

Footnote 37

For OSFI's expectations refer to  Guideline E-18: Stress Testing and  Guideline E-19: Internal Capital Adequacy Assessment Process (ICAAP).

Return to footnote 37 referrer

Footnote 38

A framework for dealing with domestic systemically important banks (BCBS: October 2012)

Return to footnote 38 referrer

Footnote 39

ACSS handles all Canadian dollar payments not processed by the LVTS.

Return to footnote 39 referrer

Footnote 40

CLS Bank provides a real-time global network that links a number of national payments systems to settle the foreign exchange transactions of its member banks.

Return to footnote 40 referrer

Footnote 41

BCBS Consolidated framework RBC 40.1 to 40.6 and SCO 40.1 to 50.20

Return to footnote 41 referrer

Footnote 42

Details related to G-SIB's annual public disclosure requirements are included in OSFI's Pillar 3 Disclosure Expectations - Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions

Return to footnote 42 referrer

Footnote 43

OSFI's Supervisory Framework

Return to footnote 43 referrer

Footnote 44

Consistent with the Financial Stability Board's Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for Systemically Important Financial Institutions. OSFI is responsible for leading the assessment of recovery plans. The Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation is responsible for leading the assessment of resolution plans.

Return to footnote 44 referrer

Footnote 45

OSFI's Pillar 3 Disclosure Guideline for D-SIBs: this guideline provides expectations for the domestic implementation of all three phases of the Pillar 3 Framework.

Return to footnote 45 referrer

Footnote 46

Enhancing the Risk Disclosures of Banks (FSB: October 2012).

Return to footnote 46 referrer

Consultation status: Closed
The consultation for chapter 2 of the 2027 CAR Guideline closed on February 18, 2026. We'll keep the draft on the site until the final guideline is released.
Note
For institutions with a fiscal year ending October 31 or December 31, respectively.

Chapter 1 - Overview of Risk-based Capital Requirements  
Chapter 2 - Definition of Capital  
Chapter 3 - Operational Risk  
Chapter 4 - Credit Risk – Standardized Approach  
Chapter 5 - Credit Risk - Internal Ratings-Based Approach  
Chapter 6 - Securitization  
Chapter 7 - Settlement and Counterparty Risk  
Chapter 8 - Credit Valuation Adjustment (CVA) Risk  
Chapter 9 - Market Risk

2.1 Requirements for Inclusion in Regulatory Capital
Regulatory capital consists of three categories, each governed by a single set of criteria that instruments are required to meet before inclusion in the relevant category.

	Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) capital (going-concern capital) (section 2.1.1) Additional Tier 1 capital (going-concern capital) (section 2.1.2) Tier 2 capital (gone-concern capital) (section 2.1.3)

Total regulatory capital is the sum of CET1, Additional Tier 1, and Tier 2 capital, net of regulatory adjustments described in section 2.3. Tier 1 capital is the sum of CET1 and Additional Tier 1 capital, net of the regulatory adjustments applied to those categories.

[Basel Framework, CAP 10.1 & 10.2]

2.1.1 CET1 Capital
CET1 capital consists of the sum of the following elements:

	Common shares issued by the institution that meet the criteria for classification as common shares for regulatory purposes; Footnote 3 Stock surplus (share premium) resulting from the issue of instruments included in CET1; Footnote 4 Retained earnings; Accumulated other comprehensive income and other disclosed reserves; Contractual Service Margins (CSM) that are reported as liabilities in the financial statements of the institution's insurance subsidiaries, net of CSM that are reported as assets in the financial statements; Common shares issued by consolidated subsidiaries of the institution and held by third parties that meet the criteria for inclusion in CET1 capital (see section 2.1.1.3); and Regulatory adjustments applied in the calculation of CET1 (see section 2.3.1).

Retained earnings and other comprehensive income include interim profit or loss. Dividends are removed from CET1 in accordance with applicable accounting standards. The treatment of minority interest and the regulatory adjustments applied in the calculation of CET1 capital are addressed in sections 2.1.1.3 and 2.3.1, respectively.

[Basel Framework, CAP 10.6 & 10.7]

2.1.1.1 Common shares issued by the institution directly

For an instrument to be included in CET1 capital, it must meet all of the following criteria and, in the case of instruments issued by a federal credit union, with the modifications or additional specifications set out in paragraph 5:

	Represents the most subordinated claim in liquidation of the institution.  
	The investor is entitled to a claim on the residual assets that is proportional with its share of issued capital, after all senior claims have been paid in liquidation (i.e. has an unlimited and variable claim, not a fixed or capped claim).  
	The principal is perpetual and never repaid outside of liquidation (setting aside discretionary repurchases or other means of effectively reducing capital in a discretionary manner that is allowable under relevant law and subject to the prior approval of the Superintendent). The institution does not, in the sale or marketing of the instrument, create an expectation at issuance that the instrument will be bought back, redeemed or cancelled, nor do the statutory or contractual terms provide any feature which might give rise to such expectation. Distributions are paid out of distributable items, including retained earnings. The level of distributions is not in any way tied or linked to the amount paid in at issuance and is not subject to a contractual cap (except to the extent that an institution is unable to pay distributions that exceed the level of distributable items or to the extent that distributions on senior ranking capital must be paid first). There are no circumstances under which the distributions are obligatory. Non-payment is, therefore, not an event of default. This requirement prohibits features that require the institution to make payments in kind. Distributions are paid only after all legal and contractual obligations have been met and payments on more senior capital instruments have been made. This means that there are no preferential distributions, including in respect of other elements classified as the highest quality issued capital. It is the issued capital that takes the first and proportionately greatest share of any losses as they occur. Within the highest quality of capital, each instrument absorbs losses on a going concern basis proportionately and pari passu with all the others. The paid-in amount is recognized as equity capital (i.e. not recognized as a liability) for determining balance sheet solvency. The paid-in amount is classified as equity under the relevant accounting standards. It is directly issued and paid-in Footnote 5 and the institution cannot directly or indirectly fund the purchase of the instrument. Where the consideration for the shares is other than cash, the issuance of the common shares is subject to the prior approval of the Superintendent. The paid-in amount is neither secured nor covered by a guarantee of the issuer or related entity Footnote 6 or subject to any other arrangement that legally or economically enhances the seniority of the claim. It is only issued with the approval of the owners of the issuing institution, either given directly by the owners or, if permitted by applicable law, given by the Board of Directors or by other persons duly authorized by the owners. It is clearly and separately disclosed as equity on the institution's balance sheet prepared in accordance with the relevant accounting standards. Footnote 7 [Basel Framework, CAP 10.8]

2.1.1.2 CET1 instruments issued by a federal credit union

For an instrument to be included in CET1 capital of a federal credit union, it must meet all of the criteria in paragraph 4 with any modifications or additional specifications set out in this paragraph:

	For instruments other than membership shares, the instrument need not meet CET1 eligibility criteria a, b, e, and h. Investors entitled to claims under such other CET1 instruments must rank pari passu with membership shares up to a predetermined amount of gross CET1 capital (i.e. CET1 capital gross of the regulatory adjustments described later in this chapter) which must be reset monthly according to the institution's last consolidated balance sheet filed with OSFI. Any assets remaining after the amount is reached would be distributed exclusively to the federal credit union's membership shareholders. Membership share and other CET1 distributions may be subject to a contractual cap. The purchase or redemption of membership shares may be granted at the sole discretion of the federal credit union, rather than that of its members or other investors. As part of this discretion, the federal credit union must have the unconditional right to refuse, limit or delay redemption of membership shares and such refusal or limitation would not constitute an event of default of the federal credit union. A federal credit union may, with the prior consent of the Superintendent, purchase or redeem membership shares provided there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the payment would cause the institution to be in contravention of capital adequacy or liquidity requirements.

2.1.1.3 Common shares issued by a consolidated subsidiary to third parties (i.e. Minority interest/Non-controlling interests)

Common shares issued by a fully consolidated subsidiary of the institution to a third party may receive limited recognition in the consolidated CET1 of the parent institution only if:

	the instrument, if issued by the institution directly, would meet all of the criteria described in sections 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2 for classification as common shares for regulatory capital purposes; and the subsidiary that issued the instrument is itself a bank Footnote 8

Footnote 9
The amount of capital meeting the above criteria that will be recognized in consolidated CET1 is calculated as follows (refer to Appendix 2-1 for an illustrative example):

	Paid-in capital that meets the criteria set out in paragraph 6 above plus retained earnings that are attributable to third-party investors, gross of deductions, less the amount of surplus CET1 capital of the subsidiary that is attributable to the third-party investors. The surplus CET1 capital of the subsidiary is calculated as the CET1 capital of the subsidiary, net of deductions, minus the lower of: (1) the minimum CET1 capital requirement of the subsidiary plus the capital conservation buffer (i.e. 7.0% of risk-weighted assets (RWA Footnote 10 )) Footnote 11 ; and (2) the portion of the parent's consolidated minimum CET1 capital requirements Footnote 12 plus the capital conservation buffer (i.e. 7.0% of RWA Footnote 10 ) that relates to the subsidiary. The amount of surplus CET1 capital that is attributable to the third-party investors is calculated by multiplying the surplus CET1 capital of the subsidiary (calculated in b. above) by the percentage of CET1 that is attributable to third-party investors.

Common shares issued to third-party investors by a consolidated subsidiary that is not a bank cannot be included in the consolidated CET1 of the parent. However, these amounts may be included in the consolidated Additional Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital of the parent, subject to the conditions in sections 2.1.2.2 and 2.1.3.2. [Basel Framework, CAP 10.20 and 10.21]

For capital issued by a consolidated subsidiary of a group to third parties to be eligible for inclusion in the consolidated capital of the banking group, the minimum capital requirements and definition of capital must be calculated for the subsidiary irrespective of whether the subsidiary is regulated on a standalone basis. In addition, the contribution of the subsidiary to the consolidated capital requirement of the group (i.e. excluding the impact of intragroup exposures) must be calculated. All calculations must be undertaken in respect of the subsidiary on a sub-consolidated basis (i.e. the subsidiary must also consolidate all of its subsidiaries that are also included in the wider consolidated group). If this is considered too operationally burdensome, institutions may elect to give no recognition in consolidate capital of the group to the capital issued by the subsidiary to third parties. [Basel Framework, CAP 10.21 FAQ2]

2.1.1.4 Common shares issued to third parties out of Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs)

Where capital has been issued to third parties out of an SPV, none of this capital can be included in CET1. However, such capital can be included in consolidated Additional Tier 1 or Tier 2 capital and treated as if the institution itself had issued the capital directly to the third parties only if:

	it meets all the relevant eligibility criteria; and the only asset of the SPV is its investment in the capital of the institution in a form that meets or exceeds all the relevant eligibility criteria Footnote 13 (as required by criterion 14 under paragraph 13 for Additional Tier 1 and criterion 9 under paragraph 27 for Tier 2 capital).

In cases where the capital has been issued to third parties through an SPV via a fully consolidated subsidiary of the institution, such capital may, subject to the requirements of this paragraph, be treated as if the subsidiary itself had issued it directly to the third parties and may be included in the institution's consolidated Additional Tier 1 or Tier 2 in accordance with the treatment outlined in sections 2.1.2.2 and 2.1.3.2. [Basel Framework, CAP 10.26]

2.1.2 Additional Tier 1 Capital
Additional Tier 1 capital consists of the sum of the following elements:

	Instruments issued by the institution that meet the criteria for inclusion in Additional Tier 1 capital (and do not meet the criteria for inclusion in CET1); Stock surplus (i.e. share premium) resulting from the issue of instruments included in Additional Tier 1 capital. Surplus that is not eligible for inclusion in CET1 will only be permitted to be included in Additional Tier 1 capital if the shares giving rise to the surplus are permitted to be included in Additional Tier 1 capital. [Basel Framework, CAP 10.13]; Instruments issued by consolidated subsidiaries of the institution and held by third parties that meet the criteria for inclusion in Additional Tier 1 capital and are not included in CET1 (see sections 2.1.2.2 and 2.1.2.3); and Regulatory adjustments applied in the calculation of Additional Tier 1 capital (see section 2.3). [Basel Framework, CAP 10.9]

2.1.2.1 Additional Tier 1 instruments issued by the institution directly

The following is the minimum set of criteria for an instrument issued by the institution to meet or exceed in order for it to be included in Additional Tier 1 capital:

	Issued and paid-in in cash or, subject to the prior approval of the Superintendent, in property.  
	Subordinated to depositors, general creditors, and subordinated debt holders of the institution.  
	Is neither secured nor covered by a guarantee of the issuer or related entity or other arrangement that legally or economically enhances the seniority of the claim vis-à-vis the institution's depositors and/or creditors.

Footnote 14
Is perpetual, i.e. there is no maturity date and there are no step-ups Footnote 15 or other incentives to redeem.
Footnote 16
May be callable at the initiative of the issuer only after a minimum of five years:

		To exercise a call option an institution must receive the prior approval of the Superintendent; and An institution's actions and the terms of the instrument must not create an expectation that the call will be exercised; Footnote 17 and An institution must not exercise the call unless:

			It replaces the called instrument with capital of the same or better quality, including through an increase in retained earnings, and the replacement of this capital is done at conditions which are sustainable for the income capacity of the institution; Footnote 18 or The institution demonstrates that its capital position is well above the minimum capital requirements after the call option is exercised. Footnote 19 Tax and regulatory event calls are permitted at any time subject to the prior approval of the Superintendent and provided the institution was not in a position to anticipate such an event at the time of issuance. Footnote 20 The investor must have no rights to accelerate the repayment of future scheduled principal or interest payments, except in bankruptcy, insolvency, wind-up, or liquidation. Any repayment of principal (e.g. through repurchase or redemption) must be subject to the prior approval of the Superintendent and institutions should not assume or create market expectations that such approval will be given. Dividend/coupon discretion:

		the institution must have full discretion at all times to cancel distributions/payments Footnote 21 cancellation of discretionary payments must not be an event of default or credit event institutions must have full access to cancelled payments to meet obligations as they fall due cancellation of distributions/payments must not impose restrictions on the institution except in relation to distributions to common shareholders.

	Dividends/coupons must be paid out of distributable items.  
	The instrument cannot have a credit sensitive dividend feature, that is a dividend/coupon that is reset periodically based in whole or in part on the institution or organization's credit standing.

Footnote 22
The instrument cannot contribute to liabilities exceeding assets if such a balance sheet test forms part of national insolvency law.
The instrument must be classified as equity for accounting purposes.
Footnote 23
Neither the institution nor a related party over which the institution exercises control or significant influence can have purchased the instrument, nor can the institution directly or indirectly have funded the purchase of the instrument.
Footnote 24
The instruments cannot have any features that hinder recapitalization, such as provisions that require the issuer to compensate investors if a new instrument is issued at a lower price during a specified time frame.
If the instrument is not issued out of an operating entity or the holding company in the consolidated group (i.e. it is issued out of a special purpose vehicle – "SPV"), proceeds must be immediately available without limitation to an operating entity Footnote 25 or the holding company in the consolidated group in a form which meets or exceeds all of the other criteria for inclusion in Additional Tier 1 capital. For greater certainty, the only assets the SPV may hold are intercompany instruments issued by the institution or a related entity with terms and conditions that meet or exceed the Additional Tier 1 criteria. Put differently, instruments issued to the SPV have to fully meet or exceed all of the eligibility criteria for Additional Tier 1 capital as if the SPV itself was an end investor – i.e. the institution cannot issue a lower quality capital or senior debt instrument to an SPV and have the SPV issue higher quality capital instruments to third-party investors so as to receive recognition as Additional Tier 1 capital. Footnote 26 The contractual terms and conditions of the instrument must include a clause requiring the full and permanent conversion of the instrument into common shares at the point of non-viability as described under OSFI's non-viability contingent capital (NVCC) requirements as specified under section 2.2. Footnote 27 Where an instrument is issued by an SPV according to criterion #14 above, the conversion of instruments issued by the SPV to end investors should mirror the conversion of the capital issued by the institution to the SPV.

[Basel Framework, CAP 10.11]

Purchase for cancellation of Additional Tier 1 capital instruments is permitted at any time with the prior approval of the Superintendent. For further clarity, a purchase for cancellation does not constitute a call option as described in the above Additional Tier 1 criteria.

Dividend stopper arrangements that stop payments on common shares or other Additional Tier 1 instruments are permissible provided the stopper does not impede the full discretion the institution must have at all times to cancel distributions or dividends on the Additional Tier 1 instrument, nor must it act in a way that could hinder the recapitalization of the institution pursuant to criterion # 13 above. For example, it would not be permitted for a stopper on an Additional Tier 1 instrument to:

	attempt to stop payment on another instrument where the payments on the other instrument were not also fully discretionary; prevent distributions to shareholders for a period that extends beyond the point in time that dividends or distributions on the Additional Tier 1 instrument are resumed; impede the normal operation of the institution or any restructuring activity, including acquisitions or disposals.

A dividend stopper may also act to prohibit actions that are equivalent to the payment of a dividend, such as the institution undertaking discretionary share buybacks.

Where an amendment or variance of an Additional Tier 1 instrument's terms and conditions affects its recognition as regulatory capital, such amendment or variance will only be permitted with the prior approval of the Superintendent.

Footnote 28
[Basel Framework, CAP 10.11 FAQ9]

Institutions are permitted to "re-open" offerings of Additional Tier 1 capital instruments to increase the principal amount of the original issuance subject to the following:

	institutions cannot re-open offerings where the initial issue date was on or before December 31, 2012; federal credit unions cannot re-open offerings of instruments issued prior to the institution's continuance as a federal credit union; and, in both cases, call options will only be exercised, with the prior approval of the Superintendent, on or after the fifth anniversary of the closing date of the latest re-opened tranche of securities.

Defeasance or other options that could result in a decrease of the institution's regulatory capital may only be exercised on or after the fifth anniversary of the closing date with the prior approval of the Superintendent.

2.1.2.2 Additional Tier 1 qualifying capital instruments issued by a subsidiary to third parties

Additional Tier 1 capital instruments issued by a fully consolidated subsidiary of the institution to third-party investors (including amounts under section 2.1.1.3) may receive recognition in the consolidated Tier 1 capital of the parent institution only if the instrument, if issued by the institution, would meet or exceed all of the criteria for classification as Tier 1 capital.

The amount of capital that will be recognized in Tier 1 is calculated as follows (Refer to Appendix 2-1 for an illustrative example):

	Total Tier 1 capital of the subsidiary issued to third parties that are attributable to third-party investors, gross of deductions, less the amount of surplus Tier 1 capital of the subsidiary that is attributable to the third-party investors.  
	The surplus Tier 1 capital of the subsidiary is calculated as the Tier 1 capital of the subsidiary, net of deductions, minus the lower of: (1) the minimum Tier 1 capital requirement of the subsidiary plus the capital conservation buffer (i.e. 8.5% of RWA Footnote 29 ) Footnote 30 ; and (2) the portion of the parent's consolidated minimum Tier 1 capital requirements Footnote 31 plus the capital conservation buffer (i.e. 8.5% of RWA Footnote 29 ) that relates to the subsidiary. The amount of surplus Tier 1 capital that is attributable to the third-party investors is calculated by multiplying the surplus Tier 1 capital of the subsidiary (calculated in (b) above) by the percentage of Tier 1 that is held by third party investors.

The amount of this Tier 1 capital that will be recognized in Additional Tier 1 will exclude amounts recognized in CET1 under section 2.1.1.3.

[Basel Framework, CAP 10.22 and 10.23]

2.1.2.3 Additional Tier 1 instruments issued to third parties out of SPVs

As stated under paragraph 10, where capital has been issued to third parties out of an SPV none of this capital can be included in CET1. However, such capital can be included in consolidated Additional Tier 1 or Tier 2 and treated as if the institution itself had issued the capital directly to the third parties only if:

	it meets all the relevant eligibility criteria; and the only asset of the SPV is its investment in the capital of the institution in a form that meets or exceeds all the relevant eligibility criteria Footnote 32 (as required by criterion 14 of the Additional Tier 1 criteria set out under section 2.1.2.1).

In cases where the capital has been issued to third parties through an SPV via a fully consolidated subsidiary of the institution, such capital may, subject to the requirements of this paragraph, be treated as if the subsidiary itself had issued it directly to the third parties and may be included in the institution's consolidated Additional Tier 1 or Tier 2 in accordance with the treatment outlined in sections 2.1.2.2 and 2.1.3.2.

2.1.2.4 Additional Tier 1 instruments issued to a parent

In addition to the qualifying criteria and minimum requirements specified in this guideline, Additional Tier 1 capital instruments issued by an institution to a parent, either directly or indirectly, can be included in regulatory capital subject to the institution providing notification of the intercompany issuance to OSFI's Capital Division together with the following:

	a copy of the instrument's terms and conditions; the intended classification of the instrument for regulatory capital purposes; the rationale provided by the parent for not providing common equity in lieu of the subject capital instrument; confirmation that the rate and terms of the instrument as at the date of the transaction are at least as favourable to the institution as market terms and conditions; and confirmation that the failure to make dividend or interest payments, as applicable, on the subject instrument would not result in the parent, now or in the future, being unable to meet its own debt servicing obligations nor would it trigger cross-default clauses or credit events under the terms of any agreements or contracts of either the institution or the parent.

2.1.2.5 Capital instruments issued out of branches and subsidiaries outside Canada

In addition to any other requirements prescribed in this guideline, where an institution wishes to consolidate a capital instrument issued out of a branch or subsidiary outside Canada, it must provide OSFI's Capital Division with the following documentation:

	a copy of the instrument's terms and conditions; certification from a senior executive of the institution, together with the institution's supporting analysis, that confirms that the instrument meets or exceeds the Basel III qualifying criteria for the tier of regulatory capital in which the institution intends to include the instrument on a consolidated basis; and an undertaking whereby both the institution and the subsidiary confirm that the instrument will not be redeemed, purchased for cancellation, or amended without the prior approval of the Superintendent. Such undertaking will not be required where the prior approval of the Superintendent is incorporated into the terms and conditions of the instrument.

2.1.3 Tier 2 Capital
Tier 2 capital (prior to regulatory adjustments) consists of the following elements:

	Instruments issued by the institution that meet the criteria for inclusion in Tier 2 capital (and are not included in Tier 1 capital); Stock surplus (i.e. share premium) resulting from the issue of instruments included in Tier 2 capital. Surplus that is not eligible for inclusion in Tier 1 will only be permitted to be included in Tier 2 capital if the shares giving rise to the surplus are permitted to be included in Tier 2 capital. [Basel Framework, CAP 10.17]; Instruments issued by consolidated subsidiaries of the institution and held by third parties that meet the criteria for inclusion in Tier 2 capital and are not included in Tier 1 capital (see sections 2.1.3.1 and 2.1.3.3); and Certain loan loss allowances as specified in section 2.1.3.7.

[Basel Framework, CAP 10.14]

2.1.3.1 Tier 2 instruments issued by the institution directly

The following is the minimum set of criteria for an instrument issued by the institution to meet or exceed in order for it to be included in Tier 2 capital:

	Issued and paid-in in cash, or with the prior approval of the Superintendent, in property.  
	Subordinated to depositors and general creditors of the institution.  
	Is neither secured nor covered by a guarantee of the issuer or related entity or other arrangement that legally or economically enhances the seniority of the claim vis-à-vis the institution's depositors and/or general creditors.  
	Maturity:

		Minimum original maturity of at least five years Recognition in regulatory capital in the remaining five years before maturity will be amortized on a straight-line basis There are no step-ups Footnote 33 or other incentives to redeem

	May be callable at the initiative of the issuer only after a minimum of five years:

		To exercise a call option an institution must receive the prior approval of the Superintendent; and An institution must not do anything which creates an expectation that the call be exercised; Footnote 34 and An institution must not exercise the call unless:

			It replaces the called instrument with capital of the same or better quality, including through an increase in retained earnings, and the replacement of this capital is done at conditions which are sustainable for the income capacity of the institution; Footnote 35 or The institution demonstrates that its capital position is well above the minimum capital requirements after the call option is exercised. Footnote 36 The use of tax and regulatory event calls are permitted during an instrument's life subject to the prior approval of the Superintendent and provided the institution was not in a position to anticipate such an event at the time of issuance. Footnote 37 The investor must have no rights to accelerate the repayment of future scheduled principal or interest payments, except in bankruptcy, insolvency, wind-up, or liquidation. The instrument cannot have a credit sensitive dividend feature; that is, a dividend or coupon that is reset periodically based in whole or in part on the institution or organizations' credit standing. Footnote 38 Neither the institution nor a related party over which the institution exercises control or significant influence can have purchased the instrument, nor can the institution directly or indirectly have funded the purchase of the instrument. If the instrument is not issued out of an operating entity Footnote 39 or the holding company in the consolidated group (i.e. it is issued out of a special purpose vehicle – "SPV"), proceeds must be immediately available without limitation to an operating entity or the holding company in the consolidated group in a form which meets or exceeds all of the other criteria for inclusion in Tier 2 capital. For greater certainty, the only assets the SPV may hold are intercompany instruments issued by the institution or a related entity with terms and conditions that meet or exceed the above Tier 2 criteria. Put differently, instruments issued to the SPV have to fully meet or exceed all of the eligibility criteria for Tier 2 capital as if the SPV itself was an end investor – i.e. the institution cannot issue a senior debt instrument to an SPV and have the SPV issue higher quality capital instruments to third party investors so as to receive recognition as Tier 2 capital. Footnote 40 The contractual terms and conditions of the instrument must include a clause requiring the full and permanent conversion of the instrument into common shares at the point of non-viability as described under OSFI's non-viability contingent capital (NVCC) requirements as specified under section 2.2. Footnote 41 Where an instrument is issued by an SPV according to criterion #9 above, the conversion of instruments issued by the SPV to end investors should mirror the conversion of the capital issued by the institution to the SPV.

[Basel Framework, CAP 10.14]

Tier 2 capital instruments must not contain restrictive covenants or default clauses that would allow the holder to trigger acceleration of repayment in circumstances other than the insolvency, bankruptcy or winding-up of the issuer.

Purchase for cancellation of Tier 2 instruments is permitted at any time with the prior approval of the Superintendent. For further clarity, a purchase for cancellation does not constitute a call option as described in the above Tier 2 criteria.

Where an amendment or variance of a Tier 2 instrument's terms and conditions affects its recognition as regulatory capital, such amendment or variance will only be permitted with the prior approval of the Superintendent.

Footnote 42
Defeasance or other options that could result in a decrease of the institution's regulatory capital may only be exercised on or after the fifth anniversary of the closing date with the prior approval of the Superintendent.

Institutions are permitted to "re-open" offerings of capital instruments to increase the principal amount of the original issuance subject to the following:

	institutions cannot re-open offerings where the initial issue date was on or before December 31, 2012; federal credit unions cannot re-open offerings of instruments issued prior to the institution's continuance as a federal credit union; and, in both cases, call options will only be exercised, with the prior approval of the Superintendent, on or after the fifth anniversary of the closing date of the latest re-opened tranche of securities.

2.1.3.2 Tier 2-qualifying capital instruments issued by a subsidiary to third parties

Total capital instruments (i.e. Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital instruments) issued by a fully consolidated subsidiary of the institution to third-party investors (including amounts under sections 2.1.1.3 and 2.1.2.2) may receive recognition in the consolidated Total capital of the parent institution only if the instruments would, if issued by the institution, meet all of the criteria for classification as Tier 1 or Tier 2 capital.

The amount of capital that will be recognized in consolidated Total Capital is calculated as follows (refer to Appendix 2-1 for an illustrative example):

	Total capital of the subsidiary issued to third parties that is attributable to third-party investors, gross of deductions, less the amount of surplus Total Capital of the subsidiary that is attributable to the third-party investors.  
	The surplus Total capital of the subsidiary is calculated as the Total Capital of the subsidiary, net of deductions, minus the lower of: (1) the minimum Total Capital requirement of the subsidiary plus the capital conservation buffer (i.e. 10.5% of RWA Footnote 43

Footnote 44
) and (2) the portion of the parent's consolidated minimum Total Capital requirements Footnote 45 plus the capital conservation buffer (i.e. 10.5% of RWA Footnote 43 ) that relates to the subsidiary.
The amount of surplus Total capital that is attributable to the third-party investors is calculated by multiplying the surplus Total capital of the subsidiary (calculated in (b)) by the percentage of Total Capital that is attributable to third-party investors.

The amount of this Total capital that will be recognized in Tier 2 will exclude amounts recognized in CET1 under section 2.1.1.3 and amounts recognized in Additional Tier 1 under section 2.1.2.2.

[Basel Framework, CAP 10.24 and 10.25]

2.1.3.3 Tier 2 instruments issued to third parties out of SPVs

As stated under paragraph 10, where capital has been issued to third parties out of an SPV none of this capital can be included in CET1. However, such capital can be included in consolidated Additional Tier 1 or Tier 2 and treated as if the institution itself had issued the capital directly to the third parties only if:

	it meets all the relevant eligibility criteria; and the only asset of the SPV is its investment in the capital of the institution in a form that meets or exceeds all the relevant eligibility criteria Footnote 46 (as required by criterion 9 of the Tier 2 criteria set out under section 2.1.3.1).

In cases where the capital has been issued to third parties through an SPV via a fully consolidated subsidiary of the institution, such capital may, subject to the requirements of this paragraph, be treated as if the subsidiary itself had issued it directly to the third parties and may be included in the institution's consolidated Additional Tier 1 or Tier 2 in accordance with the treatment outlined in sections 2.1.2.2 and 2.1.3.2. [Basel Framework, CAP 10.26]

2.1.3.4 Tier 2 instruments issued to a parent

In addition to the qualifying criteria and minimum requirements specified in this guideline, Tier 2 capital instruments issued by an institution to a parent, either directly or indirectly, can be included in regulatory capital subject to the institution providing notification of the intercompany issuance to OSFI's Capital Division together with the following:

	a copy of the instrument's term and conditions; the intended classification of the instrument for regulatory capital purposes; the rationale provided by the parent for not providing common equity in lieu of the subject capital instrument; confirmation that the rate and terms of the instrument as at the date of the transaction are at least as favourable to the institution as market terms and conditions; confirmation that the failure to make dividend or interest payments, as applicable, on the subject instrument would not result in the parent, now or in the future, being unable to meet its own debt servicing obligations nor would it trigger cross-default clauses or credit events under the terms of any agreements or contracts of either the institution or the parent.

2.1.3.5 Capital instruments issued out of branches and subsidiaries outside Canada

Debt instruments issued out of branches or subsidiaries outside Canada must normally be governed by Canadian law. The Superintendent may, however, waive this requirement where the institution can demonstrate that an equivalent degree of subordination can be achieved as under Canadian law. Instruments issued prior to year-end 1994 are not subject to this requirement.

In addition to any other requirements prescribed in this guideline, where an institution wishes to consolidate a capital instrument issued by a foreign subsidiary, it must provide OSFI's Capital Division with the following documentation:

	a copy of the instrument's term and conditions; certification from a senior executive of the institution, together with the institution's supporting analysis, that confirms that the instrument meets or exceeds the Basel III qualifying criteria for the tier of regulatory capital in which the institution intends to include the instrument on a consolidated basis; and an undertaking whereby both the institution and the subsidiary confirm that the instrument will not be redeemed, purchased for cancellation, or amended without the prior approval of the Superintendent. Such undertaking will not be required where the prior approval of the Superintendent is incorporated into the terms and conditions of the instrument.

2.1.3.6 Amortization

Tier 2 capital instruments are subject to straight-line amortization in the final five years prior to maturity. Hence, as these instruments approach maturity, redemption or retraction, such outstanding balances are to be amortized based on the following criteria:

	Amortization criteria for outstanding balances

			Years to Maturity  
			Included in Capital

			5 years or more  
			100%

			4 years and less than 5 years  
			80%

			3 years and less than 4 years  
			60%

			2 years and less than 3 years  
			40%

			1 year and less than 2 years  
			20%

			Less than 1 year  
			0%

For instruments issued prior to January 1, 2013, where the terms of the instrument include a redemption option that is not subject to prior approval of the Superintendent and/or holders' retraction rights, amortization should begin five years prior to the effective dates governing such options. For example, a 20-year debenture that can be redeemed at the institution's option at any time on or after the first 10 years would be subject to amortization commencing in year 5. Further, where a subordinated debt was redeemable at the institution's option at any time without the prior approval of the Superintendent, the instrument would be subject to amortization from the date of issuance. For greater certainty, this would not apply when redemption requires the Superintendent's approval as is required for all instruments issued after January 1, 2013 pursuant to the above criteria in section 2.1.3.1.

Amortization should be computed at the end of each fiscal quarter based on the "years to maturity" schedule in paragraph 38 above. Thus, amortization would begin during the first quarter that ends within five calendar years to maturity. For example, if an instrument matures on October 31, 2020, 20% amortization of the issue would occur November 1, 2015 and be reflected in the January 31, 2016 capital adequacy return. An additional 20% amortization would be reflected in each subsequent January 31 return.

2.1.3.7 General allowances
Footnote 47
Institutions using the standardized approach for credit risk

Allowances that are held against future, presently unidentified losses are freely available to meet losses which subsequently materialize and therefore qualify for inclusion within Tier 2. Such allowances are termed 'general allowances' in this guideline, and are defined as Stage 1 and Stage 2 allowances under IFRS 9. Allowances held against any identified losses, whether individual or grouped, should be excluded. These allowances are termed 'specific allowances' in this guideline, and are defined as Stage 3 allowances plus partial write-offs under IFRS 9. General allowances eligible for inclusion in Tier 2 capital will be limited to a maximum of 1.25% of credit RWA Footnote 48 calculated under the Standardized Approach, and should exclude allowances held against underlying assets treated as a securitization for capital purposes. Deposit-taking institutions in the business of lending must meet all of the principles and criteria in OSFI's IFRS 9 Guideline Footnote 49 in order for general allowances to be included in Tier 2 capital. Inclusion of general allowances in capital does not require prior approval from OSFI.

[Basel Framework, CAP 10.18]

Institutions using an IRB approach for credit risk

	calculate a provisioning excess or shortfall as follows: (1) general allowances, plus (2) all other allowances for credit loss excluding allowances against securitizaton exposures or underlying assets treated as a securitizaton for capital purposes, minus (3) the expected loss amount deduct provisioning shortfalls from CET1 capital include provisioning excess in Tier 2 capital up to a limit of the lower of 0.6% of IRB credit RWA or the amount of general allowances

[Basel Framework, CAP 10.19]

Institutions that have partially implemented an IRB approach Footnote 50 split general allowances between the Standardized Approach and the IRB Approach in a manner consistent with the institution's internal and external allowance reporting include general allowances allocated to the Standardized Approach in Tier 2 capital up to a limit of 1.25% of credit RWA calculated using the Standardized Approach calculate a provisioning excess or shortfall on the IRB portion of the institution as set out above deduct provisioning shortfalls on the IRB portion of the institution from CET1 capital include excess provisions calculated for the IRB portion of the institution in Tier 2 capital up to a limit of the lower of 0.6% of IRB credit RWA or the amount of general allowances allocated to the IRB portion of the institution

2.2 Non-Viability Contingent Capital Requirements (NVCC)
All regulatory capital must be able to absorb losses in a failed financial institution. The NVCC requirements aim to ensure that investors in non-common regulatory capital instruments bear losses before taxpayers where the government determines it is in the public interest to rescue a non-viable bank. Footnote 51

2.2.1 Principles Governing NVCC
Effective January 1, 2013, all non-common Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital instruments issued by institutions must comply with the following principles to satisfy the NVCC requirement:

Principle # 1: Non-common Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital instruments must have, in their contractual terms and conditions, a clause requiring a full and permanent conversion Footnote 52 into common shares of the institution upon a trigger event.

Footnote 53
As such, the terms of non-common capital instruments must not provide for any residual claims that are senior to common equity following a trigger event. OSFI will consider and permit the inclusion of NVCC instruments with alternative mechanisms, including conversions into shares of a parent firm or affiliate, on a case-by-case basis. Institutions that are federal credit unions will be permitted to structure NVCC instruments with contractual clauses that provide for either a full and permanent write-off of the instrument upon a trigger event or a full and permanent conversion into instruments that are eligible for recognition as CET1 capital under the criteria set out in section 2.1.1.1 of this guideline.

Principle # 2: All NVCC instruments must also meet all other criteria for inclusion under their respective tiers as specified in Basel III. For certainty, the classification of an instrument as either Additional Tier 1 capital or Tier 2 capital will depend on the terms and conditions of the NVCC instrument in the absence of a trigger event.

Principle # 3: The contractual terms of all Additional Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital instruments must, at a minimum, include the following trigger events:

	the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (the "Superintendent") publicly announces that the institution has been advised, in writing, that the Superintendent is of the opinion that the institution has ceased, or is about to cease, to be viable and that, after the conversion or write-off, as applicable, of all contingent instruments and taking into account any other factors or circumstances that are considered relevant or appropriate, it is reasonably likely that the viability of the institution will be restored or maintained; or a federal or provincial government in Canada publicly announces that the institution has accepted or agreed to accept a capital injection, or equivalent support, from the federal government or any provincial government or political subdivision or agent or agency thereof without which the institution would have been determined by the Superintendent to be non-viable. Footnote 54 The term "equivalent support" in the above second trigger constitutes support for a non-viable institution that enhances the institution's risk-based capital ratios or is funding that is provided on terms other than normal terms and conditions. For greater certainty, and without limitation, equivalent support does not include:

	Emergency Liquidity Assistance provided by the Bank of Canada at or above the Bank Rate; open bank liquidity assistance provided by CDIC at or above its cost of funds; and support, including conditional, limited guarantees, provided by CDIC to facilitate a transaction, including an acquisition or amalgamation.

In addition, shares of an acquiring institution paid as non-cash consideration to CDIC in connection with a purchase of a bridge institution would not constitute equivalent support triggering the NVCC instruments of the acquirer as the acquirer would be a viable financial institution.

Principle # 4: The conversion terms of new NVCC instruments must reference the market value of common equity on or before the date of the trigger event.

Footnote 55
The conversion method must also include a limit or cap on the number of shares issued upon a trigger event.

Principle # 5: The conversion method should take into account the hierarchy of claims in liquidation and result in the significant dilution of pre-existing common shareholders. More specifically, the conversion should demonstrate that former subordinated debt holders receive economic entitlements that are more favourable than those provided to former preferred shareholders, and that former preferred shareholders receive economic entitlements that are more favourable than those provided to pre-existing common shareholders.

Principle # 6: The issuing institution must ensure that, to the extent that it is within the institution's control, there are no impediments to the conversion or write-off so that conversion or write-off will be automatic and immediate. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, this includes the following:

	the institution's by-laws or other relevant constating documents must permit the issuance of common shares upon conversion without the prior approval of existing capital providers; the institution's by-laws or other relevant constating documents must permit the requisite number of shares to be issued upon conversion; the terms and conditions of any other agreement must not provide for the prior consent of the parties in respect of the conversion or write-off, as applicable; the terms and conditions of capital instruments must not impede conversion or write-off, as applicable; and if applicable, the institution has obtained all prior authorization, including regulatory approvals and listing requirements, to issue the common shares arising upon conversion.

Principle # 7: The terms and conditions of the non-common capital instruments must specify that conversion or write-off does not constitute an event of default under that instrument. Further, the issuing institution must take all commercially reasonable efforts to ensure that conversion or write-off is not an event of default or credit event under any other agreement entered into by the institution, directly or indirectly, on or after the date of this guideline, including senior debt agreements and derivative contracts.

Principle # 8: The terms of the NVCC instrument should include provisions to address NVCC investors that are prohibited, pursuant to the legislation governing the institution, from acquiring common shares in the institution upon a trigger event. Such mechanisms should allow such capital providers to comply with legal prohibitions while continuing to receive the economic results of common share ownership and should allow such persons to transfer their entitlements to a person that is permitted to own shares in the institution and allow such transferee to thereafter receive direct share ownership.

Principle # 9: For institutions, including Schedule II banks, that are subsidiaries of foreign financial institutions that are subject to Basel III capital adequacy requirements, any NVCC issued by the institution must be convertible into common shares of the institution or, subject to the prior consent of OSFI, convertible into common shares of the institution's parent. In addition, the trigger events in an institution's NVCC instruments must not include triggers that are at the discretion of a foreign regulator or are based upon events applicable to an affiliate (such as an event in the home jurisdiction of an institution's parent).

Principle # 10: For institutions that have subsidiaries in foreign jurisdictions that are subject to the Basel III capital adequacy requirements, the institution may, to the extent permitted by the Basel III rules, Footnote 56 include the NVCC issued by foreign subsidiaries in the institution's consolidated regulatory capital provided that such foreign subsidiary's NVCC complies with the NVCC requirements according to the rules of its host jurisdiction. NVCC instruments issued by foreign subsidiaries must, in their contractual terms, also include triggers that are equivalent to the triggers specified in Principle # 3 above. Footnote 57 OSFI will only activate such triggers in respect of a foreign subsidiary after consultation with the host authority where 1) the subsidiary is non-viable as determined by the host authority and 2) the parent institution is, or would be, non-viable, as determined by OSFI, as a result of providing, or committing to provide, a capital injection or similar support to the subsidiary. This treatment is required irrespective of whether the host jurisdiction has implemented the NVCC requirements on a contractual basis or on a statutory basis.

2.2.2 Criteria to be considered in triggering conversion or write-off of NVCC
The decision to maintain an institution as a going concern where it would otherwise become non-viable will be informed by OSFI's interaction with the Financial Institutions Supervisory Committee (FISC) Footnote 58 (and any other relevant agencies the Superintendent determines should be consulted in the circumstances). In particular, the Superintendent will consult with the FISC member agencies prior to making a non-viability determination. It is important to note the conversion or write-off of NVCC alone may not be sufficient to restore an institution to viability; that is, other public sector interventions, including liquidity assistance, would likely be used in tandem with NVCC to maintain an institution as a going concern. Consequently, while the Superintendent would have the authority to trigger conversion or write-off, in practice, the Superintendent's decision to activate the trigger would be conditioned by the legislative provisions and decision frameworks associated with accompanying interventions by other FISC agencies.

In assessing whether an institution has ceased, or is about to cease, to be viable and that, after the conversion or write-off of all contingent capital instruments, it is reasonably likely that the viability of the institution will be restored or maintained, the Superintendent would consider, in consultation with FISC, all relevant facts and circumstances, including the criteria outlined in relevant legislation and regulatory guidance. Footnote 59 Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, this could include a consideration of the following criteria, which may be mutually exclusive and should not be viewed as an exhaustive list:

Footnote 60
Whether the assets of the institution are, in the opinion of the Superintendent, sufficient to provide adequate protection to the institution's depositors and creditors.
Whether the institution has lost the confidence of depositors or other creditors and the public. This may be characterized by ongoing increased difficulty in obtaining or rolling over short-term funding.
Whether the institution's regulatory capital has, in the opinion of the Superintendent, reached a level, or is eroding in a manner, that may detrimentally affect its depositors and creditors.
Whether the institution failed to pay any liability that has become due and payable or, in the opinion of the Superintendent, the institution will not be able to pay its liabilities as they become due and payable.
Whether the institution failed to comply with an order of the Superintendent to increase its capital.
Whether, in the opinion of the Superintendent, any other state of affairs exists in respect of the institution that may be materially prejudicial to the interests of the institution's depositors or creditors or the owners of any assets under the institution's administration, including where proceedings under a law relating to bankruptcy or insolvency have been commenced in Canada or elsewhere in respect of the holding body corporate of the institution. Whether the institution is unable to recapitalize on its own through the issuance of common shares or other forms of regulatory capital. For example, no suitable investor or group of investors exists that is willing or capable of investing in sufficient quantity and on terms that will restore the institution's viability, nor is there any reasonable prospect of such an investor emerging in the near-term in the absence of conversion or write-off of NVCC instruments. Further, in the case of a privately-held institution, including a Schedule II bank, the parent firm or entity is unable or unwilling to provide further support to the subsidiary.

For greater certainty, Canadian authorities will retain full discretion to choose not to trigger NVCC notwithstanding a determination by the Superintendent that an institution has ceased, or is about to cease, to be viable. Under such circumstances, the institution's creditors and shareholders could be exposed to losses through the use of other resolution tools or in liquidation.

For information on the capital confirmation process, with specific reference to the NVCC documentation requirements see Appendix 2-2 to this chapter.

2.3 Required Regulatory Adjustments to Capital
This section sets out the regulatory adjustments to be applied to regulatory capital. In most cases these adjustments are applied in the calculation of CET1. All items that are deducted from capital are risk-weighted at 0% in the risk-based capital adequacy framework. Balance sheet assets that are deducted from Tier 1 capital are excluded from total exposures when calculating the leverage ratio.

Except in respect of the items referred to in paragraphs 63 and 68 below, institutions shall not make adjustments to remove from CET1 capital unrealized gains or losses on assets or liabilities that are measured at fair value for accounting purposes.

Global systemically important banks (G-SIBs) are required to meet a minimum Total Loss Absorbing Capacity (TLAC) requirement set in accordance with the Financial Stability Board's (FSB) TLAC principles and term sheet (the FSB TLAC Term Sheet). Similarly, Canadian D-SIBs are subject to minimum TLAC ratios as set out in OSFI's TLAC Guideline. Institutions that invest in TLAC or similar instruments issued by G-SIBs and/or Canadian D-SIBs may be required to deduct such holdings in calculating their own regulatory capital. Footnote 61 [Basel Framework, CAP 30.2]

For the purpose of section 2.3, holdings of TLAC include the following, hereafter collectively referred to as "Other TLAC Instruments":

	all direct, indirect, and synthetic investments in the instruments of a D-SIB that are eligible to be recognized as TLAC pursuant to OSFI's TLAC Guideline and that do not otherwise qualify as regulatory capital for the issuing D-SIB; Footnote 62 all direct, indirect, and synthetic investments in the instruments of a G-SIB resolution entity that are eligible to be recognized as external TLAC and that do not otherwise qualify as regulatory capital for the issuing G-SIB, with the exception of instruments excluded by paragraph 54; and all holdings of instruments issued by a G-SIB resolution entity that rank pari passu to any instruments included in (ii) with the exception of:

		instruments listed as liabilities excluded from TLAC in section 10 of the FSB TLAC Term Sheet (i.e. "Excluded Liabilities"); and instruments ranking pari passu with instruments eligible to be recognized as TLAC by virtue of the exemptions to the subordination requirements in section 11 of the FSB TLAC Term Sheet.

	[Basel Framework, CAP 30.3]

In certain jurisdictions (excluding Canada), G-SIBs may be able to recognize instruments ranking pari passu to Excluded Liabilities as external TLAC, up to a limit, in accordance with the exceptions to the subordination requirements set out in the penultimate paragraph of section 11 of the FSB TLAC Term Sheet. An institution's holdings of such instruments will be subject to a proportionate deduction approach. Under this approach, only a proportion of holdings of instruments that is eligible to be recognized as external TLAC by virtue of the subordination exemptions will be considered a holding of TLAC by the investing institution. The proportion is calculated as: (1) the funding issued by the G-SIB resolution entity that ranks pari passu with Excluded Liabilities and that is recognized as external TLAC by the G-SIB resolution entity; divided by (2) the funding issued by the G-SIB resolution entity that ranks pari passu with Excluded Liabilities and that would be recognized as external TLAC if the subordination requirement was not applied. Footnote 63 Institutions must calculate their holdings of Other TLAC Instruments of the respective issuing G-SIB resolution entities based on the latest available public information provided by the issuing G-SIBs on the proportion to be used. [Basel Framework, CAP 30.4 & 30.5]

The regulatory adjustments relating to TLAC holdings set out in section 2.3 apply from Q1 2019.

Footnote 64

2.3.1 Regulatory Adjustments to CET1 Capital
Prudential valuation adjustments

Valuation adjustments on less liquid positions as described in paragraphs 104 to 107 of Chapter 9 of this guideline should be made in the calculation of CET1. [Basel Framework, CAP 50.14]

Goodwill and other intangibles (except mortgage servicing rights)

Goodwill related to consolidated subsidiaries, subsidiaries deconsolidated for regulatory capital purposes, and the proportional share of goodwill in joint ventures subject to the equity method accounting should be deducted in the calculation of CET1. In addition, goodwill included in the valuation of significant investments Footnote 65 in the capital of banking, financial, and insurance entities that are outside the scope of regulatory consolidation should also be deducted from CET1. The full amount is to be deducted net of any associated deferred tax liability which would be extinguished if the goodwill becomes impaired or derecognized under relevant accounting standards. [Basel Framework, CAP 30.7]

All other intangible assets

Footnote 66 except mortgage servicing rights and right-of-use (ROU) assets where the underlying asset being leased is a tangible asset Footnote 67 should be deducted in the calculation of CET1. This includes intangible assets related to consolidated subsidiaries, subsidiaries deconsolidated for regulatory capital purposes, and the proportional share of intangible assets in joint ventures subject to the equity method accounting. The full amount is to be deducted net of any associated deferred tax liability which would be extinguished if the intangibles assets become impaired or derecognized under relevant accounting standards. Mortgage servicing rights are deducted through the "threshold deductions" set out in paragraphs 91 to 93. [Basel Framework, CAP 30.7]

Prepaid portfolio insurance assets

Premiums paid for mortgage portfolio insurance (bulk insurance) and capitalized on the balance sheet are to be deducted in the calculation of CET1 where the premiums are not amortized in accordance with the expectations set out in section 4.1.23 of Chapter 4 of this guideline. The amount deducted is net of any associated deferred tax liability that would be extinguished if the asset were to become impaired or derecognized under the relevant accounting standards.

Deferred tax assets

Deferred tax assets (DTAs), except for those referenced in paragraph 61 and DTAs associated with the de-recognition of the cash flow hedge reserve, are to be deducted in the calculation of CET1. Deferred tax assets may be netted with associated deferred tax liabilities (DTLs) only if the DTAs and DTLs relate to taxes levied by the same taxation authority and offsetting is permitted by the relevant taxation authority. Footnote 68 Where these DTAs relate to temporary differences (e.g. allowance for credit losses) the amount to be deducted is set out in the "threshold deductions" (paragraphs 91 to 93). All other DTAs relating to operating losses, such as the carry forward of unused tax losses or unused tax credits, are to be deducted in full net of deferred tax liabilities and net of valuation allowance as described above. The DTLs permitted to be netted against DTAs must exclude amounts that have been netted against the deduction of goodwill, intangibles, defined benefit pension assets, the de-recognition of the cash flow hedge reserve, and prepaid portfolio insurance assets and must be allocated on a pro rata basis between DTAs subject to the threshold deduction treatment, DTAs that are to be deducted in full and DTAs that are risk-weighted at 100% as per paragraph 61. [Basel Framework, CAP 30.9]

DTAs arising from temporary differences that the institution could realize through loss carrybacks, that is, they do not depend on the future profitability of the institution to be realized, are not subject to deduction, and instead receive a 100% risk weight.

Footnote 69
OSFI's Capital Division requires notification, through the institution's Lead Supervisor, of any DTAs which are assigned the applicable 100% risk weight and institutions may be subject to increased supervisory monitoring in this area.

Current tax assets

When an over installment of tax, or current year tax losses carried back to prior years result in the recognition for accounting purposes of a claim or receivable from the government or local tax authority, such a claim or receivable would be assigned the relevant sovereign risk weighting. Such amounts are classified as current tax assets for accounting purposes. Current tax assets are not required to be deducted in the calculation of CET1. [Basel Framework, CAP 30.10]

Cash flow hedge reserve

The amount of cash flow hedge reserve that relates to the hedging of items that are not fair valued on the balance sheet (including projected cash flows) should be derecognized in the calculation of CET1. This includes items that are not recognized on the balance sheet but excludes items that are fair valued on the balance sheet. Positive amounts should be deducted from CET1 and negative amounts should be added back. This treatment specifically identifies the element of the cash flow hedge reserve that is to be derecognized for prudential purposes. It removes the element that gives rise to artificial volatility in common equity, as in this case the reserve only reflects one half of the picture (the fair value of the derivative, but not the changes in fair value of the hedged future cash flow). [Basel Framework, CAP 30.11 & 30.12]

Shortfall in provisions to expected losses

Provisioning shortfalls calculated under IRB Approaches to credit risk should be deducted in the calculation of CET1. The full amount is to be deducted and should not be reduced by any tax effects that could be expected to occur if provisions were to rise to the level of expected losses. [Basel Framework, CAP 30.13]

Non-payment and non-delivery on non-Delivery versus Payment (DvP) transactions

For non-DvP (including non-PvP) transactions where five business days have elapsed since the second contractual payment/delivery date and where the second leg has not effectively taken place, institutions that have made the first payment leg should deduct from CET1 capital the full amount of the value transferred plus replacement cost, if any. Footnote 70 Materiality thresholds on credit protection

Materiality thresholds on payments below which the protection provider is exempt from payment in the event of loss are equivalent to retained first-loss positions. The portion of the exposure that is below a materiality threshold for credit protection must be deducted from CET1 by the institution purchasing the credit protection. Footnote 71 [Basel Framework, CRE 22.79]

Gain on sale related to securitization transactions

Increases in equity capital resulting from securitization transactions (e.g. capitalized future margin income, gains on sale) should be deducted in the calculation of CET1. [Basel Framework, CAP 30.14]

Cumulative gains and losses due to changes in own credit risk on fair valued financial liabilities

All after-tax unrealized gains and losses that have resulted from changes in the fair value of liabilities that are due to changes in the institution's own credit risk should be derecognized in the calculation of CET1. In addition, with regard to derivative liabilities, all accounting valuation adjustments arising from the institution's own credit risk should also be derecognized on an after-tax basis. The offsetting between valuation adjustments arising from the institution's own credit risk and those arising from its counterparties' credit risk is not allowed. Institutions that have adopted funding valuation adjustment (funding cost adjustment plus funding benefit adjustment) are expected to derecognize their funding benefit adjustment in full (i.e. gross of any funding cost adjustment). Footnote 72 [Basel Framework, CAP 30.15]

Defined benefit pension fund assets and liabilities

Defined benefit pension fund liabilities, as included on the balance sheet, must be fully recognized in the calculation of CET1 (i.e. CET1 cannot be increased through derecognizing these liabilities). For each defined benefit pension fund that is an asset on the institution's balance sheet, the amounts reported as an asset on the balance sheet Footnote 73 should be deducted in the calculation of CET1 net of any associated deferred tax liability that would be extinguished if the asset should become impaired or derecognized under the relevant accounting standards.

Assets in the fund to which the institution has unrestricted and unfettered access can, with prior OSFI approval, be used to offset the deduction. In addition, where a Canadian institution has a foreign subsidiary which is insured by a deposit insurance corporation and the regulatory authority in that jurisdiction permits the subsidiary to offset its deduction from CET1 related to defined benefit pension assets on the basis that the insurer has unrestricted and unfettered access to the excess assets of the subsidiary's pension plan in the event of receivership, OSFI will allow the offset to be reflected in the Canadian institution's consolidated regulatory capital, subject to prior OSFI approval. Such offsetting assets should be given the risk weight they would receive if they were owned directly by the institution. [Basel Framework, CAP 30.16]

Reverse mortgages

Where a reverse mortgage exposure has a current loan-to-value (LTV) greater than 80%, the exposure amount that exceeds 80% LTV is deducted from CET1 capital. The remaining amount is risk weighted at 100%.

Exposures to non-qualifying central counterparties (CCP)

Institutions must fully deduct their default fund contributions (including default fund exposures to QCCP subject to the cap in paragraph 207 of Chapter 7) to a non-qualifying CCP from CET1 capital. For the purposes of this paragraph, the default fund contributions of such institutions will include both the funded and the unfunded contributions which are liable to be paid should the CCP so require. Where there is a liability for unfunded contributions (i.e. unlimited binding commitments), OSFI will determine in its Pillar 2 assessments the amount of unfunded commitments to which a CET1 deduction should apply.

Investments in own common shares - treasury stock Footnote 74 All of an institution's investments in its own common shares Footnote 75

Footnote 76 and/or other CET1 capital instruments, whether held directly or indirectly, will be deducted in the calculation of CET1 (unless already derecognized under IFRS). In addition, any own stock which the institution could be contractually obliged to purchase should be deducted in the calculation of CET1. The treatment described will apply irrespective of the location of the exposure i.e. if the exposure is in the banking book or the trading book. In addition:

	Gross long positions may be deducted net of short positions in the same underlying exposure only if the short positions involve no counterparty risk.  
	Institutions should look though holdings of index securities to deduct exposures to own shares. However, gross long positions in own shares resulting from holdings of index securities may be netted against short positions in own shares resulting from short positions in the same underlying index provided the maturity of the short position matches the maturity of the long position or has a residual maturity of at least one year. In such cases, the short positions may involve counterparty credit risk (which will be subject to the relevant counterparty credit risk charge). Subject to supervisory approval, a bank may use a conservative estimate of investments in its own shares where the exposure results from holdings of index securities and the banks finds it operationally burdensome to look through and monitor its exact exposure.

[Basel Framework, CAP 30.18]

Reciprocal cross holdings in the common shares of banking, financial and insurance entities

Reciprocal cross holdings in common shares (e.g. Bank A holds shares of Bank B and Bank B in return holds shares of Bank A) that are designed to artificially inflate the capital position of institutions will be fully deducted in the calculation of CET1.

[Basel Framework, CAP 30.21]

Decision tree to determine the capital treatment of equity investments in funds

When an equity investment (including an equity investment in a fund) is made, the following decision tree should be used to determine how the capital requirements for that equity investment should be calculated:

	The first decision point is to consider whether the entity in which the equity investment is made is a banking, financial or insurance entity. If it is, then either paragraphs 84 to 93 below (significant investments) or paragraphs 77 to 83 (non-significant investments) should be used to calculate capital requirements for the equity investment. If the entity is not a financial entity, then the next question to ask is whether the entity is a fund. If it is, then either section 4.1.22 of Chapter 4 or section 5.2.2 of Chapter 5 of the CAR Guideline should be used to calculate capital requirements for the equity investment. As noted in section 4.1.22 of Chapter 4, if an equity investment is subject to the fall-back approach, the insitution's equity investment in the fund is to be deducted from CET1 capital. [Basel Framework, CRE 60.8] Finally, if the equity investment is made in an entity that is not captured in (a) or (b) above, then either paragraph 76 of this chapter (significant investment in a commercial entity) or the de-facto treatment for equity investments (non-significant investments) of either Chapter 4 or Chapter 5 should be used to calculate capital requirements for the equity investment.

Significant investments in commercial entities

Significant investments

Footnote 77 in commercial entities that, in aggregate, exceed 10% of CET1 capital should be fully deducted in the calculation of CET1 capital. Amounts less than this threshold are subject to a 250% risk-weight Footnote 78 as set out in Chapter 4.

Non-significant investments in the capital and/or Other TLAC Instruments of banking, financial Footnote 79 and insurance entities Footnote 80

Footnote 81
The regulatory adjustment described in this section applies to investments in the capital and/or Other TLAC Instruments of banking, financial and insurance entities where the investment is not considered a significant investment.
Footnote 82
These investments are deducted from regulatory capital, subject to a threshold. For the purpose of this regulatory adjustment:

	Investments include direct, indirect, and synthetic holdings of capital instruments and/or Other TLAC Instruments. Institutions should look through holdings of index securities to determine their underlying holdings of capital or Other TLAC Instruments. If institutions find it operationally burdensome to look through and monitor their exact exposures to other financial institutions as a result of their holdings of index securities, OSFI will permit institutions, subject to prior supervisory approval, to use a conservative estimate. An indirect holding arises when an institution invests in an unconsolidated intermediate entity that has an exposure to the capital of an unconsolidated bank, financial or insurance entity and thus gains an exposure to the capital of that entity. Footnote 83

Footnote 84
[Basel Framework, CAP 99.9]
A synthetic holding arises when an institution invests in an instrument where the value of the instrument is directly linked to the value of the capital of an unconsolidated bank, financial or insurance entity. [Basel Framework, CAP 99.10] A written put option will not be considered a synthetic holding for purposes of this paragraph where all of the following conditions have been met:

		The purchase price for the subject capital or Other TLAC instrument will be based on the future market value, or fair value to be determined in the future via a third party or through an arms-length negotiation between institutions.  
		The contractual terms of the option/agreement provide that the institution has the legal right, without consent from the counterparty/counterparties, to issue an equivalent notional amount of its own capital or, for G-SIBs and D-SIBs, its own TLAC in an equivalent (or higher quality) tier as consideration for the subject capital or TLAC. The institution publicly discloses the material terms of the put option that permit the bank to settle the option through the issuance of an equivalent notional amount of its own capital or, for G-SIBs and D-SIBs, its own TLAC in an equivalent (or higher quality) tier. The institution has obtained the prior approval of the Superintendent to exclude the written put option from its investment in financials.

	Holdings in both the banking book and trading book are to be included. Capital includes common stock and all other types of cash and synthetic capital instruments (e.g. subordinated debt). Other TLAC Instruments are defined in paragraphs 53 and 54.  
	For capital instruments, it is the net long position that is to be included (i.e. the gross long position net of short positions in the same underlying exposure where the maturity of the short position either matches the maturity of the long position or has a residual maturity of at least one year). Footnote 85 For Other TLAC Instruments, it is the gross long position that is to be included in paragraphs 102 to 104 and the net long position that is to be included in paragraph 81. Underwriting positions in capital instruments and/or Other TLAC Instruments held for five working days or less can be excluded. Underwriting positions held for more than five working days must be included.

If the capital instrument of the entity in which the institution has invested does not meet the criteria for CET1, Additional Tier 1 or Tier 2 capital of the institution, the capital is to be considered common shares for the purposes of this capital deduction.

Footnote 86
Footnote 87
[Basel Framework, CAP 30.22]

Guarantees or other capital enhancements provided by an institution to such entities will be treated as capital invested in other financial institutions based on the maximum amount that the institution could be required to pay out under such arrangements.

Footnote 88
[Basel Framework, CAP 30.22 FAQ1]

Exposures should be valued according to their valuation on the institution's balance sheet. Subject to prior supervisory approval, institutions may temporarily exclude certain investments where these have been made in the context of resolving or providing financial assistance to reorganize a distressed institution. [Basel Framework, CAP 30.22 FAQ4]

Synthetic exposures should be valued as follows:

	for call options, the current carrying value; for put options, the number of shares times the strike price; for any other synthetic holdings, the nominal or notional amount.

For options or forward purchase agreements with a variable price, institutions are required to estimate, on a periodic basis, the market value, strike price or nominal amount of the underlying holding (as the case may be). This estimation may be subject to periodic review by OSFI and may be required to be substantiated through an external third party valuation in the case of material uncertainty.

To determine the amount to be deducted from capital:

	Institutions should compare the total of all holdings of capital instruments (after applicable netting) and Other TLAC Instruments to 10% of the institution's CET1 after all regulatory adjustments listed in paragraphs 56 to 74. The Other TLAC Instruments included herein should not reflect those items covered by the 5% threshold described in paragraphs 103 and 104 (for D-SIBs and G-SIBs) or paragraph 102 (for all other institutions). The amount by which the total of all holdings of capital instruments and Other TLAC Instruments listed above exceeds the 10% threshold described in (a) should be deducted from capital in aggregate and on a net long basis in the manner set out below. In the case of capital instruments, deduction should be made applying a corresponding deduction approach. This means the deduction should be applied to the same component of capital for which the capital would qualify if it was issued by the institution itself. In the case of holdings of Other TLAC Instruments, the deduction should be applied to Tier 2 capital. Deductions should be applied in the following manner:

		The amount to be deducted from CET1 capital is equal to the deduction amount multiplied by the total holdings in CET1 of other institutions divided by the total holdings of capital instruments and Other TLAC Instruments determined in (a).  
		The amount to be deducted from Additional Tier 1 capital is equal to the deduction amount multiplied by the total holdings in Additional Tier 1 capital of other institutions divided by the total holdings of capital instruments and Other TLAC Instruments determined in (a). The amount to be deducted from Tier 2 capital is equal to the deduction amount multiplied by the total holdings in Tier 2 capital and Other TLAC Instruments of other institutions that are not covered by paragraphs 102 to 104 divided by the institution's total holdings of capital instruments and holdings of Other TLAC Instruments determined in (a).

[Basel Framework, CAP 30.26]

The amount of all holdings which falls below the 10% threshold described in paragraph 81(a) will not be deducted from capital. Instead, these investments will be subject to the applicable risk weighting Footnote 89 as specified in the approach to credit risk (banking book exposures) or market risk (trading book exposures) used by the institution. For the application of risk weighting, the amount of holdings must be allocated on a pro rata basis between those below and those above the threshold. [Basel Framework, CAP 30.28]

If an institution is required to make a deduction from a particular tier of capital and it does not have sufficient capital to make that deduction, the shortfall will be deducted from the next highest tier of capital (e.g. if an institution does not have sufficient Additional Tier 1 capital to satisfy the deduction, the shortfall will be deducted from CET1). [Basel Framework, CAP 30.27]

Significant investments
Footnote 90 in the capital and/or Other TLAC Instruments of banking, financial and insurance entities Footnote 91 that are outside the scope Footnote 92 of regulatory consolidation Footnote 93

Footnote 94
The regulatory adjustments described in this section apply to investments in the capital and/or Other TLAC Instruments of banking, financial, and insurance entities that are outside the scope of regulatory consolidation where the institution has a significant investment or where the entity is an affiliate of the bank.

	Investments include direct, indirect, and synthetic holdings of capital instruments or Other TLAC Instruments. Institutions should look through holdings of index securities to determine their underlying holdings in capital Footnote 95 and/or Other TLAC Instruments. If institutions find it operationally burdensome to look through and monitor their exact exposures to other financial institutions as a result of their holdings of index securities, OSFI will permit institutions, subject to prior supervisory approval, to use a conservative estimate. An indirect holding arises when an institution invests in an unconsolidated intermediate entity that has an exposure to the capital of an unconsolidated bank, financial or insurance entity and thus gains an exposure to the capital of that entity. [Basel Framework, CAP 99.9] A synthetic holding arises when an institution invests in an instrument where the value of the instrument is directly linked to the value of the capital of an unconsolidated bank, financial or insurance entity. Footnote 79 [Basel Framework, CAP 99.10] A written put option will not be considered a synthetic holding for purposes of this paragraph where all of the following conditions have been met:

		The purchase price for the subject capital or Other TLAC instrument will be based on the future market value, or fair value to be determined in the future via a third party or through an arm's-length negotiation between institutions.  
		The contractual terms of the option/agreement provide that the institution has the legal right, without consent from the counterparty/counterparties, to issue an equivalent notional amount of its own capital, or in the case of G-SIBs and D-SIBs, its own TLAC in an equivalent (or higher quality) tier as consideration for the subject capital. The institution publicly discloses the material terms of the put option that permit the bank to settle the option through the issuance of an equivalent notional amount of its own capital, or in the case of a G-SIB or D-SIB, its own TLAC in an equivalent (or higher quality) tier. The institution has obtained the prior approval of the Superintendent to exclude the written put option from its investment in financials.

	Holdings in both the banking book and trading book are to be included. Capital includes common stock and all other types of cash and synthetic capital instruments (e.g. subordinated debt). Other TLAC Instruments are defined in paragraphs 53 and 54. The net long position is to be included (i.e. the gross long position net of short positions in the same underlying exposure where the maturity of the short position either matches the maturity of the long position or has a residual maturity of at least one year). Footnote 96 Underwriting positions in capital instruments or Other TLAC Instruments held for five working days or less can be excluded. Underwriting positions held for more than five working days must be included. If the capital instrument of the entity in which the institution has invested does not meet the criteria for CET1, Additional Tier 1 or Tier 2 capital of the institution, the capital is to be considered common shares for the purposes of this capital deduction. Footnote 97

Footnote 98
[Basel Framework, CAP 30.29]
Institutions are required to notify OSFI's Capital Division, through their Lead Supervisor, if the required deduction is made at the insurance operating company level, rather than the insurance holding company level, where a holding company exists directly above the insurance entity and greater than 50% of the holding company's holdings are invested in insurance subsidiaries. Initial notifications should be made beginning January 2013 and subsequent updates should be provided to OSFI upon material changes. Further, institutions may be subject to increased supervisory overview in this area.

Guarantees or other capital enhancements provided by an institution to such entities will be treated as capital invested in other financial institutions based on the maximum amount that the institution could be required to pay out under such arrangements.

Footnote 99
[Basel Framework, CAP 30.29 FAQ1]

Exposures should be valued using the equity method of accounting as defined under IFRS (i.e. initial cost of the subsidiary + retained earnings net of dividends + AOCI Footnote 100 ). Subject to prior supervisory approval, institutions may temporarily exclude certain investments where these have been made in the context of resolving or providing financial assistance to reorganize a distressed institution. [Basel Framework, CAP 30.22 FAQ4]

Synthetic exposures should be valued as follows:

	for call options, the current carrying value; for put options, the number of shares times the strike price; for any other synthetic holdings, the nominal or notional amount.

For options or forward purchase agreements with a variable price, institutions are required to estimate, on a periodic basis, the market value, strike price or nominal amount of the underlying holding (as the case may be). This estimation may be subject to periodic review by OSFI and may be required to be substantiated through an external third party valuation in the case of material uncertainty.

All investments in capital instruments included above that are not common shares must be fully deducted from the corresponding tier of capital. This means the deduction should be applied to the same tier of capital for which the capital would qualify if it were issued by the institution itself (i.e. investments in the Additional Tier 1 capital of other entities must be deducted from the institution's Additional Tier 1 capital). Footnote 101 All holdings of Other TLAC Instruments included above (and as defined in paragraphs 53 and 54, i.e. applying the proportionate deduction approach for holdings of instruments eligible for TLAC by virtue of the penultimate paragraph of section 11 of the FSB Term Sheet) must be fully deducted from Tier 2 capital. [Basel Framework, CAP 30.30]

Investments included above that are common shares will be subject to the threshold deductions as described in paragraphs 91 to 93. [Basel Framework, CAP 30.31]

If an institution is required to make a deduction from a particular tier of capital and it does not have sufficient capital to make that deduction, the shortfall will be deducted from the next highest tier of capital (e.g. if an institution does not have sufficient Additional Tier 1 capital to satisfy the deduction, the shortfall will be deducted from CET1). [Basel Framework, CAP 30.30]

Threshold deductions (basket)

The following items will be subject to the capital deductions described in this section:

	Significant investments in the common shares of banking, financial and insurance entities that are outside the scope of regulatory consolidation (as defined in paragraphs 84 to 89); Mortgage servicing rights (MSRs), including those related to consolidated subsidiaries, subsidiaries deconsolidated for regulatory capital purposes, and the proportional share of MSRs in joint ventures subject to proportional consolidation or equity method accounting.; and Deferred tax assets arising from temporary differences (see paragraph 60).

[Basel Framework, CAP 30.32]

To determine the amount to be deducted from capital,

	Institutions should compare each of the above items to 10% of the institution's CET1 after all deductions listed in paragraphs 56 to 90 but before the threshold deductions listed in this section.  
	The amount by which each of the above items exceeds the 10% threshold described in (a) should be deducted from CET1 capital.  
	If the amount of the aggregate of the above items not deducted from CET1 capital after the application of all regulatory adjustments exceeds 15% of the institution's CET1 after all regulatory adjustments, then a deduction of such excess from CET1 is required, subject to (d) below. To determine the amount of the aggregate of the above items that is not required to be deducted from CET1, institutions should multiply the amount of CET1 (after all deductions including the deduction of the three items in full) by 17.65% (this number is derived from the proportion of 15% to 85%). Only the excess above this amount must be deducted from CET1. See Appendix 2-3 for an example of the final calculation.

[Basel Framework CAP, 30.33 FAQ1]

The amount of the above three items not deducted from CET1 capital will be risk-weighted at 250%.

Footnote 102
[Basel Framework, CAP 30.34]
2.3.2 Regulatory Adjustments to Additional Tier 1 capital
Net Tier 1 capital is defined as gross Tier 1 capital adjusted to include all Tier 1 regulatory adjustments.

Investments in own Additional Tier 1 capital instruments

Institutions are required to make deductions from Additional Tier 1 capital for investments in their own Additional Tier 1 capital instruments (unless already derecognized under IFRS). In addition, any Additional Tier 1 capital instrument in which the institution could be contractually obliged to purchase should be deducted in the calculation of Tier 1 capital. [Basel Framework, CAP 30.20]

Reciprocal cross holdings in Additional Tier 1 capital of banking, financial and insurance entities

Reciprocal cross holdings (e.g. Bank A holds investments in Additional Tier 1 capital instruments of Bank B and Bank B in return holds investments in Additional Tier 1 capital instruments of Bank A) that are designed to artificially inflate the capital position of institutions will be fully deducted from Additional Tier 1 capital. [Basel Framework, CAP 30.21]

Non-significant investments in the capital of banking, financial and insurance entities

Institutions are required to make deductions from Additional Tier 1 capital for investments in the capital of banking, financial, and insurance entities which are not considered to be significant investments as described in paragraphs 77 to 83 above.

Footnote 103
[Basel Framework, CAP 30.26]

Significant investments in the capital of banking, financial and insurance entities that are outside the scope of regulatory consolidation Footnote 104

Footnote 105
Institutions are required to make deductions from Additional Tier 1 capital for significant investments in the capital of banking, financial, and insurance entities that are outside the scope of regulatory consolidation as described in paragraphs 84 to 90 above. [Basel Framework 30.29]

Deductions related to insufficient Tier 2 capital

If an institution does not have sufficient Tier 2 capital needed to make required deductions from Tier 2 capital, the shortfall must be deducted from Additional Tier 1 capital.

2.3.3 Regulatory Adjustments to Tier 2 capital
Net Tier 2 capital is defined to be Tier 2 capital including all Tier 2 regulatory adjustments, but may not be lower than zero. If the total of all Tier 2 deductions exceeds Tier 2 capital available, the excess must be deducted from Tier 1.

Investments in own Tier 2 capital instruments and/or own Other TLAC Instruments

Institutions are required to make deductions from Tier 2 capital for investments in their own Tier 2 capital instruments (unless already derecognized under IFRS). In addition, any Tier 2 capital instrument in which the institution could be contractually obliged to purchase should be deducted in the calculation of Total capital. G-SIBs and D-SIBs must also deduct holdings of their own Other TLAC Instruments in the calculation of their TLAC ratios. Footnote 106 [Basel Framework, CAP 30.20)]

Reciprocal cross holdings in Tier 2 capital and/or Other TLAC Instruments of banking, financial and insurance entities

Reciprocal cross holdings (e.g. Bank A holds investments in Tier 2 capital instruments of Bank B and Bank B in return holds investments in Tier 2 capital instruments of Bank A) that are designed to artificially inflate the capital position of institutions will be fully deducted from Tier 2 capital. Reciprocal cross holdings of Other TLAC Instruments that are designed to artificially inflate the TLAC position of G-SIBs and/or D-SIBs must also be deducted in full from Tier 2 capital. [Basel Framework, CAP 30.21]

Non-significant investments in the capital of banking, financial and insurance entities and/or Other TLAC Instruments issued by G-SIBs and D-SIBs (which are not considered significant investments) Footnote 107 Institutions are required to make deductions from Tier 2 capital for investments in the capital of banking, financial, and insurance entities and/or investments in Other TLAC Instruments issued by D-SIBs and/or G-SIBs which are not considered significant investments as described in paragraphs 77 to 83 above. [Basel Framework, CAP 30.26]

If an institution is not a D-SIB or a G-SIB, its holdings of Other TLAC Instruments must be deducted from Tier 2 capital per subparagraph 81(b)(iii) unless: (1) such holdings are, in aggregate and on a gross long basis, less than 5% of the institution's CET1 (after applying the regulatory adjustments listed in paragraphs 56 to 74); or (2) the holding falls within the 10% threshold provided for in paragraph 81. [Basel Framework, CAP 30.25]

A D-SIB or G-SIB's holdings of Other TLAC Instruments must be deducted from Tier 2 capital per subparagraph 81(b)(iii) unless (1) the following market-making exemption conditions are met; or (2) the holding falls within the 10% threshold provided for in paragraph 81:

	the holding has been designated by the D-SIB or G-SIB to be treated as market-making activities in accordance with this paragraph; the holding is in the bank's trading book; and the holding has not been held for more than 30 business days from the date of its acquisition.

This market-making exemption is available for holdings that are, in aggregate and on a gross long basis, up to 5% of the D-SIB or G-SIB's CET1 (after applying the regulatory adjustments listed in paragraphs 56 to 74). Holdings in excess of 5% of the D-SIB or G-SIB's CET1 must be deducted from Tier 2 capital. [Basel Framework, CAP 30.23]

If a holding designated under paragraph 103 no longer meets any of the market-making exemption conditions set out in that paragraph, it must be deducted in full from Tier 2 capital. Once a holding has been designated under paragraph 103, it may not subsequently be included within the 10% threshold referred to in paragraph 81. This approach is designed to limit the use of the 5% allowance in paragraph 103 to holdings of Other TLAC Instruments needed to be held within the banking system to ensure deep and liquid markets. [Basel Framework, CAP 30.24]

The amount of all holdings which falls below the 5% thresholds described in paragraphs 102 and 103 will not be deducted from capital. Instead, these investments will be subject to the applicable risk weighting as specified in the approach to credit risk (banking book exposures) or market risk (trading book exposures) used by the institution. For the application of risk weighting, the amount of holdings must be allocated on a pro rata basis between those below and those above the threshold. [Basel Framework, CAP 30.28]

Significant investments in the capital of banking, financial and insurance entities and/or Other TLAC Instruments issued by G-SIBs and D-SIBs that are outside the scope of regulatory consolidation Footnote 108

Footnote 109
Institutions are required to make deductions from Tier 2 capital for significant investments in the capital of banking, financial, and insurance entities and/or investments in Other TLAC Instruments issued by D-SIBs and/or G-SIBs that are outside the scope of regulatory consolidation as described in paragraphs 84 to 90 above. [Basel Framework, CAP 30.29]
2.4 Transitional arrangements for Federal Credit Unions
The following transition will apply to non-qualifying capital instruments issued by a federal credit union or a subsidiary of a federal credit union.

Beginning in the year that an institution continues as a federal credit union, outstanding capital instruments that do not qualify as CET1, Additional Tier 1 or Tier 2 capital according to the criteria for inclusion outlined in section 2.1 will be subject to a phase-out. To be eligible for a phase-out, the instrument must have been recognized under provincial capital requirements as regulatory capital prior to the institution's continuance as a federal credit union. Non-qualifying instruments that were not recognized as regulatory capital under provincial capital requirements prior to continuance will not be eligible for transitioning.

The phase-out period will begin upon the institution's continuance as a federal credit union.

Footnote 110
Fixing the base at the nominal amount of the capital instruments outstanding on the continuance date, recognition of non-qualifying instruments will be capped at 90% in Year 1, with the cap reducing by 10 percentage points in each subsequent year.
Footnote 111
Transitional phase-out of outstanding non-qualifying federal credit union instruments

			Reporting period  
			Applicable cap

			Year 1  
			90%

			Year 2  
			80%

			Year 3  
			70%

			Year 4  
			60%

			Year 5  
			50%

			Year 6  
			40%

			Year 7  
			30%

			Year 8  
			20%

			Year 9  
			10%

			Year 10  
			0%

This cap will be applied to non-qualifying CET1, Additional Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital separately.

Footnote 112
As the cap refers to the total amount of instruments outstanding within each tier of capital, some instruments in a tier may continue to fully qualify as capital while others may need to be excluded to comply with the cap. To the extent an instrument is redeemed, or its recognition in capital is amortized during the transitioning period, the nominal amount serving as the base is not reduced.

Where an instrument is fully derecognized upon the institution's continuance as a federal credit union or otherwise ineligible for these transitioning arrangements, the instrument must not be included in the fixed base.

Where an instrument's recognition in capital is subject to amortization on or before the institution's continuance, only the amortized amount recognized in capital as at that date should be taken into account in the amount fixed for transitioning rather than the full nominal amount. In addition, limited life instruments subject to transition will be subject to amortization on a straight-line basis at a rate of 20% per annum in their final five years to maturity, while the aggregate cap will be reduced at a rate of 10% per year.

Where a non-qualifying instrument includes a step-up or other incentive to redeem, it must be fully excluded from regulatory capital on the effective date of that incentive to redeem.

Surplus (i.e. share premium) may be included in the base provided that it relates to an instrument that is eligible to be included in the base for the transitional arrangements.

Non-qualifying instruments that are denominated in a foreign currency should be included in the base using their value in the reporting currency of the institution as at the date of continuance. The base will therefore be fixed in the reporting currency of the institution throughout the transition period. During the transition period, instruments denominated in a foreign currency should be valued as they are reported on the balance sheet of the institution at the relevant reporting date (adjusting for any amortization in the case of Tier 2 instruments).

Appendix 2-1 – Illustrative example of the inclusion of capital issued by a subsidiary to third parties in consolidated regulatory capital
The following is an illustrative example of the calculation for determining the amount of capital issued out of subsidiaries to third parties that can be included in the parent's consolidated capital, as described in sections 2.1.1.3, 2.1.2.2, and 2.1.3.2.

Assume the subsidiary has issued qualifying common shares to third parties which, together with retained earnings attributable to third parties, equal $400. The amount of common shares issued to and retained earnings attributable to the parent equal $1600. The required regulatory adjustments to CET1 are $500. There are no regulatory adjustments to Additional Tier 1 or Tier 2 capital.

The subsidiary has also issued $200 in qualifying Additional Tier 1 instruments and $300 in qualifying Tier 2 instruments to third parties. (No Additional Tier 1 or Tier 2 instruments have been issued by the subsidiary to the parent).

Paid in capital of the subsidiary


		Value

		Paid in common shares plus retained earnings owned by third parties, gross of all deductions

		Paid in common shares plus retained earnings owned by the group, gross of all deductions 1,600

		Total CET1 of the subsidiary, net of deductions 1,500

		Paid in Tier 1 capital plus retained earnings owned by third parties, gross of all deductions

		Paid in Tier 1 capital plus retained earnings owned by the group, gross of all deductions 1,600

		Total Tier 1 capital (CET1 + Additional Tier 1) of the subsidiary, net of deductions 1,700

		Paid in Total capital plus retained earnings owned by third parties, gross of all deductions

		Paid in Total capital plus retained earnings owned by the group, gross of all deductions 1,600

		Total capital (CET1 + Additional Tier 1 + Tier 2) of the subsidiary, net of deductions 2,000

To determine how much of the above capital issued to third parties can be included in the consolidated capital of the parent, the surplus capital of the subsidiary needs to be calculated using the minimum capital requirements plus capital conservation buffer are 7% CET1, 8.5% Tier 1 and 10.5% Total capital.

Step 1: Calculate the minimum capital requirements (plus capital conservation buffer) of the subsidiary. This is based on the lower of (i) the RWA of the subsidiary and (ii) the portion of the consolidated RWA that relates to the subsidiary multiplied by 7%, 8.5%, and 10.5% for CET1, Tier 1 and Total capital, respectively.

Minimum plus capital conservation buffer (CCB) requirements of the subsidiary


		Value  
		Calculation

		Total RWA of the subsidiary  
		10,000 no data

		RWA of the consolidated group that relate to the subsidiary 11,000 no data

		Minimum CET1 requirement of the subsidiary plus CCB = 10,000 × 7%

		Portion of the consolidated minimum CET1 requirement plus CCB that relates to the subsidiary = 11,000 × 7%

		Minimum Tier 1 requirement of the subsidiary plus the CCB = 10,000 × 8.5%

		Portion of the consolidated minimum Tier 1 requirement plus CCB that relates to the subsidiary = 11,000 × 8.5%

		Minimum Total capital requirements of the subsidiary plus CCB 1,050 = 10,000 × 10.5%

		Portion of the consolidated minimum Total capital requirement plus CCB that relates to the subsidiary 1,155 = 11,000 × 10.5%

Step 2: Calculate the surplus capital of the subsidiary. This is the difference between the eligible capital of the subsidiary held (net of deductions) less the minimum capital (plus capital conservation buffer) required.

Capital of the subsidiary, net of deductions


		Value  
		Calculation

		Total CET1 of the subsidiary, net of deductions 1,500 no data

		Total Tier 1 (CET1 + Additional Tier 1) of the subsidiary, net of deductions 1,700 no data

		Total Capital (CET1 + Additional Tier 1 + Tier 2) of the subsidiary, net of deductions 2,000 no data

		Surplus capital of the subsidiary

		Surplus CET1 of the subsidiary  
		= 1,500 − 700

		Surplus Tier 1 of the subsidiary  
		= 1,700 − 850

		Surplus Total Capital of the subsidiary  
		= 2,000 − 1,050

Step 3: Calculate the amount of surplus capital that is attributable to third party investors. This is equal to the amount of surplus capital of the subsidiary multiplied by the percentage of the subsidiary owned by third parties (based on the paid in capital plus related retained earnings owned by third parties).

Surplus capital of the subsidiary attributable to third party investors


		Value  
		Calculation

		Surplus CET1 of the subsidiary that is attributable to third party investors = 800 × (400/2,000)

		Surplus Tier 1 of the subsidiary that is attributable to third party investors = 850 × (600/2,200)

		Surplus Total capital of the subsidiary that is attributable to third party investors = 950 × (900/2,500)

Step 4: Calculate the amount of capital issued to third parties that can be included in the consolidated capital of the parent. This is equal to the amount of capital issued to third parties (plus attributable retained earnings) less the surplus capital attributable to third parties.

Amount recognized in consolidated capital


		Value  
		Calculation

		Amount of capital issued to third parties recognized in CET1 = 400 − 160

		Amount of capital issued to third parties recognized in Tier 1 = 600 − 232

		Amount of capital issued to third parties recognized in Total capital = 900 − 342

		Amount of capital issued to third parties recognized in Additional Tier 1 = 368 − 240

		Amount of capital issued to third parties recognized in Tier 2 = 558 − 240 − 128

Appendix 2-2 - Information Requirements to Confirm Quality of NVCC Instruments
While not mandatory, institutions are strongly encouraged to seek confirmations of capital quality prior to issuing NVCC instruments.
Footnote 113
Confirmation requests should be sent electronically to OSFI at confirmations@osfi-bsif.gc.ca. In conjunction with such requests, the institution is expected to provide, at a minimum, the following information.

An indicative term sheet specifying indicative dates, rates and amounts and summarizing key provisions should be provided in respect of all proposed instruments.

The draft and final terms and conditions of the proposed NVCC instrument supported by relevant documents (e.g. Prospectus, Offering Memorandum, Debt Agreement, etc.).

A copy of the institution's current by-laws or other constating documents relevant to the capital to be issued.

Where applicable, for all debt instruments only:

	the draft and final Trust Indenture; and the terms of any guarantee relating to the instrument.

An external legal opinion addressed to OSFI confirming that the contingent conversion feature or write-off, as applicable is enforceable, that the issuance has been duly authorized and is in compliance with applicable law Footnote 114 and that there are no impediments to the automatic conversion of the NVCC instrument into common shares of the institution or to the write-off, as applicable upon a trigger event.

For precedent-setting confirmations of quality of capital where the terms of the instrument include a redemption, or similar feature upon a tax event, an external tax opinion confirming the availability of such deduction in respect of interest or distributions payable on the instrument for income tax purposes. Footnote 115 For all confirmations of quality of capital where the terms of the instrument include a tax event redemption or similar feature, an attestation from a senior officer of the institution confirming that the institution is not aware of any circumstances that would constitute grounds for a tax event at the date of issuance, including, but not limited to, any recent or proposed changes to the income tax legislation.

For Additional Tier 1 instruments other than preferred shares, institutions should submit an analysis which confirms that the instrument will be treated as equity under IFRS until the point of non-viability. Institutions should consult and obtain the concurrence of their external auditors in respect of their conclusions regarding the proposed treatment and disclosure of the NVCC instrument. Footnote 116 Where the initial interest or coupon rate payable on the instrument resets periodically or the basis of the interest rate changes from fixed to floating (or vice versa) at a pre-determined future date, calculations demonstrating that no incentive to redeem, or step-up, will arise upon the change in the initial rate. Where applicable, a step-up Footnote 117 calculation should be provided, which confirms there is no step-up upon the change in interest rate. The step-up calculation should be supported by the following:

	Screenshots of the relevant benchmarks used for the step-up calculation should be provided.  
	The interpolated benchmark yield should be calculated with the two closest maturities to the reset date, unless a written explanation is provided to OSFI explaining the deviation.  
	The interpolated benchmark yield should be rounded up to the nearest hundredth for the purpose of calculating the reset spread.

Where the terms of the instrument provide for triggers in addition to the baseline triggers specified in Principle # 2, the rationale for such additional triggers and a detailed analysis of the possible market implications that might arise from the inclusion of such additional triggers or upon a breach of such triggers.

An assessment of the features of the proposed capital instrument against the minimum criteria for inclusion in Additional Tier 1 capital or Tier 2 capital, as applicable, as set out in Basel III as well as the principles for NVCC instruments set out in section 2.2 of this guideline. For certainty, this assessment would only be required for an initial issuance or precedent and is not required for subsequent issuances provided the terms of the NVCC instrument are not materially altered.

A written attestation from a senior officer of the institution confirming that the institution has not provided financing to any person for the express purpose of investing in the proposed capital instrument.

A written attestation from a senior officer of the institution confirming that the institution has taken all commercially reasonable efforts to ensure that conversion or write-off is not an event of default or credit event under any other agreement entered into by the institution, directly or indirectly, on or after January 1, 2013, including senior debt agreements and derivative contracts. Service Fees related to Capital Confirmation Requests Each capital confirmation request (i.e., preliminary or final) is subject to service fees. Amounts due to OSFI are based on the service fees in effect for precedent and/or non-precedent setting capital confirmation requests on the date of the request plus HST. Institutions should remit payments to OSFI promptly when they receive a capital confirmation. Additional information requirements for NVCC instruments issued to a parent Requirement 12 is not required for issuing NVCC instruments to a parent.

The rationale provided by the parent for not providing common equity in lieu of the subject capital instrument.

A written attestation from a senior officer confirming that the rate and terms of the instrument as at the date of transaction are at least as favourable to the institution as market terms and conditions.

A written attestation confirming that the failure to make dividend or interest payments, as applicable, on the subject instrument would not result in the parent, now or in the future, being unable to meet its own debt servicing obligations nor would it trigger cross-default clauses or credit events under the terms of any agreements or contracts of either the institution or the parent.

Appendix 2-3 - Example of the 15% of common equity limit on specified items (threshold deductions)
This Appendix is meant to clarify the calculation of the 15% limit on significant investments in the common shares of unconsolidated financial institutions (banks, insurance and other financial entities); mortgage servicing rights, and deferred tax assets arising from temporary differences (collectively referred to as specified items).

The recognition of these specified items will be limited to 15% of CET1 capital, after the application of all deductions. To determine the maximum amount of the specified items that can be recognized, Footnote * banks and supervisors should multiply the amount of CET1 Footnote (after all deductions, including after the deduction of the specified items in full) by 17.65%. This number is derived from the proportion of 15% to 85% (i.e. 15%/85% = 17.65%).

As an example, take a bank with $85 of common equity (calculated net of all deductions, including after the deduction of the specified items in full).

The maximum amount of specified items that can be recognized by this bank in its calculation of CET1 capital is $85 × 17.65% = $15. Any excess above $15 must be deducted from CET1. If the bank has specified items (excluding amounts deducted after applying the individual 10% limits) that in aggregate sum up to the 15% limit, CET1 after inclusion of the specified items will amount to $85 + $15 = $100. The percentage of specified items to total CET1 would equal 15%.

[Basel Framework, CAP 30.33 FAQ1]

Footnotes
Footnote 1

The Basel Framework

Return to footnote 1 referrer

Footnote 2

Following the format: [Basel Framework, XXX yy.xx]

Return to footnote 2 referrer

Footnote 3

For an institution that is a federal credit union, references to "common shares" in this guideline encompass "membership shares", as defined in subsection 79.1(1) of the Bank Act, and other instruments recognized as CET1 capital under this guideline.

Return to footnote 3 referrer

Footnote 4

Where repayment is subject to Superintendent approval.

Return to footnote 4 referrer

Footnote 5

Paid-in capital generally refers to capital that has been received with finality by the institution, is reliably valued, fully under the institution's control and does not directly or indirectly expose the institution to the credit risk of the investor. [Basel Framework, CAP 10.8 FAQ2]

Return to footnote 5 referrer

Footnote 6

A related entity can include a parent company, a sister company, a subsidiary or any other affiliate. A holding company is a related entity irrespective of whether it forms part of the consolidated banking group.

Return to footnote 6 referrer

Footnote 7

The item should be clearly and separately disclosed on the balance sheet published in the institution's annual report. Where an institution publishes results on a semi-annual or quarterly basis, disclosure should also be made at those times.

Return to footnote 7 referrer

Footnote 8

Any institution that is subject to the same minimum prudential standards and level of supervision as a bank may be considered to be a bank.

Return to footnote 8 referrer

Footnote 9

Minority interest in a subsidiary that is a bank is strictly excluded from the parent bank's common equity if the parent bank or affiliate has entered into any arrangements to fund directly or indirectly minority investment in the subsidiary whether through an SPV or through another vehicle or arrangement. The treatment outlined above, thus, is strictly available where all minority interests in the bank subsidiary solely represent genuine third party common equity contributions to the subsidiary.

Return to footnote 9 referrer

Footnote 10

Category III SMSBs should use [Adjusted Total Assets + RWA Operational Risk] instead of RWA in the calculation of the surplus CET1 capital of the subsidiary.

Return to footnote 10 referrer

Footnote 11

Calculated using the local regulator's RWA calculation methodology, e.g. if the local regulator's requirements are based on Basel I rules, this calculation method can be used. The calculation must still be based on the minimum plus the capital conservation buffer (i.e. 7.0% of RWA).

Return to footnote 11 referrer

Footnote 12

This amount should exclude any intercompany exposures (e.g. loans or debentures) from the subsidiary to the parent that would boost the subsidiary's RWA.

Return to footnote 12 referrer

Footnote 13

Assets that relate to the operation of the SPV may be excluded from this assessment if they are de minimus.

Return to footnote 13 referrer

Footnote 14

Further, where an institution uses an SPV to issue capital to investors and provides support, including overcollateralization, to the vehicle, such support would constitute enhancement in breach of Criterion # 3 above. [Basel Framework, CAP 10.11 FAQ2]

Return to footnote 14 referrer

Footnote 15

A step-up is defined as a call option combined with a pre-set increase in the initial credit spread of the instrument at a future date over the initial dividend (or distribution) rate after taking into account any swap spread between the original reference index and the new reference index. Conversion from a fixed rate to a floating rate (or vice versa) in combination with a call option without any increase in credit spread would not constitute a step-up. [Basel Framework, CAP 10.11 FAQ4]

Return to footnote 15 referrer

Footnote 16

Other incentives to redeem include a call option combined with a requirement or an investor option to convert the instrument into common shares if the call is not exercised. [Basel Framework, CAP 10.11 FAQ4]

Return to footnote 16 referrer

Footnote 17

An example of an action that would be considered to create an expectation that a call will be exercised is where an institution calls a capital instrument and replaces it with an instrument that is more costly (e.g. a higher credit spread). [Basel Framework, CAP 10.11 FAQ8]

Return to footnote 17 referrer

Footnote 18

Replacement issuances can be concurrent with but not after the instrument is called.

Return to footnote 18 referrer

Footnote 19

The term "minimum" refers to OSFI's target capital requirements described in section 1.10 of Chapter 1 of this guideline which may be higher than the Basel III Pillar 1 minimum requirements.

Return to footnote 19 referrer

Footnote 20

Where an institution elects to include a regulatory event call in an instrument, the regulatory event call date should be defined as "the date specified in a letter from the Superintendent to the institution on which the instrument will no longer be recognized in full as eligible Additional Tier 1 capital of the institution or included in Total regulatory capital".

Return to footnote 20 referrer

Footnote 21

A consequence of full discretion at all times to cancel distributions/payments is that "dividend pushers" are prohibited. An instrument with a dividend pusher obliges the issuing institution to make a dividend/coupon payment on the instrument if it has made a payment on another (typically more junior) capital instrument or share. This obligation is inconsistent with the requirement for full discretion at all times. Furthermore, the term "cancel distributions/payments" means to forever extinguish these payments. It does not permit features that require the institution to make distributions or payments in kind at any time. Institutions may not allow investors to convert an Additional Tier 1 instrument to common equity upon non-payment of dividends as this would also impeded the practical ability of the bank to exercise its discretion to cancel payments.

Return to footnote 21 referrer

Footnote 22

Institutions may use a broad index as a reference rate in which the issuing institution is a reference entity, however, the reference rate should not exhibit significant correlation with the institution's credit standing. If an institution plans to issue capital instruments where the margin is linked to a broad index in which the institution is a reference entity, the institution should ensure that the dividend/coupon is not credit-sensitive. [Basel Framework, CAP 10.11 FAQ12]

Return to footnote 22 referrer

Footnote 23

OSFI expects Additional Tier 1 instruments to be fully classified as equity at all times where the Superintendent has not declared the institution non-viable.

Return to footnote 23 referrer

Footnote 24

The intention of this criterion is to prohibit the inclusion of instruments in capital in cases where the institution retains any of the risk of the instruments. The criterion is not contravened if third-party investors bear all of the risks and rewards associated with the instrument. [Basel Framework, CAP 10.11 FAQ14]

Return to footnote 24 referrer

Footnote 25

An operating entity is an entity set up to conduct business with clients with the intention of earning a profit in its own right.

Return to footnote 25 referrer

Footnote 26

[Basel Framework, CAP 10.11 FAQ16 and FAQ17]

Return to footnote 26 referrer

Footnote 27

The amount recognized as regulatory capital should be adjusted to account for any actual or foreseeable deferred tax liabilities or tax payments resulting from the conversion or writedown of the instrument. This adjustment should be made from the date of issuance. [Basel Framework, CAP 10.11 FAQ23]

Return to footnote 27 referrer

Footnote 28

Any modification of, addition to, or renewal or extension of an instrument issued to a related party is subject to the legislative requirement that transactions with a related party be at terms and conditions that are at least as favourable to the institution as market terms and conditions.

Return to footnote 28 referrer

Footnote 29

Category III SMSBs should use [Adjusted Total Assets + RWAOperational Risk], instead of RWA, in the calculation of the surplus Tier 1 capital of the subsidiary.

Return to footnote 29 referrer

Footnote 30

Calculated using the local regulator's RWA calculation methodology, e.g. if the local regulator's requirements are based on Basel I rules, this calculation method can be used. The calculation must still be based on the minimum plus the capital conservation buffer (i.e. 8.5% of RWA).

Return to footnote 30 referrer

Footnote 31

This amount should exclude any intercompany exposures (e.g. loans or debentures) from the subsidiary to the parent that would boost the subsidiary's RWA.

Return to footnote 31 referrer

Footnote 32

Assets that relate to the operation of the SPV may be excluded from this assessment if they are de minimus.

Return to footnote 32 referrer

Footnote 33

A step-up is defined as a call option combined with a pre-set increase in the initial credit spread of the instrument at a future date over the initial dividend (or distribution) rate after taking into account any swap spread between the original reference index and the new reference index. Conversion from a fixed rate to a floating rate (or vice versa) in combination with a call option without any increase in credit spread would not constitute a step-up.

Return to footnote 33 referrer

Footnote 34

An option to call the instrument after five years but prior to the start of the amortization period will not be viewed as an incentive to redeem as long as the institution does not do anything that creates an expectation that the call will be exercised at this point.

Return to footnote 34 referrer

Footnote 35

Replacement issuances can be concurrent with but not after the instrument is called.

Return to footnote 35 referrer

Footnote 36

The term "minimum" refers to OSFI's target capital requirements as described in section 1.10 of Chapter 1 of this guideline which may be higher than the Basel III Pillar 1 minimum requirements.

Return to footnote 36 referrer

Footnote 37

Where an institution elects to include a regulatory event call in an instrument, the regulatory event call date should be defined as "the date specified in a letter from the Superintendent to the institution on which the instrument will no longer be recognized in full as eligible Tier 2 capital of the institution or included in Total regulatory capital".

Return to footnote 37 referrer

Footnote 38

Institutions may use a broad index as a reference rate in which the issuing institution is a reference entity, however, the reference rate should not exhibit significant correlation with the institution's credit standing. If an institution plans to issue capital instruments where the margin is linked to a broad index in which the institution is a reference entity, the institution should ensure that the dividend/coupon is not credit-sensitive.

Return to footnote 38 referrer

Footnote 39

An operating entity is an entity set up to conduct business with clients with the intention of earning a profit in its own right.

Return to footnote 39 referrer

Footnote 40

[Basel Framework, 10.16 FAQ4 and FAQ7]

Return to footnote 40 referrer

Footnote 41

The amount recognized as regulatory capital should be adjusted to account for any actual or foreseeable deferred tax liabilities or tax payments resulting from the conversion or write-down of the instrument. This adjustment should be made from the date of issuance. [Basel Framework, CAP 10.16 FAQ9]

Return to footnote 41 referrer

Footnote 42

Any modification of, addition to, or renewal or extension of an instrument issued to a related party is subject to the legislative requirement that transactions with a related party be at terms and conditions that are at least as favourable to the institution as market terms and conditions.

Return to footnote 42 referrer

Footnote 43

Category III SMSBs should use [Adjusted Total Assets + RWAOperational Risk], instead of RWA, in the calculation of the surplus Total capital of the subsidiary.

Return to footnote 43 referrer

Footnote 44

Calculated using the local regulator's RWA calculation methodology, e.g. if the local regulator's requirements are based on Basel I rules, this calculation method can be used. The calculation must still be based on the minimum requirement plus the capital conservation buffer (i.e. 10.5% of RWA).

Return to footnote 44 referrer

Footnote 45

This amount should exclude any intercompany exposures (e.g. loans or debentures) from the subsidiary to the parent that would boost the subsidiary's RWA.

Return to footnote 45 referrer

Footnote 46

Assets that relate to the operation of the SPV may be excluded from this assessment if they are de minimus.

Return to footnote 46 referrer

Footnote 47

Eligible allowances or reserves included in Tier 2 capital should be recorded as gross of tax effects.

Return to footnote 47 referrer

Footnote 48

Category III SMSBs should use Adjusted Total Assets, instead of credit RWA, when calculating the general allowances eligible for inclusion in Tier 2 capital.

Return to footnote 48 referrer

Footnote 49

Available at IFRS 9 Financial Instruments and Disclosures.

Return to footnote 49 referrer

Footnote 50

Institutions that have partially implemented an IRB approach must meet the requirements in paragraph 41 above.

Return to footnote 50 referrer

Footnote 51

Other resolution options, including the creation of a bridge bank, could be used to resolve a failing institution, either as an alternative to NVCC or, in a manner consistent with Principle 3(a), in conjunction with or following an NVCC conversion, and could also subject capital providers to loss.

Return to footnote 51 referrer

Footnote 52

The BCBS rules permit national discretion in respect of requiring contingent capital instruments to be written off or converted to common stock upon a trigger event. OSFI has determined that conversion is more consistent with traditional insolvency consequences and reorganization norms and better respects the legitimate expectations of all stakeholders.

Return to footnote 52 referrer

Footnote 53

The non-common capital of an institution that does not meet the NVCC requirement but otherwise satisfies the Basel III requirements may be, as permitted by applicable law, amended to meet the NVCC requirement.

Return to footnote 53 referrer

Footnote 54

Any capital injection or equivalent support from the federal government or any provincial government or political subdivision or agent or agency thereof would need to comply with applicable legislation, including any prohibitions related to the issue of shares to governments.

Return to footnote 54 referrer

Footnote 55

As liquidation is the baseline resolution mechanism for a failed institution, it is expected that the market values for capital instruments of a non-viable institution should, where such instruments are traded in a deep and liquid market, incorporate information related to the probability of insolvency and the likely recovery upon liquidation.

Return to footnote 55 referrer

Footnote 56

For further reference, please refer to sections 2.1.1.3, 2.1.2.2. and 2.1.3.2 of this guideline.

Return to footnote 56 referrer

Footnote 57

For greater certainty, instruments issued by foreign subsidiaries of institutions must include triggers that can be activated by both OSFI and the host authority in order to be recognized as capital on a group consolidated basis. [Basel Framework, CAP 10.11 FAQ18]

Return to footnote 57 referrer

Footnote 58

Under the OSFI Act, FISC comprises OSFI, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Bank of Canada, the Department of Finance, and the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada. Under the chairmanship of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, these federal agencies meet regularly to exchange information relevant to the supervision of regulated financial institutions. This forum also provides for the coordination of strategies when dealing with troubled institutions.

Return to footnote 58 referrer

Footnote 59

See, in particular, OSFI's Guide to Intervention for Federally-Regulated Deposit-Taking Institutions.

Return to footnote 59 referrer

Footnote 60

The Superintendent retains the flexibility and discretion to deal with unforeseen events or circumstances on a case-by-case basis.

Return to footnote 60 referrer

Footnote 61

Principles on Loss-Absorbing and Recapitalisation Capacity of G-SIBs in Resolution: Total Loss-absorbing Capacity (TLAC) Term Sheet. (FSB: November 2015). The regulatory adjustments for TLAC set out in this section relate to section 15 of the FSB TLAC Term Sheet.

Return to footnote 61 referrer

Footnote 62

Tier 2 instruments that no longer count in full as regulatory capital (as a result of having a residual maturity of less than five years or due to Basel III transitioning rules) continue to be recognized in full as a Tier 2 instrument by the investing bank for the regulatory adjustments in this section. Similarly, instruments that no longer count towards TLAC as a result of having a residual maturity of less than 1 year continue to be recognized in full as Other TLAC Instruments by the investing bank for the regulatory adjustments in this section.

Return to footnote 62 referrer

Footnote 63

For example, if a G-SIB resolution entity has funding that ranks pari passu with Excluded Liabilities equal to 5% of RWAs and receives partial recognition of these instruments as external TLAC equivalent to 3.5% RWAs, then an investing institution holding such instruments must include only 70% (i.e. 3.5/5) of such instruments in calculating its TLAC holdings. The same proportion should be applied by the investing institution to any indirect or synthetic investments in instruments ranking pari passu with Excluded Liabilities and eligible to be recognized as TLAC by virtue of the subordination exemptions set out in the FSB TLAC Term Sheet.

Return to footnote 63 referrer

Footnote 64

November 1, 2018 for institutions with an October 31st year-end and January 1, 2019 for institutions with a December 31st year-end.

Return to footnote 64 referrer

Footnote 65

An institution should calculate a goodwill amount as at the acquisition date by separating any excess of the acquisition cost over the investor's share of the net fair value of the identifiable assets and liabilities of the banking, financial or insurance entity. In accordance with applicable accounting standards, this goodwill amount may be adjusted for any subsequent impairment losses and reversal of impairment losses that can be assigned to the initial goodwill amount. [Basel Framework, CAP 30.7 FAQ1]

Return to footnote 65 referrer

Footnote 66

This includes software intangibles.

Return to footnote 66 referrer

Footnote 67

For regulatory capital purposes, a ROU should not be deducted from regulatory capital so long as the underlying asset being leased is a tangible asset. Where the underlying asset being leased is a tangible asset, the ROU asset asset should be included in the risk-based capital and leverage ratio denominators and should be risk-weighted at 100%, consistent with the risk weight applied to owned tangible assets. [Basel Framework, CAP 30.7 FAQ2]

Return to footnote 67 referrer

Footnote 68

Does not permit offsetting of deferred tax assets across provinces.

Return to footnote 68 referrer

Footnote 69

The 100% risk weight is not applicable to Category III SMSBs as these assets are included in Adjusted Total Assets in the Simplified Risk-Based Capital Ratio.

Return to footnote 69 referrer

Footnote 70

Refer to section 7.2.2. of Chapter 7.

Return to footnote 70 referrer

Footnote 71

Refer to paragraph 270 of Chapter 4. All forms of credit protection, including credit derivatives, are part of this scope of application apart from mortgage insurance purchased from a private mortgage insurer in Canada, which is subject to the rules in paragraph 275 of Chapter 4 or paragraph 148 of Chapter 5.

Return to footnote 71 referrer

Footnote 72

Refer to the BCBS July 25, 2012 press release Regulatory treatment of valuation adjustments to derivative liabilities: final rule issued by the Basel Committee.

Return to footnote 72 referrer

Footnote 73

Generally, institutions currently report this amount in Other Assets on the balance sheet.

Return to footnote 73 referrer

Footnote 74

Where an institution acts as a market maker in its own capital instruments, the contractual obligation requiring deduction is deemed to commence upon the institution agreeing to purchase the security at an agreed price and either this offer has been accepted or cannot be withdrawn. [Basel Framework, CAP 30.18 FAQ1]

Return to footnote 74 referrer

Footnote 75

Institutions may also be subject to restrictions or prohibitions on the holdings of their own securities under their governing statutes.

Return to footnote 75 referrer

Footnote 76

All regulatory adjustments that are applicable to common shares also apply to membership shares and/or other CET1 instruments issued by federal credit unions.

Return to footnote 76 referrer

Footnote 77

See footnote 90 for the definition of significant investment.

Return to footnote 77 referrer

Footnote 78

The 250% risk-weight is not applicable to Category III SMSBs as the amounts less than the 10% threshold are included in Adjusted Total Assets in the Simplified Risk-Based Capital Ratio.

Return to footnote 78 referrer

Footnote 79

Examples of the types of activities that financial entities might be involved in include financial leasing, issuing credit cards, portfolio management, investment advisory, custodial and safekeeping services and other similar activities that are ancillary to the business of banking. [Basel Framework, CAP 30.22 FAQ2]

Return to footnote 79 referrer

Footnote 80

The scope of this regulatory adjustment should be considered comprehensive. Institutions are encouraged to contact OSFI for further guidance in this area, relating to specific investments, where necessary. Institutions should also note that hedge funds should be considered within the scope of the required regulatory adjustment.

Return to footnote 80 referrer

Footnote 81

For the purpose of this guideline, investments in the capital of banking, financial and insurance entities include investments in the capital of cooperative credit associations (i.e. Centrals), credit unions, and other cooperative financial institutions.

Return to footnote 81 referrer

Footnote 82

See footnote 90 for the definition of significant investment.

Return to footnote 82 referrer

Footnote 83

Indirect holdings are exposures or parts of exposures that, if a direct holding loses its value, will result in a loss to the institution substantially equivalent to the loss in the value of the direct holding. Where an institution holds an investment in a mutual fund that is a pass-through security, it should be treated as an indirect holding in the pool of assets in the fund [Basel Framework, CAP 30.22].

Return to footnote 83 referrer

Footnote 84

Examples of indirect and synthetic holdings include: (i) the institution invests in the capital of an entity that is not consolidated for regulatory purposes and is aware that this entity has an investment in the capital of a financial institution. (ii) The institution enters into a total return swap on capital instruments of another financial institution. (iii) The institution provides a guarantee or credit protection to a third party in respect of the third party's investments in the capital of another financial institution. (iv) The institution owns a call option or has written a put option on the capital instruments of another financial institution. (vi) The institution has entered into a forward purchase agreement on the capital of another financial institution. [Basel Framework, CAP 99.11]

Return to footnote 84 referrer

Footnote 85

In the case of a cash equity position and a short position on the same underlying exposure, where both positions are in the trading book, if the institution has a contractual right/obligation to sell a long position at a specific point in time and the counterparty in the contract has an obligation to purchase the long position if the bank exercises its right to sell, this point in time may be treated as the maturity of the long position. Therefore if these conditions are met, the maturity of the long position and the short position are deemed to be matched even if the maturity of the short position is within one year. [Basel Framework, CAP 30.22 FAQ6].

Return to footnote 85 referrer

Footnote 86

If the investment is issued out of a regulated financial entity and not included in regulatory capital in the relevant sector of the financial entity, it is not required to be deducted.

Return to footnote 86 referrer

Footnote 87

For investments in financial and insurance entities, not subject to the Basel Framework eligibility criteria for capital instruments (as outlined in this guideline), the deduction should be applied from the higher tier of capital (CET1 being the highest) identified by the following two methods:

	The tier of capital (if any) the instrument qualifies for under the Basel Framework criteria.  
	The tier of capital the instrument qualifies for under the most recent capital adequacy guidelines applicable to insurance entities regulated by OSFI.

If the capital instrument of the entity in which the institution has invested does not meet the criteria for inclusion in regulatory capital under either the Basel III criteria, or the most recent capital adequacy guidelines applicable to insurance entities regulated by OSFI, it is to be considered common shares for the purposes of this deduction.

Return to footnote 87 referrer

Footnote 88

For an institution that is a federal credit union, when applicable, guarantees or other capital enhancements must include potential capital calls from a provincial Central. Capital calls subject to a cap should be valued at the maximum amount of a potential capital call. Capital calls not subject to a cap should be valued at the maximum amount of a potential capital call the federal credit union could be subject to in severe but plausible scenarios. A federal credit union will be required to demonstrate that it has sufficient capital to absorb the maximum amount of a potential capital call in these scenarios. A federal credit union must notify OSFI in a timely manner of any changes that could impact its exposure to future capital calls as well as any decisions to participate in a capital call. Additionally, a federal credit union should obtain the prior approval of the Superintendent, as applicable, where the capital call would result in the federal credit union acquiring or increasing a substantial investment pursuant to the Bank Act.

Return to footnote 88 referrer

Footnote 89

For Category III SMSBs, investments below the 10% threshold are included in Adjusted Total Assets in the Simplified Risk-Based Capital Ratio.

Return to footnote 89 referrer

Footnote 90

The term "significant investment" refers to investments that are defined to be a substantial investment under section 10 of the Bank Act or the Trust and Loan Companies Act.

Return to footnote 90 referrer

Footnote 91

See paragraph 84, bullet 8, for a notification requirement where the deduction is made at the insurance operating company level.

Return to footnote 91 referrer

Footnote 92

The scope of this regulatory adjustment should be considered comprehensive. Institutions are encouraged to contact OSFI for further guidance in this area, relating to specific investments, where necessary. Institutions should also note that hedge funds should be considered within the scope of the required regulatory adjustment.

Return to footnote 92 referrer

Footnote 93

Investments in entities that are outside the scope of regulatory consolidation refers to investments in entities that have not been consolidated at all or have not been consolidated in such a way as to result in their assets being included in the calculation of consolidated RWA of the group. This includes (i) investments in unconsolidated entities, including joint ventures carried on the equity method of accounting, (ii) investments in subsidiaries deconsolidated for regulatory capital purposes (including insurance subsidiaries), (iii) other facilities that are treated as capital by unconsolidated subsidiaries and by unconsolidated entities in which the institution has a significant investment. Further, the treatment for securitization exposures or vehicles that are deconsolidated for risk-based regulatory capital purposes pursuant to Chapter 6 of the CAR Guideline will be as outlined in that chapter.

Return to footnote 93 referrer

Footnote 94

For the purposes of this guideline, investments in the capital of banking, financial and insurance entities include investments in the capital of cooperative credit associations (Centrals), credit unions, and other cooperative financial institutions.

Return to footnote 94 referrer

Footnote 95

If institutions find it operationally burdensome to look through and monitor their exact exposures to the capital of other financial institutions as a result of their holding index securities, OSFI will permit institutions, subject to prior supervisory approval, to use a conservative estimate.

Return to footnote 95 referrer

Footnote 96

In the case of a cash equity position and a short position on the same underlying exposure, where both positions are in the trading book, if the institution has a contractual right/obligation to sell a long position at a specific point in time and the counterparty in the contract has an obligation to purchase the long position if the bank exercises its right to sell, this point in time may be treated as the maturity of the long position. Therefore if these conditions are met, the maturity of the long position and the short position are deemed to be matched even if the maturity of the short position is within one year [Basel Framework, CAP 30.29 FAQ6].

Return to footnote 96 referrer

Footnote 97

An exception to this requirement is if the investment is issued out of a regulated financial entity and not included in regulatory capital in the relevant sector of the financial entity, it is not required to be deducted.

Return to footnote 97 referrer

Footnote 98

See footnote 87 for further information on the treatment of investments in financial and insurance entities not subject to Basel III eligibility criteria for capital instruments.

Return to footnote 98 referrer

Footnote 99

For an institution that is a federal credit union, when applicable, guarantees or other capital enhancements must include potential capital calls from a provincial Central. Capital calls subject to a cap should be valued at the maximum amount of a potential capital call. Capital calls not subject to a cap should be valued at the maximum amount of a potential capital call the federal credit union could be subject to in severe but plausible scenarios. A federal credit union will be required to demonstrate that it has sufficient capital to absorb the maximum amount of a potential capital call in these scenarios. A federal credit union must notify OSFI in a timely manner of any changes that could impact its exposure to future capital calls as well as any decisions to participate in a capital call. Additionally, a federal credit union should obtain the prior approval of the Superintendent, as applicable, where the capital call would result in the federal credit union acquiring or increasing a substantial investment pursuant to the Bank Act.

Return to footnote 99 referrer

Footnote 100

For investments in insurance subsidiaries, CSM that have been included in the group's consolidated CET1 capital pursuant to paragraph 3 should be added to this exposure.

Return to footnote 100 referrer

Footnote 101

Institutions are required to notify OSFI's Capital Division, through their Lead Supervisors, if they intend to use the corresponding deduction approach outlined in this paragraph with relation to investments in insurance entities.

Return to footnote 101 referrer

Footnote 102

For Category III SMSBs, any amounts not deducted from CET1 capital will be included in Adjusted Total Assets under the Simplified Risk-Based Capital Ratio.

Return to footnote 102 referrer

Footnote 103

See footnote 87 for further information on the treatment of investments in financial and insurance entities not subject to Basel III eligibility criteria for capital instruments.

Return to footnote 103 referrer

Footnote 104

See footnote 90.

Return to footnote 104 referrer

Footnote 105

See footnote 87 for further information on the treatment of investments in financial and insurance entities not subject to Basel III eligibility criteria for capital instruments.

Return to footnote 105 referrer

Footnote 106

For greater certainty, the application of the 10% and 5% thresholds, including the market-making exemption, described in section 2.3 of this guideline are not available in respect of holdings of an institution's own capital instruments and/or own Other TLAC Instruments.

Return to footnote 106 referrer

Footnote 107

See footnote 87 for further information on the treatment of investments in financial and insurance entities not subject to Basel III eligibility criteria for capital instruments.

Return to footnote 107 referrer

Footnote 108

See footnote 90.

Return to footnote 108 referrer

Footnote 109

See footnote 87 for further information on the treatment of investments in financial and insurance entities not subject to Basel III eligibility criteria for capital instruments.

Return to footnote 109 referrer

Footnote 110

Year 1 refers to the four fiscal quarters commencing in the quarter in which the institution continued as a federal credit union.

Return to footnote 110 referrer

Footnote 111

The level of the base is fixed on the date of continuance and does not change thereafter.

Return to footnote 111 referrer

Footnote 112

Federal credit unions should consult with OSFI's Capital Division to determine the appropriate tier of capital in which to assign non-qualifying instruments.

Return to footnote 112 referrer

Footnote 113

If an institution fails to obtain a capital confirmation (or obtains a capital confirmation without disclosing all relevant material facts to OSFI), OSFI may, in its discretion, at any time determine that such capital does not comply with these principles and is to be excluded from an institution's available regulatory capital.

Return to footnote 113 referrer

Footnote 114

Such legal opinion may contain standard assumptions and qualifications provided its overall substance is acceptable to OSFI.

Return to footnote 114 referrer

Footnote 115

OSFI reserves the right to require a Canada Revenue Agency advance tax ruling to confirm such tax opinion if the tax consequences are subject to material uncertainty.

Return to footnote 115 referrer

Footnote 116

OSFI reserves the right to require such accounting opinion to be an external opinion of a firm acceptable to OSFI if the accounting consequences are subject to material uncertainty.

Return to footnote 116 referrer

Footnote 117

Institutions seeking further guidance on step-up calculations should contact OSFI's Capital Division.

Return to footnote 117 referrer

Footnote *

The actual amount that will be recognized may be lower than this maximum, either because the sum of the three specified items is below the 15% limit set out in this appendix, or due to the application of the 10% limit applied to each item.

Return to footnote * referrer

Footnote

At this point this is a "hypothetical" amount of CET1 in that it is used only for the purposes of determining the deduction of the specified items.

Return to footnote  referrer

Consultation status: Closed
The consultation for chapter 3 of the 2027 CAR Guideline closed on February 18, 2026. We'll keep the draft on the site until the final guideline is released.
Note
For institutions with a fiscal year ending October 31 or December 31, respectively.
I. Introduction
The Capital Adequacy Requirements (CAR) for banks (including federal credit unions), bank holding companies, federally regulated trust companies and federally regulated loan companies are set out in nine chapters, each of which has been issued as a separate document. This document should be read in conjunction with the other CAR chapters. The complete list of CAR chapters is as follows:

Chapter 1 - Overview of Risk-based Capital Requirements  
Chapter 2 - Definition of Capital  
Chapter 3 - Operational Risk  
Chapter 4 - Credit Risk - Standardized Approach  
Chapter 5 - Credit Risk - Internal Ratings-Based Approach  
Chapter 6 - Securitization  
Chapter 7 - Settlement and Counterparty Risk  
Chapter 8 - Credit Valuation Adjustment (CVA) Risk  
Chapter 9 - Market Risk

Please refer to OSFI's Corporate Governance Guideline for OSFI's expectations of institution Boards of Directors in regard to the management of capital and liquidity.
Chapter 3 – Operational Risk
The requirements related to the Standardized Approach in this chapter (section 3.4) are drawn from the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) Basel Framework published on the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) website.
Footnote 1
For reference, the Basel paragraph numbers that are associated with the text appearing in this chapter are indicated in square brackets at the end of each paragraph.
Footnote 2

3.1 Definition of operational risk
Operational risk is defined as the risk of loss resulting from inadequate or failed internal processes, people and systems or from external events. This definition includes legal risk, Footnote 3 but excludes strategic and reputational risk.

[Basel Framework, OPE 10.1]

3.2 Measurement methodologies
There are two methodologies for calculating operational risk capital:

	the Standardized Approach (SA); and, the Simplified Standardized Approach (SSA).

Domestic Systemically Important Banks (D-SIBs) must use the Standardized Approach.

Category I Small and Medium Sized Deposit-Taking Institutions (SMSBs) with annual Adjusted Gross Income Footnote 4 greater than $1.5 billion Footnote 5 must also use the Standardized Approach.

	Category I SMSBs must calculate Adjusted Gross Income at each fiscal year-end. If annual Adjusted Gross Income is greater than $1.5 billion, the institution must notify OSFI within 60 days of the end of the fiscal year, and use the Standardized Approach for operational risk in the following fiscal year. Once a Category I institution crosses the $1.5 billion threshold, it must use the Standardized Approach for a minimum of two years. If, after two years, annual Adjusted Gross Income falls below $1.5 billion, the institution must notify OSFI and may revert to the Simplified Standardized Approach. Footnote 6 Category I SMSBs with annual Adjusted Gross Income less than $1.5 billion may apply to OSFI to use the SA if they have a minimum of five years of high-quality loss data (i.e. data meeting the minimum standard for loss data collection as outlined in section 3.4.2). If approved, an institution is not permitted to set the Internal Loss Multiplier (ILM) to less than one until OSFI has determined that they have 10 years of high-quality loss data.

All other SMSBs must use the SSA.

3.3 The Simplified Standardized Approach
Institutions using the SSA must hold capital for operational risk (ORC) equal to 15% of average annual Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) over the previous 12 fiscal quarters:

  ORC SSA  = (    AGI previous 12 fiscal quarters   3  ) × 15 %

Where:

  ORC SSA  = the operational risk capital charge under the Simplified Standardized Approach

  AGI previous 12 fiscal quarters  = Adjusted Gross Income over the previous 12 fiscal quarters

Risk-weighted assets (RWA) for operational risk are equal to 12.5 times ORC.

Adjusted Gross Income is defined as the sum of the following:

	The lesser of (i) the absolute value of net interest income, and (ii) 2.25% of interest earning assets; Dividend income; The absolute value of fee and commission income; The absolute value of other income; The absolute value of net profit/loss (trading book); and The absolute value of net profit/loss (banking book).

Adjusted Gross Income should (i) be gross of any provisions; (ii) be gross of operating expenses, and (iii) exclude extraordinary or irregular items as well as income derived from insurance. Institutions should refer to the reporting instructions in OSFI's Capital Adequacy Return for the specific line items in OSFI's P3 (Income Statement) and M4 (Balance Sheet) returns that should be used for each of the components of Adjusted Gross Income in the definition above.

Newly incorporated institutions having fewer than 12 quarters of financial information should calculate the operational risk capital charge using available Adjusted Gross Income data to develop proxies for the missing portions of the required three years' data.

Adjusted Gross Income should be adjusted to reflect acquired businesses and merged entities. Since the Adjusted Gross Income calculation is based on a rolling 12-quarter average, the most recent four quarters of Adjusted Gross Income for the acquired business or merged entity should be based on actual Adjusted Gross Income amounts reported by the acquired business or merged entity. If three years of historical financial data is not available for the acquired business or merged entity, the Adjusted Gross Income for the previous year may be used as a proxy for each of the other two years.

When an institution using the SSA makes a divestiture, Adjusted Gross Income may be adjusted, with OSFI approval, to reflect this divestiture.

3.4 The Standardized Approach
The standardized approach methodology is based on the following components:

	the Business Indicator (BI) which is a financial-statement-based proxy for operational risk; the Business Indicator Component (BIC), which is calculated by multiplying the BI by a set of regulatory determined marginal coefficients; and the Internal Loss Multiplier (ILM), which is a scaling factor that is based on an institution's average historical losses and the BIC.

[Basel Framework, OPE 25.1]

Operational risk capital requirements under the Standardized Approach (ORCSA) are calculated by multiplying the BIC and the ILM, as shown in the formula below. Risk-weighted assets (RWA) for operational risk are equal to 12.5 times ORC.

  ORC SA  = BIC × ILM

[Basel Framework, OPE 25.2]

3.4.1 Components of the Standardized Approach
The BI comprises three components: the interest, leases and dividend component (ILDC), the services component (SC), and the financial component (FC).

[Basel Framework, OPE 25.3]

The BI is defined as:

  BI  =  ILDC  + SC +  FC

In the formula below, a bar above a term indicates that it is calculated as the average over three years: t, t-1 and t-2, and:

Footnote 7
ILDC = Min ⁡ [ Abs ⁡ ( Interest Income − Interest Expense ) ¯ ; 2.25 % × Interest Earning Assets ¯ ] + Dividend Income ¯

 SC  =  Max ⁡  [   Fee and Commission Income  ¯   ;    Fee and Commission Expenses  ¯ ]  +  Max ⁡  [   Other Operating Income  ¯   ;    Other Operating Expenses  ¯   ]

 FC  =    Abs ⁡ ( Net P&L Trading Book )  ¯   +    Abs ⁡ ( Net P&L Banking Book )  ¯

[Basel Framework, OPE 25.4 and Basel Framework, OPE 25.5]

The definitions for each of the components of the BI are provided in Annex 3-1.

[Basel Framework, OPE 25.6]

The Business Indicator Component (BIC) is calculated as follows:

Footnote 8
12% of BI, plus
3% of BI above $1.5 billion (if any), plus
3% of BI above $45 billion (if any).

[Basel Framework, OPE 25.7]

An institution's internal operational risk loss experience affects the calculation of operational risk capital through the ILM. The ILM is defined as:

 ILM = ln ⁡ (   exp  ⁡   ( 1 )    - 1 +   (   LC   BIC  )    0.8  )

where the Loss Component (LC) is equal to 15 times average annual operational risk losses, net of recoveries, incurred over the previous 10 years. The ILM is equal to one where the loss and business indicator components are equal. Where the LC is greater than the BIC, the ILM is greater than one. That is, an institution with losses that are high relative to its BIC is required to hold higher capital due to the incorporation of internal losses into the calculation methodology. Conversely, where the LC is lower than the BIC, the ILM is less than one. That is, an institution with losses that are low relative to its BIC is required to hold lower capital due to the incorporation of internal losses into the calculation methodology.

[Basel Framework, OPE 25.8 and Basel Framework, OPE 25.9]

The calculation of average losses in the Loss Component must be based on 10 years of high-quality annual loss data (i.e. data meeting the minimum standard for loss data collection as outlined in section 3.4.2). Institutions that do not have ten years of high-quality loss data must calculate the capital requirement using an ILM greater than or equal to one. In these cases, OSFI will require an institution to calculate capital requirements using fewer than 10 years of losses if the ILM using the available high-quality loss data is greater than 1 and OSFI believes the losses are representative of the institution's operational loss exposure.

[Basel Framework, OPE 25.10]

ORC is to be calculated and reported quarterly. Financial information used in the calculation of the BI should be up to and including the institution's most recent fiscal quarter-end. Operational risk losses used in the calculation of the LC may be reported on a one-quarter lag.

Institutions should perform a reconciliation between the BI and Net Interest Income and Non-Interest Income Footnote 9 for the previous three years. This information should be available to OSFI upon request.

At the consolidated level, the SA calculations use fully consolidated BI figures, which net all the intragroup income and expenses.

[Basel Framework, OPE 10.4]

A subsidiary institution using the SA should use its own consolidated income and loss experience in the calculation of BI and LC for the SA calculations, and is subject to the minimum standards for the use of loss data in the following sections.

[Basel Framework OPE, 10.5 and Basel Framework, OPE 10.6]

3.4.2 Minimum standards for the use of loss data under the standardized approach
Institutions using the SA are required to use loss data as a direct input into the operational risk capital calculations. The soundness of data collection and the quality and integrity of the data are crucial to generating capital outcomes aligned with the institution's operational loss exposure. The minimum loss data standards are outlined in sections 3.4.3, 3.4.4, 3.4.5 and 3.4.7. Footnote 10 The quality of institutions' loss data will be reviewed by OSFI periodically.

[Basel Framework OPE, 25.12]

Institutions using the SA that do not meet the loss data standards Footnote 11 are required to hold capital that is at a minimum equal to 100% of the BIC (i.e. ILM greater than or equal to one). The exclusion of internal loss data due to non-compliance with the loss data standards, and the application of any resulting adjustment to the ILM, must be publicly disclosed.

[Basel Framework OPE, 25.13]

3.4.3 General criteria on loss data identification, collection and treatment
The proper identification, collection and treatment of internal loss data are essential prerequisites to the capital calculation under the standardized approach. The general criteria for the use of the LC are as follows:

[Basel Framework, OPE 25.14]

	Internally generated loss data calculations used for regulatory capital purposes must be based on a 10-year observation period.

	[Basel Framework, OPE 25.15]

	Internal loss data are most relevant when clearly linked to an institution's current business activities, technological processes and risk management procedures. Therefore, an institution must have robust, documented procedures and processes for the identification, collection and treatment of internal loss data. Such procedures and processes must be subject to validation before the use of the loss data within the operational risk capital requirement measurement methodology, and to regular independent reviews by internal and/or external audit functions. At a minimum, this would include effective and independent challenge by the institution's second line of defense, and periodic independent review by the third line of defense.

	[Basel Framework, OPE 25.16]

	For risk management purposes, and to assist in supervisory validation and/or review, institutions should map historical internal loss data into the relevant Level 1 supervisory categories as defined in Annex 3-2 and to provide this data to OSFI upon request. The institution must document criteria for allocating losses to the specified event types.

	[Basel Framework, OPE 25.17]

	An institution's internal loss data must be comprehensive and capture all material Footnote 12 activities and exposures from all appropriate subsystems and geographic locations.

Footnote 13
[Basel Framework, OPE 25.18]

	For the purposes of the operational risk capital calculation, the minimum threshold, net of recoveries, for including a loss event in the data collection and calculation of average annual losses is set at $30,000.

Footnote 14
[Basel Framework, OPE 25.18]

	Aside from information on gross loss amounts, the institution must collect information about the reference dates of operational risk events, including:

		the date when the event happened or first began ("date of occurrence"), where available; the date on which the institution became aware of the event ("date of discovery"); and the date (or dates) when a loss event results in a loss, reserve or provision against a loss being recognized in the institution's profit and loss (P&L) accounts ("date of accounting").

	In addition, the institution must collect information on recoveries of gross loss amounts as well as descriptive information about the drivers or causes of the loss event.

Footnote 15
The level of detail of any descriptive information should be commensurate with the size of the gross loss amount.

	[Basel Framework, OPE 25.19]

	Operational loss events related to credit risk and that are accounted for in credit risk RWAs should not be included in the loss data set. Operational loss events that relate to credit risk, but are not accounted for in credit risk RWAs should be included in the loss data set.

	[Basel Framework, OPE 25.20]

	Operational risk losses related to market risk are treated as operational risk for the purposes of calculating minimum regulatory capital under this framework and will therefore be subject to the standardized approach for operational risk.

	[Basel Framework, OPE 25.21]

	Institutions must have processes to independently review the comprehensiveness and accuracy of loss data. At a minimum, this would include effective and independent challenge by the institution's second line of defense, and periodic independent review by the third line of defense.

	[Basel Framework, OPE 25.22]

3.4.4 Specific criteria on loss data identification, collection and treatment
Building an acceptable loss data set from the available internal data requires that the institution develop policies and procedures to address several features, including gross loss definition, reference date and grouped losses.

[Basel Framework, OPE 25.23]

Gross loss is a loss before recoveries of any type. Net loss is defined as the loss after taking into account the impact of recoveries. The recovery is an independent occurrence, related to the original loss event, separate in time, in which funds or inflows of economic benefits are received from a third party. Footnote 16 [Basel Framework, OPE 25.24]

Institutions must be able to identify the gross loss amounts, non-insurance recoveries, and insurance recoveries for all operational loss events. Institutions should use losses net of recoveries (including insurance recoveries) in the loss dataset. However, recoveries can be used to reduce losses only after the institution receives payment. Receivables do not count as recoveries. Verification of recovery payments received to net losses must be provided to OSFI upon request.

[Basel Framework, OPE 25.25]

The following items must be included in the gross loss computation of the loss data set:

	Direct charges, including impairments and settlements, to the institution's P&L accounts and write-downs due to the operational risk event; Costs incurred as a consequence of the event including:

		external expenses with a direct link to the operational risk event (e.g. legal expenses directly related to the event and fees paid to advisors, attorneys or suppliers); costs of repair or replacement, incurred to restore the position that was prevailing before the operational risk event; and uncollected revenue due to an operational risk event that can be quantified based on the contractual obligations of the institution's client or customer.

	Provisions or reserves accounted for in the P&L against the potential operational loss impact; Footnote 17 Losses stemming from operational risk events with a definitive financial impact, which are temporarily booked in transitory and/or suspense accounts and are not yet reflected in the P&L ("pending losses"); Footnote 18 and Negative economic impacts booked in a financial accounting period, due to operational risk events impacting the cash flows or financial statements of previous financial accounting periods ("timing losses"). Footnote 19 Timing losses should be included in the loss data set when they are due to operational risk events that span more than one financial accounting period. Footnote 20

Footnote 21
[Basel Framework, OPE 25.26]

The following items should be excluded from the gross loss computation of the loss data set:

	Costs of general maintenance contracts on property, plant or equipment; Internal or external expenditures to enhance the business after the operational risk losses: upgrades, improvements, risk assessment initiatives and enhancements; and Insurance premiums.

[Basel Framework, OPE 25.27]

Institutions must use the date of accounting for building the loss data set.

Footnote 22
This includes using the date of accounting for including losses related to legal events in the loss dataset. For legal loss events, the date of accounting is the date when a legal reserve is established for the probable estimated loss in the P&L.

[Basel Framework, OPE 25.28]

Losses caused by a common operational risk event or by related operational risk events over time, but posted to the accounts over several years, should be allocated to the corresponding years of the loss database, in line with their accounting treatment.

[Basel Framework, OPE 25.29]

3.4.5 Exclusion of losses from the Loss Component
Institutions may request OSFI approval to exclude certain operational loss events that are no longer relevant to the institution's risk profile. The exclusion of internal loss events should be rare and supported by strong justification. In evaluating the relevance of operational loss events to the institution's risk profile, OSFI will consider whether the cause of the loss event could occur in other areas of the institution's operations. Footnote 23 Taking settled legal exposures and divested businesses as examples, OSFI would expect the organization's analysis to demonstrate that there is no similar or residual legal exposure and that the excluded loss experience has no relevance to other continuing activities or products.

[Basel Framework, OPE 25.30]

The total loss amount and number of exclusions must be disclosed in accordance with the Pillar 3 requirements with appropriate narratives, including total loss amount and number of exclusions.

[Basel Framework, OPE 25.31]

A request for loss exclusions is subject to a materiality threshold such that the excluded loss event should be greater than 5% of the institution's average annual losses over the past 10 years. Loss events below the materiality threshold are not eligible for exclusion and should remain in the institution's operational risk loss database. In addition, losses can only be eligible for exclusion after being included in an institution's operational risk loss database for a minimum of three years. Losses related to divested activities will not be subject to a minimum operational risk loss database retention period.

[Basel Framework, OPE 25.32]

Chart 1












Text Description - Chart 1

Start:

Question 1: Is the loss event greater than 5% of average annual losses over the past ten years?

	If yes, proceed to Question 2.  
	If no, proceed to Output 1.

Question 2: Is the loss event related to a divested activity?

	If yes, proceed to Question 3.  
	If no, proceed to Question 4.

Output 1: Institutions should not submit an exclusion request as losses of this size are not eligible.

	END.

Question 3: Is the loss event still relevant to the institution's risk profile?

	If yes, proceed to Output 2.  
	If no, proceed to Output 3.

Question 4: Has the loss event been included in loss data for at least three years?

	If yes, proceed to Question 3.  
	If no, proceed to Output 2.

Output 2: OSFI will not approve the exclusion of the loss event.

	END.

Output 3: OSFI will approve the exclusion of the loss event.

	END.

3.4.6 Exclusions of divested activities from the Business Indicator
Institutions may request OSFI approval to exclude divested activities from the calculation of the BI. Such exclusions must be disclosed in accordance with the Pillar 3 requirements.

[Basel Framework, OPE 25.33]

3.4.7 Inclusion of BI items and operational loss events related to mergers and acquisitions
The measurement of the BI must include BI items that result from acquired businesses and merged entities. If three years of historical financial data is not available for an acquired business or merged entity, actual BI items for at least the previous year may be used for the BI calculation, and the BI items for the previous year may be used as a proxy for each of the other two years. Alternatively, institutions may use 125% of Adjusted Gross Income of the acquired business or merged entity (detailed in section 3.3) for the year prior to the merger or acquisition as a proxy for the acquired business or merged entity's BI.

[Basel Framework, OPE 25.34]

Institutions using the standardized approach must also include historical loss events from the acquired business or merged entity for the previous 10 years.

	If an acquired business or merged entity does not have historical high-quality loss data for the previous 10 years, the institution must estimate historical loss data for each of the years where data is missing for the purposes of calculating the LC (actual high-quality loss data should be used for those years where available).

		If the institution's ILM in the quarter prior to the merger or acquisition was less than or equal to one, operational losses for each missing year should be estimated as 1% Footnote 24 of the BI of the acquired business or merged entity at the time of acquisition.

Footnote 25
If the institution's ILM in the quarter prior to the merger or acquisition was greater than one, estimated operational losses for each missing year of the acquired business or merged entity in the 10-year window should be estimated as x% of the BI of the acquired business or merged entity at the time of acquisition, Footnote 25 where x = average annual net losses for the past ten years reported in the quarter prior to the merger / acquisition BI reported in the quarter prior to the merger / acquisition

	Post-acquisition or merger, if the collection of actual loss data for the acquired business or merged entity is not feasible immediately, the institution may temporarily estimate operational risk loss amounts for the acquired business or merged entity, using the methodology detailed in paragraph 40(a) above.

Annex 3-1: Definition of Business Indicator components
[Basel Framework OPE 10.2]

Business Indicator Definitions

		BI Component  
		Income Statement or balance sheet items  
		Description  
		Typical sub-items

		Interest, lease and dividend  
		Interest income

		Interest income from all financial assets and other interest income (includes interest income from financial and operating leases and profits from leased assets)

			Interest income from loans and advances, assets available for sale, assets held to maturity, trading assets, financial leases and operational leases Interest income from hedge accounting derivatives Other interest income Profits from leased assets

		Interest expenses

		Interest expenses from all financial liabilities and other interest expenses (includes interest expense from financial and operating leases, losses, depreciation and impairment of operating leased assets)

			Interest expenses from deposits, debt securities issued, financial leases, and operating leases Interest expenses from hedge accounting derivatives Other interest expenses Losses from leased assets Depreciation and impairment of operating leased assets

		Interest earning assets (balance sheet item) Footnote 26 Total gross outstanding loans, advances, interest bearing securities (including government bonds), and lease assets measured at the end of each financial year.

			None

		Dividend income  
		Dividend income from investments in stocks and funds not consolidated in the institution's financial statements, including dividend income from non-consolidated subsidiaries, associates and joint ventures.

			None

		Services  
		Fee and commission income  
		Income received from providing advice and services. Includes income received by the institution as an outsourcer of financial services.  
		Fee and commission income from:

			Securities (issuance, origination, reception, transmission, execution of orders on behalf of customers) Clearing and settlement; Asset management; Custody; Fiduciary transactions; Payment services; Structured finance; Servicing of securitisations; Loan commitments

		Fee and commission expenses  
		Expenses paid for receiving advice and services. Includes outsourcing fees paid by the institution for the supply of financial services, but not outsourcing fees paid for the supply of non-financial services (e.g. logistical, IT, human resources).  
		Fee and commission expenses from:

			Clearing and settlement; Custody; Servicing of securitisations; Loan commitments and guarantees received; and Foreign transactions

		Other operating income

		Income from ordinary banking operations not included in other BI items but of similar nature (income from operating leases should be excluded).

			Rental income from investment properties  
			Gains from non-current assets and disposal groups classified as held for sale not qualifying as discontinued operations (IFRS 5.37)

		Other operating expenses  
		Expenses and losses from ordinary banking operations not included in other BI items but of similar nature and from operational loss events (expenses from operating leases should be excluded).

			Losses from non-current assets and disposal groups classified as held for sale not qualifying as discontinued operations (IFRS 5.37) Losses incurred as a consequence of operational loss events (e.g. fines, penalties, settlements, replacement cost of damaged assets), which have not been provisioned/reserved for in previous years Expenses related to establishing provisions/reserves for operational loss events

		Financial  
		Net profit (loss) on the trading book  
		No description available

			Net profit/loss on trading assets and trading liabilities (derivatives, debt securities, equity securities, loans and advances, short positions, other assets and liabilities) Net profit/loss from hedge accounting Net profit/loss from exchange differences

		Net profit (loss) on the banking book  
		No description available

			Net profit/loss on financial assets and liabilities measured at fair value through profit and loss Realized gains/losses on financial assets and liabilities not measured at fair value through profit and loss (loans and advances, assets available for sale, assets held to maturity, financial liabilities measured at amortized cost Net profit/loss from hedge accounting Net profit/loss from exchange differences

The following P&L items do not contribute to any of the items of the BI:

Income and expenses from insurance or reinsurance businesses

Premiums paid and reimbursements/payments received from insurance or reinsurance policies purchased (including deposit insurance premiums) Administrative expenses, including staff expenses, outsourcing fees paid for the supply of non-financial services (e.g. logistical, human resources, information technology - IT), and other administrative expenses (e.g. IT, utilities, telephone, travel, office supplies, postage) Recovery of administrative expenses including recovery of payments on behalf of customers (e.g. taxes debited to customers) Expenses of premises and fixed assets (except when these expenses result from operational loss events) Depreciation/amortization of tangible and intangible assets (except depreciation related to operating lease assets, which should be included in financial and operating lease expenses) Provisions/reversal of provisions (e.g. on pensions, commitments and guarantees given) except for provisions related to operational loss events Expenses due to share capital repayable on demand Impairment/reversal of impairment (e.g. on financial assets, non-financial assets, investments in subsidiaries, joint ventures and associates) Changes in goodwill recognized in profit or loss Corporate income tax (tax based on profits including current tax and deferred).

[Basel Framework OPE 10.3]
Annex 3-2: Detailed Loss Event Type Classification
[Basel Framework OPE 25.17]

		Event-Type Category (Level 1)  
		Categories (Level 2)  
		Activity Examples (Level 3)

		Internal fraud

		Definition: Losses due to acts of a type intended to defraud, misappropriate property or circumvent regulations, the law or company policy, excluding diversity/ discrimination events, which involves at least one internal party

		Unauthorized Activity

			Transactions not reported (intentional)  
			Transaction type unauthorized (w/monetary loss) Mismarking of position (intentional)

		Theft and Fraud

			Fraud / credit fraud / worthless deposits  
			Theft / extortion / embezzlement / robbery Misappropriation of assets Malicious destruction of assets Forgery Check kiting Smuggling Account take-over / impersonation / etc.  
			Tax non-compliance / evasion (wilful)  
			Bribes / kickbacks  
			Insider trading (not on firm's account)

		External fraud

		Definition: Losses due to acts of a type intended to defraud, misappropriate property or circumvent the law, by a third party

		Theft and Fraud

			Theft/Robbery  
			Forgery  
			Check kiting

		Systems Security

			Hacking damage  
			Theft of information (w/monetary loss)

		Employment Practices and Workplace Safety

		Definition: Losses arising from acts inconsistent with employment, health or safety laws or agreements, from payment of personal injury claims, or from diversity / discrimination events

		Employee Relations

			Compensation, benefit, termination issues  
			Organized labour activity

		Safe Environment

			General liability (slip and fall, etc.)  
			Employee health and safety rules events Workers compensation

		Diversity and Discrimination  
		All discrimination types

		Clients, Products and Business Practices

		Definition: Losses arising from an unintentional or negligent failure to meet a professional obligation to specific clients (including fiduciary and suitability requirements), or from the nature or design of a product.

		Suitability, Disclosure and Fiduciary

			Fiduciary breaches / guideline violations  
			Suitability / disclosure issues (KYC, etc.)  
			Retail customer disclosure violations  
			Breach of privacy  
			Aggressive sales  
			Account churning  
			Misuse of confidential information  
			Lender liability

		Improper Business or Market Practices

			Antitrust  
			Improper trade / market practices  
			Market manipulation Insider trading (on firm's account) Unlicensed activity Money laundering

		Product Flaws  
		Product defects (unauthorized, etc.) Model errors

		Selection, Sponsorship and Exposure

			Failure to investigate client per guidelines Exceeding client exposure limits

		Advisory Activities  
		Disputes over performance of advisory activities

		Damage to Physical Assets

		Definition: Losses arising from loss or damage to physical assets from natural disaster or other events.

		Disasters and other events

			Natural disaster losses  
			Human losses from external sources (terrorism, vandalism)

		Business disruption and system failures

		Definition: Losses arising from disruption of business or system failures

		Systems

			Hardware  
			Software  
			Telecommunications  
			Utility outage / disruptions

		Execution, Delivery and Process Management

		Definition: Losses from failed transaction processing or process management, from relations with trade counterparties and vendors

		Transaction Capture, Execution and Maintenance

			Miscommunication  
			Data entry, maintenance or loading error  
			Missed deadline or responsibility  
			Model / system misoperation  
			Accounting error / entity attribution error Other task misperformance Delivery failure Collateral management failure Reference Data Maintenance

		Monitoring and Reporting

			Failed mandatory reporting obligation  
			Inaccurate external report (loss incurred)

		Customer Intake and Documentation

			Client permissions / disclaimers missing  
			Legal documents missing / incomplete

		Customer / Client Account Management

			Unapproved access given to accounts  
			Incorrect client records (loss incurred)  
			Negligent loss or damage of client assets

		Trade counterparties

			Non-client counterparty misperformance  
			Miscellaneous non-client counterparty disputes

		Vendors and suppliers

			Outsourcing  
			Vendor disputes

Footnotes
Footnote 1

The Basel Framework

Return to footnote 1 referrer

Footnote 2

Following the format: [Basel Framework, XXX yy.zz].

Return to footnote 2 referrer

Footnote 3

Legal risk includes, but is not limited to, exposure to fines, penalties, or punitive damages resulting from supervisory actions, as well as private settlements.

Return to footnote 3 referrer

Footnote 4

Adjusted Gross Income is defined in paragraph 9 of this chapter.

Return to footnote 4 referrer

Footnote 5

All dollar values in this guideline are in Canadian dollars unless otherwise noted.

Return to footnote 5 referrer

Footnote 6

For example, if fiscal 2024 Adjusted Gross Income is greater than $1.5 billion for the first time, the institution must use the Standardized Approach starting in fiscal Q1 2026 and continue using the SA until, at a minimum, the end of fiscal 2027.

Return to footnote 6 referrer

Footnote 7

Abs() represents the absolute value of the term or calculation within the brackets. The absolute value of net items (e.g. interest income – interest expense) should be calculated first year by year. Only after this year by year calculation should the average of the three years be calculated.

Return to footnote 7 referrer

Footnote 8

For example, if an institution had a BI = $50 billion, the BIC = ($50B × 0.12) + [($50B -$1.5B) × 0.03] + [($50B − $45B) × 0.03] = $7.605 B.

Return to footnote 8 referrer

Footnote 9

Net Interest and Non-Interest Income is line 22 from OSFI's P3 return.

Return to footnote 9 referrer

Footnote 10

Institutions are also required to meet OSFI's Data Maintenance Expectations for Institutions Using the Standardized Approach for Operational Risk Capital Data.

Return to footnote 10 referrer

Footnote 11

This includes Category I SMSBs with annual Adjusted Gross Income less than $1.5 billion that have been approved to use the SA, but do not have 10 years of high-quality loss data. These institutions must receive OSFI approval before they can set ILM<1 in the calculation of ORCSA.

Return to footnote 11 referrer

Footnote 12

10 years of actual or estimated loss data must be included for all parts of an institution. Estimation of more than 10% of an institution's total loss data over the past 10 years using the methodology detailed in paragraph 40(a) is only permitted on a temporary basis. Where this is the case, the institution must inform OSFI and come below the 10% threshold in a timely manner in order to continue to meet the loss data standards. (see section 3.4.7).

Return to footnote 12 referrer

Footnote 13

The financial impacts of events that an institution is responsible for should be included in the dataset as operational losses. For outsourced activities, the financial impacts of events that are paid by the outsourcer (rather than by the institution) are not operational losses to the institution. [Basel Framework, OPE 25.18 FAQ#1]

Return to footnote 13 referrer

Footnote 14

Loss impacts denominated in a foreign currency should be converted using the same exchange rate that is used to convert the institution's financial statements of the period the loss impacts were accounted for. [Basel Framework, OPE 25.18 FAQ#2]

Return to footnote 14 referrer

Footnote 15

Tax effects (e.g. reductions in corporate income tax liability due to operational losses) are not recoveries for purposes of the standardized approach for operational risk.

Return to footnote 15 referrer

Footnote 16

Examples of recoveries are payments received from insurers, repayments received from perpetrators of fraud, and recoveries of misdirected transfers.

Return to footnote 16 referrer

Footnote 17

When an institution makes a provision due to an operational loss event, such provision must be considered an operational loss immediately for the calculation of the Loss Component. When a charge-off (such as a settlement) eventually takes place later, only the difference between the initial provision and the charge-off (if any) should be added to the operational loss calculation. There should be no double counting of the same financial impacts in the calculation of operational losses. For example, if an institution takes a $1 million provision for a legal event in 2018, this should be included in the loss data for 2018. If the legal event is settled for $1.2 million in 2019, an additional $200,000 should be included in 2019. [Basel Framework, OPE 25.26 FAQ#1]

Return to footnote 17 referrer

Footnote 18

For instance, the impact of some events (e.g. legal events, damage to physical assets) may be known and clearly identifiable before these events are recognized through the establishment of a reserve. Moreover, the way this reserve is established (e.g. the date of discovery) can vary across institutions or countries.

Return to footnote 18 referrer

Footnote 19

Timing impacts typically relate to the occurrence of operational risk events that result in the temporary distortion of an institution's financial accounts (e.g. revenue overstatement, accounting errors and mark-to-market errors). While these events do not represent a true financial impact on the institution, (net impact over time is zero), if the error continues across more than one financial accounting period, it may represent a material misrepresentation of the institution's financial statements.

Return to footnote 19 referrer

Footnote 20

For example, when an institution refunds a client that was overbilled due to an operational failure, if the refund is provided in the same financial accounting period as the overbilling took place and thus no misrepresentation of the institution's financial statements occurs, there is no operational loss. However, if the refund occurs in a subsequent financial accounting period to the overbilling, it is considered a timing loss and should be included in the loss dataset if it exceeds the $30,000 minimum threshold (note that in this case the prior overbilling cannot be netted against the payment to the client as a recovery). [Basel Framework, OPE 25.26 FAQ #2]

Return to footnote 20 referrer

Footnote 21

For timing losses that are accounting errors, institutions must determine the threshold for inclusion of these events in the loss data set. This threshold may be greater than $30,000 but must be below the level used by the institution's external auditor for determining the summary of material misstatements within the annual financial statement audit. Accounting errors do not include errors in the mark-to-market valuation of financial assets or timing errors that involve third parties (e.g. customer over-billing or underpayment to third parties), which must be included in the loss data set when the amount of the timing loss exceeds $30,000.

Return to footnote 21 referrer

Footnote 22

For losses from uncollected revenue (paragraph 31(b)(iii)), institutions may use either the date in which the revenue should have been collected, or the date on which the decision was made not to collect the revenue.

Return to footnote 22 referrer

Footnote 23

This includes consideration of the extent to which the loss event was due to the lack of effective operational risk management policies, practices or controls within the institution.

Return to footnote 23 referrer

Footnote 24

1% of BI is the implied level of annual losses for an institution with an ILM=1 and a marginal coefficient of 15%.

Return to footnote 24 referrer

Footnote 25

Institutions may alternatively use 125% of Adjusted Gross Income (detailed in section 3.3) for the year prior to the merger or acquisition as a proxy for BI to calculate BI for an acquired business or merged entity at the time of acquisition.

Return to footnote 25 referrer

Footnote 26

For clarity, all outstanding credit obligations, including those of non-accrued status (e.g. non-performing loans), in the balance sheet should be included in the interest-earning assets. [Basel Framework, OPE 10.2 FAQ #1]

Return to footnote 26 referrer

Consultation status: Closed
The consultation for chapter 4 of the 2027 CAR Guideline closed on February 18, 2026. We'll keep the draft on the site until the final guideline is released.
Note
For institutions with a fiscal year ending October 31 or December 31, respectively.

The Capital Adequacy Requirements (CAR) for banks (including federal credit unions), bank holding companies, federally regulated trust companies, and federally regulated loan companies are set out in nine chapters, each of which has been issued as a separate document. This chapter should be read in conjunction with the other CAR chapters. The complete list of CAR chapters is as follows:

Chapter 1 - Overview of Risk-based Capital Requirements  
Chapter 2 - Definition of Capital  
Chapter 3 - Operational Risk  
Chapter 4 - Credit Risk – Standardized Approach  
Chapter 5 - Credit Risk – Internal Ratings-Based Approach  
Chapter 6 - Securitization  
Chapter 7 - Settlement and Counterparty Risk  
Chapter 8 - Credit Valuation Adjustment (CVA) Risk  
Chapter 9 - Market Risk

Please refer to OSFI's Corporate Governance Guideline for OSFI's expectations of institution Boards of Directors in regard to the management of capital and liquidity.
Chapter 4 – Credit Risk – Standardized Approach
This chapter is drawn from the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision's (BCBS) Basel framework published on the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) website.
Footnote 1
For reference, the Basel paragraph numbers that are associated with the text appearing in this chapter are indicated in square brackets at the end of each paragraph.
Footnote 2
Small and medium-sized deposit-taking institutions (SMSBs Footnote 3 ) which fall into Categories I or II, as defined in OSFI's SMSB Capital and Liquidity Requirements Guideline, Footnote 4 are eligible to apply a simplified treatment to the following asset class groupings, provided the total exposure to the asset class grouping to which the simplified treatment is being applied does not exceed $500 million:
Footnote 5
Footnote 6
Banks, securities firms and other financials treated as banks as defined in section 4.1.4.
Covered bonds as defined in section 4.1.5.
Corporates, Small and Medium Size Enterprises (SMEs) treated as Corporates, securities firms and other financials treated as Corporates, and specialized lending (Project Finance, Object Finance, Commodity Finance) as defined in section 4.1.7.
Qualifying revolving retail (including credit cards, charge cards, overdraft facilities and lines of credit) that meet the criteria set out in paragraph 83.
Other qualifying retail (all exposures within the retail asset class as defined in section 4.1.9 excluding qualifying revolving retail exposures set out above) that meet the criteria set out in paragraph 83.
Residential real estate (including Home Equity Lines of Credit) as defined in section 4.1.11.
Commercial real estate as defined in section 4.1.12.

The simplified treatments for the asset class grouping are described under the corresponding asset class. A summary of the asset classes for which the simplified treatment is available is provided in Appendix I and further detail regarding the application of the simplified treatment is provided in Appendix II.

4.1. Individual exposures
All exposures subject to the standardized approach should be risk-weighted net of specific allowances. Under IFRS 9, Stage 3 allowances and partial write-offs are considered to be specific allowances, while Stage 1 and Stage 2 allowances are considered to be general allowances.

The risk weight categories apply to on-balance sheet and off-balance sheet credit equivalent amounts with the exception of items that are deducted from capital as regulatory adjustments pursuant to section 2.3 of Chapter 2. [Basel Framework, CRE 21.5]

For certain asset classes (i.e. exposures to sovereigns and central banks, non-central government public sector entities, multilateral development banks, banks, securities firms and other financial institutions treated as banks, covered bonds, and corporates) risk weights under the standardized approach are assigned based on eligible credit ratings provided by external credit assessment institutions (ECAI) recognized by OSFI (see section 4.2 of this chapter). These mappings are reflected in tables 1 through 9 (with the exception of tables 2 and 6). A complete list of risk weight tables can be found in Appendix III.

Consistent with the BCBS guidance on the assessment of credit risk Footnote 7 and paragraphs 20.12 to 20.14 of the Supervisory Review Process standard, institutions must perform due diligence to ensure that they have an adequate understanding, at origination and thereafter on a regular basis, of the risk profile and characteristics of their counterparties. In cases where ratings are used, due diligence is necessary to assess the risk of the exposure for risk management purposes and whether the risk weight applied is appropriate and prudent. The due diligence requirements do not apply to the exposures set out in paragraphs 10 to 19 of this chapter. The sophistication of the due diligence should be appropriate to the size and complexity of institutions' activities. Institutions must take reasonable and adequate steps to assess the operating and financial performance levels and trends through internal credit analysis and/or other analytics outsourced to a third party, as appropriate for each counterparty. Institutions must be able to access information about their counterparties on a regular basis to complete due diligence analyses. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.4]

Due diligence analyses may include such elements as reviews of the entity's historical and projected financial information (e.g. as gained from annual reports, audited financial statements, and quarterly financial statements), industry and/or economic data, peer comparisons, and the entity's business plan projecting the activities and financial condition for the next 12 months. In addition, the due diligence analysis may rely on qualitative factors, such as the rated entity's governance framework, financial strategy, and the experience, credibility and competence of its management. A rating may be used while a due diligence review of the associated exposure is being conducted. New ratings (either due to an updated external rating from an External Credit Assessment Institution (ECAI), or the results of an institution's due diligence review) must be employed for capital purposes immediately upon the new rating being identified. Due diligence analyses should be completed at least annually.

For exposures to entities belonging to consolidated groups, due diligence should, to the extent possible, be performed at the solo entity level to which there is a credit exposure. In evaluating the repayment capacity of the solo entity, institutions are expected to take into account the support of the group and the potential for it to be adversely impacted by problems in the group. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.5]

Institutions should have in place effective internal policies, processes, systems and controls to ensure that the appropriate risk weights are assigned to counterparties. Institutions must be able to demonstrate to OSFI that their due diligence analyses are appropriate. As part of their supervisory review, OSFI will assess whether institutions have appropriately performed their due diligence analyses, and will take supervisory measures where these have not been done. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.6]

4.1.1 Exposures to sovereigns and central banks
Exposures to sovereigns and their central banks are risk weighted according to Table 1:

	Table 1: Risk weights for sovereign and central bank exposures


			External rating of sovereign

Footnote 8
AAA to AA−
A+ to A−
BBB+ to BBB−
BB+ to B−
Below B−
Unrated

			Risk Weight  
			0%  
			20%  
			50%  
			100%  
			150%  
			100%

[Basel Framework, CRE 20.7]

Under the BCBS framework, national regulatory authorities have national discretion to allow a lower risk weight to be applied to institutions' exposures to their sovereign (or central bank) of incorporation Footnote 9 denominated in domestic currency and funded Footnote 10 in that currency. Footnote 11 Institutions operating in Canada that have exposures to sovereigns meeting the above criteria may use the lower risk weight assigned to those sovereigns by their national regulatory authority. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.8]

For capital adequacy purposes, exposures to the Canadian sovereign and central bank are to be risk-weighted at 0%. Institutions should treat current tax assets Footnote 12 as sovereign exposures.

For exposures to sovereigns, institutions may use country risk scores assigned by Export Credit Agencies (ECAs). To qualify, an ECA must publish its risk scores and subscribe to the methodology agreed by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Institutions may choose to use the consensus risk scores of ECAs participating in the "Arrangement on Officially Supported Export Credits". Footnote 13 The OECD-agreed methodology establishes eight risk score categories associated with minimum export insurance premiums. These ECA risk scores correspond to risk weights as follows:

	Table 2: Risk weights for sovereign and central bank exposures


			ECA risk scores

			0-1  
			4 to 6

			Risk weight  
			0%  
			20%  
			50%  
			100%  
			150%

[Basel Framework, CRE 20.9]

Exposures to the Bank for International Settlements, the International Monetary Fund, the European Central Bank, the European Union, the European Stability Mechanism and the European Financial Stability Facility receive a 0% risk weight. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.10].

4.1.2 Exposures to non-central government public sector entities (PSEs)
PSEs are defined as:

	entities directly and wholly-owned by a government,

	school boards, hospitals, universities and social service programs that receive regular government financial support, and

	municipalities.

Exposures to PSEs receive a risk weight that is one category higher than the sovereign risk weight:

	Table 3: Risk weights for PSE exposures


			External rating of sovereign

			AAA to AA−  
			A+ to A−  
			BBB+ to BBB−  
			BB+ to B−  
			Below B−  
			Unrated

			Sovereign risk weight  
			0%  
			20%  
			50%  
			100%  
			150%  
			100%

			PSE risk weight  
			20%  
			50%  
			100%  
			100%  
			150%  
			100%

[Basel Framework, CRE 20.11]

Exposures to all provincial and territorial governments and agents of the federal, provincial or territorial government whose debts are, by virtue of their enabling legislation, obligations of the parent government will receive the same risk weight as the Government of Canada.

The PSE risk weight is meant for the financing of the PSE's own municipal and public services. Where PSEs other than Canadian provincial or territorial governments provide guarantees or other support arrangements other than in respect of the financing of their own municipal or public services, the PSE risk weight in Table 3 must not be used. Instead, the exposure to the PSE must be treated as a corporate exposure based on the external risk rating of the PSE.

PSEs in foreign jurisdictions should be given the same capital treatment as that applied by the regulatory authorities in that jurisdiction. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.12]

4.1.3 Exposures to multilateral development banks
For the purposes of calculating capital requirements, a Multilateral Development Bank (MDB) is an institution created by a group of countries that provides financing and professional advice for economic and social development projects. MDBs have large sovereign memberships and may include both developed countries and/or developing countries. Each MDB has its own independent legal and operational status, but with a similar mandate and a considerable number of joint owners. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.13]

A 0% risk weight will be applied to exposures to MDBs that fulfil to the BCBS's satisfaction the eligibility criteria provided below.

Footnote 14
The BCBS will continue to evaluate eligibility on a case-by-case basis. The eligibility criteria for MDBs risk-weighted at 0% are:

	Very high quality long-term issuer ratings, i.e. a majority of an MDB's external assessments must be AAA, Footnote 15 Either the shareholder structure is comprised of a significant proportion of sovereigns with long-term issuer credit assessments of AA− or better, or the majority of the MDB's fund-raising is in the form of paid-in equity/capital and there is little or no leverage,

	Strong shareholder support demonstrated by the amount of paid-in capital contributed by the shareholders; the amount of further capital the MDBs have the right to call, if required, to repay their liabilities; and continued capital contributions and new pledges from sovereign shareholders,

	Adequate level of capital and liquidity (a case-by-case approach is necessary in order to assess whether each MDB's capital and liquidity are adequate), and

	Strict statutory lending requirements and conservative financial policies, which would include among other conditions a structured approval process, internal creditworthiness and risk concentration limits (per country, sector, and individual exposure and credit category), large exposures approval by the board or a committee of the board, fixed repayment schedules, effective monitoring of use of proceeds, status review process, and rigorous assessment of risk and provisioning to loan loss reserve.

[Basel Framework, CRE 20.14]

For exposures to all other MDBs, institutions will assign to their MDB exposures the corresponding "base" risk weights determined by the external ratings according to Table 4, and the following risk weights apply:

	Table 4: Risk weights for MDB exposures


			External rating of MDB

			AAA to AA−  
			A+ to A−  
			BBB+ to BBB−  
			BB+ to B−  
			Below B−  
			Unrated

			Risk weight  
			20%  
			30%  
			50%  
			100%  
			150%  
			50%

[Basel Framework, CRE 20.15]

4.1.4 Exposures to banks
For the purposes of calculating capital requirements, an exposure to a deposit-taking institution or bank is defined as an exposure (including loans and senior debt instruments, unless considered as subordinated debt for the purposes of paragraph 78) to any federally and provincially regulated financial institution that is licensed to take deposits and lend money in the regular course of business and is subject to the appropriate prudential standards and level of supervision. Footnote 16 These include banks, trust or loan companies and co-operative credit societies. The treatment associated with subordinated bank debt and equities is addressed in paragraphs 70 to 78. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.16]

The term bank refers to those institutions that are regarded as banks in the countries in which they are incorporated and are supervised by the appropriate banking supervisory or monetary authority. In general, banks will engage in the business of banking and have the power to accept deposits in the regular course of business.

For banks incorporated in countries other than Canada, the definition of bank will be that used in the capital adequacy regulations of the host jurisdiction.

Category I and II SMSBs may apply a "base" risk weight of 40% (and a risk weight of 20% for short-term exposures with an original maturity of three months or less) to exposures to banks (as defined in paragraphs 23 to 25), and securities firms and other financial institutions treated as banks (see paragraph 56), provided that these exposures do not cumulatively exceed $500 million.

For institutions that do not qualify for the simplified treatment in paragraph 26, bank exposures will be risk-weighted based on the following hierarchy:

	External Credit Risk Assessment Approach (ECRA): This approach applies to all exposures to banks that are rated. Institutions will apply section 4.2 to determine which rating can be used and for which exposures.

	Standardized Credit Risk Assessment Approach (SCRA): This approach is for all exposures to banks that are unrated.

[Basel Framework, CRE 20.17]

External Credit Risk Assessment Approach

Institutions will assign to all their bank exposures the "base" risk weights of the corresponding external ratings according to Table 5.

	Table 5: Risk weights for bank exposures under the ECRA


			External rating of counterparty

			AAA to AA−  
			A+ to A−  
			BBB+ to BBB−  
			BB+ to B−  
			Below B−

			"Base" risk weight  
			20%  
			30%  
			50%  
			100%  
			150%

			Risk weight for short-term exposures  
			20%  
			20%  
			20%  
			50%  
			150%

[Basel Framework, CRE 20.18]

Exposures to banks with an original maturity of three months or less, as well as exposures to banks that arise from the movement of goods across national borders with an original maturity of six months or less Footnote 17 can be assigned a risk weight that corresponds to the risk weights for short term exposures in Table 5. For the purposes of identifying exposures to banks as short-term, the original maturity should be based on the drawn amount. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.19]

Institutions must perform due diligence to ensure that the external ratings appropriately and conservatively reflect the creditworthiness of the bank counterparties. If the due diligence analysis reflects higher risk characteristics than that implied by the external rating bucket of the exposure (ie AAA to AA–; A+ to A– etc), the institution must assign a risk weight at least one bucket higher than the "base" risk weight determined by the external rating. Due diligence analysis must never result in the application of a lower risk weight than that determined by the external rating. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.20]

Standardized Credit Risk Assessment Approach

Under the SCRA, institutions may choose to apply a 100% risk weight to all their unrated bank exposures, with prior notification to OSFI. If an institution chooses to adopt this option, it must use the 100% risk weight for all of its unrated bank exposures.

Alternatively, under the SCRA institutions may classify their unrated bank exposures into one of three risk-weight buckets (i.e. Grades A, B and C) and assign the corresponding risk weights in Table 6 below. For the purposes of the SCRA only, "published minimum regulatory requirements" in paragraphs 33 to 42 excludes liquidity standards. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.21]

	Table 6: Risk weights for bank exposures


			Credit risk assessment of counterparty

			Grade A  
			Grade B  
			Grade C

			"Base" risk weight  
			40%  
			75%  
			150%

			Bank risk weight for short-term exposures  
			20%  
			50%  
			150%

Under the Standardized Credit Risk Assessment Approach, exposures to banks without an external credit rating may receive a risk weight of 30%, provided that the counterparty bank has a Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) ratio which meets or exceeds 14% and a Tier 1 leverage ratio which meets or exceeds 5%. The counterparty bank must also satisfy all the requirements for Grade A classification in paragraphs 33 to 36. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.21]

SCRA: Grade A

Grade A refers to exposures to banks, where the counterparty bank has adequate capacity to meet its financial commitments (including repayments of principal and interest) in a timely manner, for the projected life of the assets or exposures and irrespective of the economic cycle and business conditions. For the purposes of this paragraph, an assessment of a counterparty bank's capacity to meet its financial commitments should be conducted at least annually. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.22]

A counterparty bank classified into Grade A must meet or exceed the published minimum regulatory requirements and buffers established by its national regulatory authority as implemented in the jurisdiction where it is incorporated, except for bank-specific minimum regulatory requirements or buffers that may be imposed through supervisory actions (e.g. via Pillar 2) and not made public. If such minimum regulatory requirements and buffers (other than bank-specific minimum requirements or buffers) are not publicly disclosed or otherwise made available by the counterparty bank then the counterparty bank must be assessed as Grade B or lower. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.23]

For exposures to counterparty banks incorporated in Canada, a counterparty bank classified into Grade A must meet or exceed the published minimum regulatory requirements and buffers established in this guideline and in the Leverage Requirements Guideline.

Footnote 18
Minimum regulatory capital requirements as a percentage of risk weighted assets in Canada, as set out in Chapter 1 of this guideline, are: 4.5% CET1 capital, 6.0% Tier 1 capital, 8.0% Total capital. In addition, banks are required to hold a Capital Conservation Buffer of 2.5% and a Countercyclical Buffer as set out in section 1.7.2 of this guideline. Banks designated by OSFI as Domestic Systemically Important Banks (D-SIB) are also required to hold a 1% D-SIB surcharge. Banks are required to have a minimum Leverage Ratio of 3%. Banks designated by OSFI as D-SIB are expected to maintain a leverage ratio that meets or exceeds 3.5% at all times.

If, as part of its due diligence, an institution assesses that a counterparty bank does not meet the definition of Grade A in paragraphs 33 and 34, exposures to the counterparty bank must be classified as Grade B or Grade C. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.24]

SCRA: Grade B

Grade B refers to exposures to banks where the counterparty bank is subject to substantial credit risk, such as repayment capacities that are dependent on stable or favourable economic or business conditions. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.25]

A counterparty bank classified into Grade B must meet or exceed the published minimum regulatory requirements (excluding buffers) established by its national supervisor as implemented in the jurisdiction where it is incorporated, except for bank-specific minimum regulatory requirements that may be imposed through supervisory actions (e.g. via Pillar 2) and not made public. If such minimum regulatory requirements are not publicly disclosed or otherwise made available by the counterparty bank, then the counterparty bank must be assessed as Grade C. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.26]

For exposures to counterparty banks incorporated in Canada, a counterparty bank classified into Grade B must meet or exceed the published minimum regulatory requirements and buffers established in this guideline and in the Leverage Requirements Guideline.

Institutions will classify all exposures that do not meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs 33 and 34 into Grade B, unless the exposure falls within Grade C under paragraphs 41 and 42. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.27]

SCRA: Grade C

Grade C refers to higher credit risk exposures to banks, where the counterparty bank has material default risks and limited margins of safety. For these counterparties, adverse business, financial, or economic conditions are very likely to lead, or have led, to an inability to meet their financial commitments. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.28]

At a minimum, if any of the following triggers is breached, an institution must classify the exposure into Grade C:

	The counterparty bank does not meet the criteria for being classified as Grade B with respect to its published minimum regulatory requirements, as set out in paragraphs 37 and 38; or

	Where audited financial statements are required, the external auditor has issued an adverse audit opinion or has expressed substantial doubt about the counterparty bank's ability to continue as a going concern in its financial statements or audited reports within the previous 12 months.

Even if these triggers are not breached, an institution may assess that the counterparty bank meets the definition in paragraph 41. In that case, the exposure to such counterparty bank must be classified into Grade C. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.29-20.30]

Exposures to banks with an original maturity of three months or less, as well as exposures to banks that arise from the movement of goods across national borders with an original maturity of six months or less, Footnote 19 can be assigned a risk weight that corresponds to the risk weights for short term exposures in Table 6. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.31]

To reflect transfer and convertibility risk under the SCRA, a risk-weight floor based on the risk weight applicable to exposures to the sovereign of the country where the bank counterparty is incorporated will be applied to the risk weight assigned to bank exposures. The sovereign floor applies when (i) the exposure is not in the local currency of the jurisdiction of incorporation of the debtor bank and (ii) for a borrowing booked in a branch of the debtor bank in a foreign jurisdiction, when the exposure is not in the local currency of the jurisdiction in which the branch operates. The sovereign floor will not apply to short-term (i.e. with a maturity below one year) self-liquidating, trade-related contingent items that arise from the movement of goods. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.32]

Exposures to parents of banks that are non-financial institutions are treated as corporate exposures.

4.1.5 Exposures to covered bonds
Covered bonds are bonds issued by a bank or mortgage institution that are subject by law to special public supervision designed to protect bond holders.
Footnote 20
Proceeds deriving from the issue of these bonds must be invested in conformity with the law in assets which, during the whole period of the validity of the bonds, are capable of covering claims attached to the bonds and which, in the event of the failure of the issuer, would be used on a priority basis for the reimbursement of the principal and payment of the accrued interest. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.33]

Category I and II SMSBs may apply a risk weight of 20% to exposures to covered bonds provided that these exposures meet the criteria set out in paragraphs 48 to 51 and do not cumulatively exceed $500 million.

Eligible assets

In order to be eligible for the risk weights set out in paragraph 52, the underlying assets (the cover pool) of covered bonds as defined in paragraph 46 shall meet the requirements set out in paragraph 51 and shall include any of the following:

	Exposures to, or exposures guaranteed by, sovereigns, their central banks, public sector entities or multilateral development banks;

	Exposures secured by residential real estate that meet the criteria set out in paragraph 90 and with a loan-to-value ratio of 80% or lower;

	Exposures secured by commercial real estate that meets the criteria set out in paragraph 90 and with a loan-to-value ratio of 60% or lower; or

	Exposures to, or exposures guaranteed by banks that qualify for a 30% or lower risk weight. However, such assets cannot exceed 15% of the cover pool.

[Basel Framework, CRE 20.34]

The nominal value of the pool of assets assigned to the covered bond instrument(s) by its issuer should exceed its nominal outstanding value by at least 5%. The value of the pool of assets for this purpose does not need to be that required by the legislative framework. However, if the legislative framework does not stipulate a requirement of at least 5%, the issuing institution needs to publicly disclose on a regular basis that their cover pool meets the 5% requirement in practice. In addition to the primary assets listed in this paragraph, additional collateral may include substitution assets (cash or short term liquid and secure assets held in substitution of the primary assets to top up the cover pool for management purposes) and derivatives entered into for the purposes of hedging the risks arising in the covered bond program. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.35]

The conditions set out in paragraphs 48 and 49 must be satisfied at the inception of the covered bond and throughout its remaining maturity. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.36]

Disclosure requirements

Exposures in the form of covered bonds are eligible for the treatment set out in paragraph 52, provided that the institution investing in the covered bonds can demonstrate to OSFI upon request that:

	it receives portfolio information at least on: (i) the value of the cover pool and outstanding covered bonds; (ii) the geographical distribution and type of cover assets, loan size, interest rate and currency risks; (iii) the maturity structure of cover assets and covered bonds; and (iv) the percentage of loans more than 90 days past due; and

	the issuer makes the information referred to in point (a) available to the institution at least semi-annually.

[Basel Framework, CRE 20.37]

Covered bonds that meet the criteria set out in paragraphs 48 to 51 shall be risk-weighted based on the issue-specific rating or the issuer's risk weight according to the rules outlined in Section 4.2. For covered bonds with issue-specific ratings, Footnote 21 the risk weight shall be determined according to Table 7:

	Table 7: Risk weights for rated covered bond exposures


			Issue-specific rating of the covered bond

			AAA to AA−  
			A+ to A−  
			BBB+ to BBB−  
			BB+ to B−  
			Below B−

			"Base" risk Weight  
			20%  
			30%  
			50%  
			100%  
			150%

[Basel Framework, CRE 20.38]

For unrated covered bonds, the risk weight would be inferred from the issuer's ECRA or SCRA risk weight according to Table 8:

	Table 8: Risk weights for unrated covered bond exposures


			Risk weights

			Risk weight of issuing institution  
			20%  
			30%  
			40%  
			50%  
			75%  
			100%  
			150%

			"Base" covered bond risk weight  
			20%  
			30%  
			40%  
			50%  
			75%  
			100%  
			150%

[Basel Framework, CRE 20.38]

Institutions must perform due diligence to ensure that the external ratings appropriately and conservatively reflect the creditworthiness of the covered bond and the issuing institution. If the due diligence analysis reflects higher risk characteristics than that implied by the external rating bucket of the exposure (i.e. AAA to AA–; A+ to A–; etc), the institution must assign a risk weight at least one bucket higher than the "base" risk weight determined by the external rating. Due diligence analysis must never result in the application of a lower risk weight than that determined by the external rating. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.39]

Covered bonds that do not meet the criteria set out in paragraphs 48 and 51 should be risk-weighted based on the external rating of the issuing institution.

4.1.6 Exposures to securities firms and other financial institutions
Exposures to securities firms and other financial institutions will be treated as exposures to banks provided these firms are subject to prudential standards and a level of supervision equivalent to those applied to banks under the Basel III framework (including, in particular, capital and liquidity requirements). Footnote 22 For the purposes of this guideline, exposures to insurance companies regulated by OSFI should be treated as exposures to banks. Exposures to all other securities firms and financial institutions will be treated as exposures to corporates. [Basel Framework CRE 20.40]
4.1.7 Exposures to corporates
For the purposes of calculating capital requirements, exposures to corporates include exposures (loans, bonds, receivables, etc) to incorporated entities, associations, partnerships, proprietorships, trusts, funds and other entities with similar characteristics, except those which qualify for one of the other exposure classes. The treatment associated with subordinated debt and equities of these counterparties is addressed in section 4.1.8. The corporate exposure class includes exposures to insurance companies and other financial corporates that do not meet the definitions of exposures to banks, or securities firms and other financial institutions, as determined in paragraphs 23 and 56, respectively. The corporate asset class also includes exposures to US Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs). The corporate exposure class does not include exposures to individuals. [Basel Framework CRE 20.41]

Category I and II SMSBs may apply a risk weight of 100% to exposures to corporates, corporate SMEs (defined as corporate exposures where the reported annual sales for the consolidated group of which the corporate counterparty is a part is less than or equal to $75 million for the most recent financial year), securities firms and other financial institutions treated as corporates (see paragraph 56), and specialized lending (see paragraphs 65 to 69), provided these exposures do not cumulatively exceed $500 million.

For institutions that do not qualify for the simplified treatment in paragraph 58, the corporate exposure class differentiates between the following subcategories:

	General corporate exposures:

		U.S. GSEs must be risk-weighted at 20%.

		Rated general corporate exposures must be risk-weighted according to either paragraph 60 or paragraph 61.

		Unrated general corporate exposures can be risk-weighted at 100% (together with all other corporate exposures as allowed in paragraph 60), or according to paragraph 62.

		Unrated exposures to Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs) must be treated according to paragraph 64.

	Specialized lending exposures (as defined in paragraph 65).

[Basel Framework, CRE 20.41]

General corporate exposures

Institutions may apply a 100% risk weight to all corporate exposures, with prior notification to OSFI. However, if an institution chooses to adopt this option, it must use the 100% risk weight for all of its corporate exposures.

Alternatively, institutions will assign "base" risk weights to their corporate exposures according to Table 9 and according to the rules for external ratings outlined in section 4.2. Institutions must perform due diligence to ensure that the external ratings appropriately and conservatively reflect the creditworthiness of the counterparties. If the due diligence analysis reflects higher risk characteristics than that implied by the external rating bucket of the exposure (i.e. AAA to AA–; A+ to A–; etc), the institution must assign a risk weight at least one bucket higher than the "base" risk weight determined by the external rating. Due diligence analysis must never result in the application of a lower risk weight than that determined by the external rating.

	Table 9: Risk weights for rated corporate exposures


			External rating of corporate

			AAA to AA−  
			A+ to A−  
			BBB+ to BBB−  
			BB+ to BB−  
			Below BB−

			Risk weight  
			20%  
			50%  
			75%  
			100%  
			150%

[Basel Framework, CRE 20.42-20.43]

Institutions may assign a 65% risk weight to unrated corporate exposures identified as "investment grade" in paragraph 63. Unrated corporate exposures that are not identified as "investment grade" pursuant to paragraph 63 will be assigned a risk weight of 150%. If an institution chooses not to identify all of its unrated corporate exposures as "investment grade" and "non-investment grade" according to paragraph 63, the risk weight for all of its unrated corporate exposures will be 100%. Footnote 23 [Basel Framework, CRE 20.44]

Institutions may assign a 65% risk weight to unrated exposures to corporates, excluding SMEs as defined in paragraph 64, that qualify for an "investment grade." An "investment grade" corporate is a corporate entity that has been determined to have adequate capacity to meet its financial commitments in a timely manner and its ability to do so is assessed to be robust against adverse changes in the economic cycle and business conditions. The entity must be assessed as "investment grade" according to an institution's own internal credit grading system. When making this determination, the institution should assess the corporate entity against the investment grade definition taking into account the complexity of its business model, performance against industry and peers, and risks posed by the entity's operating environment. Moreover, the corporate entity (or its parent company) must either have: (1) securities outstanding on a recognized securities exchange; or (2) reported annual sales for the consolidated group of which the corporate counterparty is a part of more than $75 million for the most recent financial year, and information on the corporate entity that institutions are able to access on a regular basis to complete due diligence analyses as described in paragraph 5 (e.g. annual reports, audited financial statements, quarterly financial statements, and business plans projecting the activities and financial condition for the next 12 months). [Basel Framework, CRE 20.46]

For unrated exposures to corporate SMEs (defined as corporate exposures where the reported annual sales for the consolidated group of which the corporate counterparty is a part is less than or equal to $75 million for the most recent financial year), an 85% risk weight will be applied. This treatment is to be applied independently of the option used for non-SMEs. Unrated exposures to SMEs that meet the criteria in paragraph 83 will be treated as regulatory retail SBE exposures and risk weighted at 75%. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.47]

Specialized lending

A corporate exposure will be treated as a specialized lending exposure if such lending possesses all of the following characteristics, either in legal form or economic substance:

	The exposure is not related to real estate and is within the definitions of object finance, project finance or commodities finance under paragraph 66. If the activity is related to real estate, the treatment would be determined in accordance with paragraphs 89 to 120;

	The exposure is to an entity (often a special purpose vehicle (SPV)) that was created specifically to finance and/or operate physical assets;

	The borrowing entity has few or no other material assets or activities, and therefore little or no independent capacity to repay the obligation, apart from the income that it receives from the asset(s) being financed. The primary source of repayment of the obligation is the income generated by the asset(s), rather than the independent capacity of the borrowing entity; and

	The terms of the obligation give the lender a substantial degree of control over the asset(s) and the income that it generates.

[Basel Framework, CRE 20.48]

The exposures described in paragraph 65 will be classified in one of the following three subcategories of specialized lending:

	Project finance refers to the method of funding in which the lender looks primarily to the revenues generated by a single project, both as the source of repayment and as security for the loan. This type of financing is usually for large, complex and expensive installations such as power plants, chemical processing plants, mines, transportation infrastructure, environment, media, and telecoms. Project finance may take the form of financing the construction of a new capital installation, or refinancing of an existing installation, with or without improvements.

	Object finance refers to the method of funding the acquisition of equipment (e.g. ships, aircraft, satellites, railcars, and fleets) where the repayment of the loan is dependent on the cash flows generated by the specific assets that have been financed and pledged or assigned to the lender.

	Commodities finance refers to short-term lending to finance reserves, inventories, or receivables of exchange-traded commodities (e.g. crude oil, metals, or crops), where the loan will be repaid from the proceeds of the sale of the commodity and the borrower has no independent capacity to repay the loan.

[Basel Framework, CRE 20.49]

Institutions will assign to their specialized lending exposures the risk weights determined by the issue-specific external ratings, if these are available, as provided in Table 9. Issuer ratings must not be used (i.e. paragraph 181 does not apply in the case of specialized lending exposures). [Basel Framework, CRE 20.50]

For specialized lending exposures for which an issue-specific external rating is not available, the following risk weights will apply:

	Object and commodities finance exposures will be risk-weighted at 100%;

	Project finance exposures will be risk-weighted at 130% during the pre-operational phase and 100% during the operational phase. Project finance exposures in the operational phase which are deemed to be high quality, as described in paragraph 69, will be risk weighted at 80%. For this purpose, operational phase is defined as the phase in which the entity that was specifically created to finance the project has (i) a positive net cash flow that is sufficient to cover any remaining contractual obligation, and (ii) declining long term debt.

[Basel Framework, CRE 20.51]

A high quality project finance exposure refers to an exposure to a project finance entity that is able to meet its financial commitments in a timely manner and its ability to do so is assessed to be robust against adverse changes in the economic cycle and business conditions. The following conditions must also be met:

	The project finance entity is restricted from acting to the detriment of the creditors (e.g. by not being able to issue additional debt without the consent of existing creditors);

	The project finance entity has sufficient reserve funds or other financial arrangements to cover the contingency funding and working capital requirements of the project;

	The revenues are availability-based

Footnote 24 or subject to a rate-of-return regulation or take-or-pay contract;

	The project finance entity's revenue depends on one main counterparty and this main counterparty shall be a central government, PSE or a corporate entity with a risk weight of 80% or lower;

	The contractual provisions governing the exposure to the project finance entity provide for a high degree of protection for creditors in case of a default of the project finance entity;

	The main counterparty or other counterparties which similarly comply with the eligibility criteria for the main counterparty will protect the creditors from the losses resulting from a termination of the project;

	All assets and contracts necessary to operate the project have been pledged to the creditors to the extent permitted by applicable law; and

	Creditors may assume control of the project finance entity in case of its default.

[Basel Framework, CRE 20.52]

4.1.8 Subordinated debt, equity and other capital instruments
The treatment described in paragraphs 71 to 78 applies to subordinated debt, equity and other regulatory capital instruments issued by either corporates or other institutions, provided that such instruments are not deducted from regulatory capital or risk-weighted at 250% according to section 2.3.1 of Chapter 2 of this guideline Footnote 25 . It also excludes equity investments in funds treated under paragraphs 146 to 164. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.53]

Equity exposures are defined on the basis of the economic substance of the instrument. They include both direct and indirect ownership interests, Footnote 26 whether voting or non-voting, in the assets and income of a commercial enterprise or of a financial institution that is not consolidated or deducted. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.54]

An instrument is considered to be an equity exposure if it meets all of the following requirements:

	It is irredeemable in the sense that the return of invested funds can be achieved only by the sale of the investment or sale of the rights to the investment or by the liquidation of the issuer;

	It does not embody an obligation on the part of the issuer; and

	It conveys a residual claim on the assets or income of the issuer.

[Basel Framework, CRE 20.54]

Additionally, any of the following instruments must be categorized as an equity exposure:

	An instrument with the same structure as those permitted as Tier 1 capital for banking organizations.

	An instrument that embodies an obligation on the part of the issuer and meets any of the following conditions:

		The issuer may defer indefinitely the settlement of the obligation;

		The obligation requires (or permits at the issuer's discretion) settlement by issuance of a fixed number of the issuer's equity shares;

		The obligation requires (or permits at the issuer's discretion) settlement by issuance of a variable number of the issuer's equity shares and (ceteris paribus) any change in the value of the obligation is attributable to, comparable to, and in the same direction as, the change in the value of a fixed number of the issuer's equity shares; Footnote 27 or

		The holder has the option to require that the obligation be settled in equity shares, unless either (i) in the case of a traded instrument, OSFI is content that the institution has demonstrated that the instrument trades more like the debt of the issuer than like its equity, or (ii) in the case of non-traded instruments, OSFI is content that the institution has demonstrated that the instrument should be treated as a debt position. In cases (i) and (ii), the institution may decompose the risks for regulatory purposes, with OSFI's consent.

[Basel Framework, CRE 20.55]

Debt obligations and other securities, partnerships, derivatives or other vehicles structured with the intent of conveying the economic substance of equity ownership are considered an equity holding.

Footnote 28
This includes liabilities from which the return is linked to that of equities.
Footnote 29
Conversely, equity investments that are structured with the intent of conveying the economic substance of debt holdings or securitization exposures would not be considered an equity holding.
Footnote 30
[Basel Framework, CRE 20.56]

Institutions will assign a risk weight of 400% to speculative unlisted equity exposures described in paragraph 76 and a risk weight of 250% to all other equity holdings, with the exception of those equity holdings referred to in paragraph 77. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.57]

Speculative unlisted equity exposures are defined as equity investments in unlisted companies that are invested for short-term resale purposes, or are considered venture capital or similar investments which are subject to price volatility and are acquired in anticipation of significant future capital gains, or are held with trading intent. Footnote 31 Investments in unlisted equities of corporate clients with which the institution has or intends to establish a long-term business relationship and debt-equity swaps for corporate restructuring purposes would be excluded. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.58]

Institutions may assign a risk weight of 100% to equity holdings made pursuant to national legislated programmes that provide significant subsidies for the investment to the institution and involve government oversight and restrictions on the equity investments. Such treatment can only be accorded to equity holdings up to an aggregate of 10% of the institution's Total capital. Examples of relevant government restrictions are limitations on the size and types of businesses in which the institution is investing, allowable amounts of ownership interests, geographical location and other pertinent factors that limit the potential risk of the investment to the institution. Equity investments made pursuant to the Specialized Financing (Banks) Regulations of the Bank Act qualify for this exclusion and are risk weighted at 100%. Footnote 32 [Basel Framework, CRE 20.59]

Institutions will assign a risk weight of 150% to subordinated debt and capital instruments other than equities. Any liabilities that meet the definition of "other TLAC liabilities" according to section 2.3.1 of Chapter 2 of this guideline and that are not deducted from regulatory capital are considered to be subordinated debt for the purposes of this paragraph. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.60]

Significant investments

Footnote 33 in commercial entities that, in aggregate, exceed 10% of CET1 capital should be fully deducted in the calculation of CET1 capital. Amounts less than this threshold are subject to a 250% risk-weight. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.62]
4.1.9 Retail exposures
The retail exposure class excludes exposures within the real estate exposure class. The retail exposure class includes the following types of exposures:

	exposures to an individual person or persons, and

	exposures to SBEs (that meet the definition in paragraph 64 and the criteria set out in paragraph 83).

[Basel Framework, CRE 20.63]

Category I and II SMSBs may apply a risk weight of 75% to all revolving retail exposures (which include credit cards, charge cards, overdraft facilities and lines of credit) provided that these exposures meet the criteria set out in paragraph 83 and do not cumulatively exceed $500 million. Category I and II SMSBs may also separately apply a risk weight of 75% to non-revolving retail exposures (i.e. retail exposures excluding revolving retail exposures), provided that these exposures meet the criteria set out in paragraph 83 and do not cumulatively exceed $500 million.

Exposures within the retail asset class will be treated according to paragraphs 83 to 88 below. For the purpose of determining risk-weighted assets, the retail exposure asset class consists of the following three sets of exposures:

	Regulatory retail exposures to transactors.

	Regulatory retail exposures that do not arise from exposures to transactors.

	Non-regulatory retail exposures.

[Basel Framework, CRE 20.64]

Regulatory retail exposures are defined as retail exposures that meet all of the criteria listed below:

	Orientation criterion ─ the exposure is to an individual person or persons or to a small business.

	Product criterion ─ the exposure takes the form of any of the following: revolving credits and lines of credit (including credit cards, charge cards and overdrafts), personal term loans and leases (e.g. instalment loans, auto loans and leases, student and educational loans, personal finance) and small business facilities and commitments. Mortgage loans, derivatives and other securities (such as bonds and equities) whether listed or not, are specifically excluded from this category.

	Low value of individual exposures ─ the maximum aggregated retail exposure to one counterparty cannot exceed an absolute threshold of $1.50 million. Small business loans extended through or guaranteed by an individual are subject to the same exposure threshold.

	Granularity criterion ─ no aggregated exposure to one counterparty Footnote 34 can exceed 0.2% Footnote 35 of the overall regulatory retail portfolio, unless an alternative measure of granularity has been specifically approved by OSFI to ensure sufficient diversification of the retail portfolio. Defaulted retail exposures are to be excluded from the overall regulatory retail portfolio when assessing the granularity criterion.

[Basel Framework, CRE 20.65]

Transactors are a sub-set of exposures under the qualifying revolving retail (QRR) asset class. QRR exposures are exposures to individuals that are revolving, unsecured, and uncommitted (both contractually and in practice). In this context, revolving exposures are defined as those where customers' outstanding balances are permitted to fluctuate based on their decisions to borrow and repay, up to a limit established by the institution. In addition, the maximum exposure to a single individual cannot exceed $150,000.

Obligors are considered transactors in relation to facilities with an interest-free grace period, such as credit cards and charge cards, where the total accrued interest over the previous 12 months is less than $50. Obligors are considered transactors in relation to overdraft facilities or lines of credit if the facility has not been drawn down at any point in time over the preceding 12 months. Footnote 36 [Basel Framework, CRE 20.66]

In cases where institutions are unable to ensure compliance with the retail thresholds (for both QRR and total aggregate exposures), they must be able to, on at least an annual basis, verify and document that the amount of exposures that breach these thresholds are less than 2% of retail exposures, and upon request, provide this documentation to OSFI. If the amount of exposures that breach the exposure threshold is above 2% of retail exposures, the institution must notify OSFI immediately and develop a plan to either reduce the materiality of these exposures or move these exposures to the Corporate asset class.

Non-regulatory retail exposures are defined as exposures to an individual person or persons that do not meet all of the criteria in paragraph 83. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.67]

The risk weights that apply to exposures in the retail asset class are as follows:

	Regulatory retail exposures that arise from exposures to transactors (as defined in paragraph 84) will be risk-weighted at 15%.

	Regulatory retail exposures that do not arise from exposures to transactors (as defined in paragraph 84) will be risk-weighted at 75%.

	Non-regulatory retail exposures will be risk weighted at 100%.

[Basel Framework, CRE 20.68]

4.1.10 Real estate exposures
Real estate is immovable property that is land, including agricultural land and forest, or anything treated as attached to land, in particular buildings, in contrast to being treated as movable/personal property. The risk weights for real estate exposures are described in section 4.1.11 (residential real estate) and section 4.1.12 (commercial real estate).

To apply the risk weights for real estate exposures set out in sections 4.1.11 and 4.1.12, the loan must meet the following six requirements:

	Finished property: the property securing the exposure must be fully completed. This requirement does not apply to forest and agricultural land. Loans to individuals that are secured by residential property under construction or land upon which residential property would be constructed, may apply the risk-weight treatments described in paragraph 98 provided that: (i) the property is a one-to-four family residential housing unit that will be the primary residence of the borrower Footnote 37 and the lending to the individual is not, in effect, indirectly financing land acquisition, development and construction exposures described in paragraph 111; or (ii) they meet the four qualifying criteria for regulatory retail exposures set out in paragraph 83.

	Legal enforceability: any claim on the property taken must be legally enforceable in all relevant jurisdictions. The collateral agreement and the legal process underpinning it must be such that they provide for the institution to realize the value of the property within a reasonable time frame.

	Claims over the property: the loan is a claim over the property where the lender institution holds the senior lien over the property, or a single institution holds the senior lien and any sequentially lower ranking lien(s) (i.e. no other party holds a senior or intervening lien on the property to which the collateral mortgage applies) over the same property. However, where junior liens provide the holder with a claim for collateral that is legally enforceable and constitute an effective credit risk mitigant, junior liens held by a different institution than the one holding the senior lien may also be recognized, Footnote 38 provided that: (i) each institution holding a lien on a property can initiate the sale of the property independently from other entities holding a lien on the property; (ii) where the sale of the property is not carried out by means of a public auction, entities holding a senior lien take reasonable steps to obtain a fair market value or the best price that may be obtained in the circumstances when exercising any power of sale on their own (i.e. it is not possible for the entity holding the senior lien to sell the property on its own at a discounted value in detriment of the junior lien); Footnote 39 and (iii) the loans are not more than 90 days past due and do not, collectively, exceed a loan-to-value (LTV) ratio of 80%.

	Ability of the borrower to repay: the borrower must meet the underwriting requirements set according to paragraph 91.

	Prudent value of property: the property must be valued according to the criteria in paragraph 93 for determining the value in the LTV ratio. Moreover, the value of the property must not depend materially on the performance of the borrower.

	Required documentation: all the information required at loan origination and for monitoring purposes must be properly documented, including information on the ability of the borrower to repay and on the valuation of the property.

[Basel Framework, CRE 20.71]

Institutions should have in place underwriting policies with respect to the granting of mortgage loans that include the assessment of the ability of the borrower to repay. Underwriting policies must define a metric(s) (such as the loan's debt service coverage ratio) and specify its (their) corresponding relevant level(s) to conduct such an assessment. Footnote 40 Underwriting policies must also be appropriate when the repayment of the mortgage loan depends materially on the cash flows generated by the property, including relevant metrics (such as an occupancy rate of the property). [Basel Framework, CRE 20.73]

The LTV ratio is the amount of the loan divided by the value of the property. The value of the property will be maintained at the value measured at origination unless OSFI elects to require institutions to revise the property value downward. The value must be adjusted if an extraordinary, idiosyncratic event occurs resulting in a permanent reduction of the property value. If the value has been adjusted downwards, a subsequent upwards adjustment can be made but not to a higher value than the value at origination. Modifications made to the property that unequivocally increase its value could also be considered in the LTV. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.74]

When calculating the LTV ratio, the loan amount will be reduced as the loan amortizes. The LTV ratio should be re-calculated upon any refinancing, and whenever deemed prudent. The LTV ratio must be prudently calculated in accordance with the following requirements:

	Amount of the loan: includes the outstanding loan amount and any undrawn committed amount of the mortgage loan.

Footnote 41
The loan amount must be calculated gross of any provisions and other risk mitigants, except for pledged deposits accounts with the lending institution that meet all requirements for on-balance sheet netting and have been unconditionally and irrevocably pledged for the sole purposes of redemption of the mortgage loan. Footnote 42 Value of the property: the valuation must be assessed independently using prudently conservative valuation criteria. The valuation must be done independently from the institution's mortgage acquisition, loan processing and loan decision process. To ensure that the value of the property is appraised in a prudently conservative manner, the valuation must exclude expectations on price increases and must be adjusted to take into account the potential for the current market price to be significantly above the value that would be sustainable over the life of the loan. Footnote 43 In addition, institutions should assess and adjust, as appropriate, the value of the property for the purposes of calculating the LTV ratio by considering relevant risk factors that make the underlying property more vulnerable to a significant house price correction or that may significantly affect the marketability of the property. If a market value can be determined, the valuation should not be higher than the market value. Footnote 44 [Basel Framework, CRE 20.75]

Mortgage insurance in Canada is considered a guarantee and institutions may recognize the risk-mitigating effect of the guarantee where the operational requirements included in paragraphs 264 and 265 for guarantees as well as the additional operational requirements for mortgage insurance are met. Footnote 45 The risk weight applied to the insured mortgage after the recognition of the guarantee will be calculated according to paragraph 273 to 275. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.76]

4.1.11 Exposures secured by residential real estate
A residential property is an immovable property that has the nature of a dwelling and satisfies all applicable laws and regulations enabling the property to be occupied for housing purposes. A residential real estate exposure is an exposure secured by a residential property (such as individual condominium residences and one-to four-unit residences) made to a person(s) or guaranteed by a person(s), provided that such loans are not 90 days or more past due. Footnote 46 Investments in hotel properties and time-shares are excluded from the definition of qualifying residential property. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.77]

Category I and II SMSBs may apply a risk weight of 35% to all residential real estate exposures with an LTV ratio equal to or below 80% and a risk weight of 75% all residential real estate exposures with an LTV ratio above 80%, provided that these exposures meet the criteria set out in paragraph 90 and do not cumulatively exceed $500 million.

Guideline B-20 states: "OSFI expects that FRFIs will maintain adequate regulatory capital levels to properly reflect the risks being undertaken through the underwriting and/or acquisition of residential mortgages." Residential real estate exposures that do not meet OSFI's expectations related to Guideline B-20, are subject to either the risk weights outlined in Table 11 of Chapter 4 or to a 0.22 correlation (R) factor in paragraph 79 of Chapter 5. Footnote 47

Footnote 48
For institutions that do not qualify for the simplified treatment in paragraph 96, residential real estate exposures are divided into two categories:

	General residential real estate: exposures where paragraph 101 (income-producing real estate), and paragraph 111 (land acquisition, development and construction) are not applicable.

	Income producing residential real estate: exposures where the criteria in paragraph 101 are met, but those in paragraph 111 (land acquisition, development and construction) are not applicable.

Where the requirements for real estate exposures in paragraph 90 are met and provided that the exposure does not meet the requirements for income-producing residential real estate in paragraph 101 nor the requirements for land acquisition, development and construction in paragraph 111, the risk weight to be assigned to the total exposure amount will be determined based on the exposure's LTV ratio in Table 10. In calculating the LTV ratio for purposes of Home equity lines of credit (HELOC), a 75% credit conversion factor should be applied to the undrawn exposure of the HELOC.

	Table 10: Risk weights for general residential real estate exposures (Repayment is not materially dependent on cash flows generated by property)


			LTV ≤  
			50%  
			50% <  
			LTV ≤  
			60%  
			60% <  
			LTV ≤  
			70%  
			70% <  
			LTV ≤  
			80%  
			80% <  
			LTV ≤  
			90%  
			90% <  
			LTV ≤  
			100%  
			LTV  
			> 100

			Risk weight  
			20%  
			25%  
			30%  
			35%  
			40%  
			50%  
			70%

[Basel Framework, CRE 20.82]

For exposures where any of the requirements for real estate exposures described in paragraph 90 are not met and paragraphs 101 (income-producing real estate), and 111 (land acquisition, development and construction) are not applicable, the risk weight applicable will be the risk weight of the counterparty. For exposures to individuals and SBEs (as defined in paragraph 80) the risk weight applied will be 75%. For exposures to SMEs, the risk weight applied will be 85%. For exposures to other counterparties, the risk weight applied is the risk weight that would be assigned to an unsecured exposure to that counterparty. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.88-20.89]

For an exposure to (i) a variable rate fixed-payment residential mortgage with an LTV above 65% for which payments are insufficient to cover the interest component of the mortgage for three or more consecutive months due to increases in interest rates; (ii) when the prospects for servicing the loan materially depend Footnote 49 on the cash flows generated by the property securing the loan rather than on the underlying capacity of the borrower to service the debt from other sources, and provided that paragraph 111 is not applicable, the exposure will be risk-weighted as follows:

	if the requirements for real estate exposures in paragraph 90 are met, according to the LTV ratio as set out in Table 11 below; and

	if any of the requirements for real estate exposures in paragraph 90 are not met, at 150%.

	Table 11: Risk weights for income-producing residential real estate exposures  
	(Repayment is materially dependent on cash flows generated by property)


			LTV ≤  
			50%  
			50% <  
			LTV ≤  
			60%  
			60% <  
			LTV ≤  
			70%  
			70% <  
			LTV ≤  
			80%  
			80% <  
			LTV ≤  
			90%  
			90% <  
			LTV ≤  
			100%  
			LTV >

			Risk weight  
			30%  
			35%  
			45%  
			50%  
			60%  
			75%  
			105%

[Basel Framework, CRE 20.80 and 20.84]

The primary source of these cash flows would generally be lease or rental payments, or the sale of the residential property. The distinguishing characteristic of these exposures compared to other residential real estate exposures is that both the servicing of the loan and the prospects for recovery in the event of default depend materially on the cash flows generated by the property securing the exposure. The loan should be considered materially dependent on cash flows generated by the property and subject to the risk weights in Table 11, if more than 50% of the borrower's income used in the institution's assessment of the borrower's ability to service the loan is from cash flows generated from the residential property. Income generated from other residential real estate properties should not be considered when determining whether the loan is materially dependent on the borrower's income. In cases where the borrower has multiple mortgages, the income used for this assessment should be adjusted by removing income used to validate the borrower's ability to service mortgages on other properties. Institutions may alternatively categorize all investment or rental properties, as identified using their internal property purpose indicators, as income producing and subject to the risk-weights in Table 11, provided that their internal policies for investment and rental properties can be shown, at OSFI's request, to require that less than 50% of the gross income from the property be used in the institution's assessment of the borrower's ability to service the loan. [Basel Framework, 20.79]

The following types of exposures are excluded from the treatment described in paragraph 101 and are subject to the treatment described in paragraphs 99 to 100:

	An exposure secured by a property that is the borrower's primary residence;

	An exposure secured by residential real estate property to associations or cooperatives of individuals that are regulated under national law and exist with the only purpose of granting its members the use of a primary residence in the property securing the loans; and

	An exposure secured by residential real estate property to public housing companies and not-for-profit associations regulated under national law that exist to serve social purposes and to offer tenants long-term housing.

[Basel Framework, CRE 20.81]

4.1.12 Exposures secured by commercial real estate
A commercial real estate exposure is an exposure secured by any immovable property that is not a residential real estate as defined in paragraph 95. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.78]

Category I and II SMSBs may apply a risk weight of 100% to all commercial real estate exposures, provided that these exposures meet the criteria set out in paragraph 90 and do not cumulatively exceed $500 million.

Commercial real estate exposures are divided into two categories:

	General commercial real estate: exposures where paragraphs 109 (income-producing real estate), and 111 (land acquisition, development and construction) are not applicable.

	Income producing commercial real estate: exposures where the criteria in paragraph 109 are met, but those in paragraph 111 (land acquisition, development and construction) are not applicable.

Where the requirements in paragraph 90 are met and provided that paragraphs 109 and 111 are not applicable, the risk weight to be assigned to the total exposure amount will be determined based on the exposure's LTV ratio in Table 12. For the purpose of paragraphs 107 to 108, "risk weight of the counterparty" refers to 75% for exposures to individuals and SBEs (as defined in paragraph 80), 85% for exposures to SMEs and for exposures to other counterparties, the risk weight applied is the risk weight that would be assigned to an unsecured exposure to that counterparty.

	Table 12: Risk weights for general commercial real estate exposures  
	(Repayment is not materially dependent on cash flows generated by property)


			LTV ≤ 60%  
			LTV > 60%

			Risk weight  
			Min (60%, RW of counterparty)  
			RW of counterparty

[Basel Framework, CRE 20.85]

Where any of the requirements in paragraph 90 are not met and paragraphs 109 to 114 are not applicable, the risk weight applied will be the risk weight of the counterparty. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.88-20.89]

When the prospects for servicing the loan materially depend Footnote 50 on the cash flows generated by the property securing the loan rather than on the underlying capacity of the borrower to service the debt from other sources, Footnote 51 and provided that paragraph 111 is not applicable, the exposure will be risk-weighted as follows:

	If the requirements in paragraph 90 are met, according to the LTV ratio as set out in the risk-weight Table 13 below; and

	If any of the requirements of paragraph 90 are not met, at 150%.

	Table 13: Risk weights for income-producing commercial real estate exposures  
	(Repayment is materially dependent on cash flows generated by property)


			LTV ≤ 60%  
			60% < LTV ≤ 80%  
			LTV > 80%

			Risk weight  
			70%  
			90%  
			110%

[Basel Framework, CRE 20.87‐20.89]

The primary source of these cash flows would generally be lease or rental payments, or the sale, of the commercial property. The distinguishing characteristic of these exposures compared to other commercial real estate exposures is that both the servicing of the loan and the recovery in the event of default depend materially on the cash flows generated by the property securing the exposure. The loan should be considered materially dependent on cash flows from the property if more than 50% of the borrower's income used in the institution's assessment of the borrower's ability to service the loan is from cash flows generated by the commercial property. Income generated from other commercial real estate properties should not be considered when determining whether the loan is materially dependent on the borrower's income. Institutions may alternatively categorize all investment or rental properties, as identified using their internal property purpose indicators, as income producing and subject to the risk-weights in Table 13, provided that their internal policies for investment and rental properties can be shown, at OSFI's request, to require that less than 50% of the gross income from the property be used in the institution's assessment of the borrower's ability to service the loan. [Basel Framework CRE 20.79 and CRE 20.80]

4.1.13 Land acquisition, development and construction exposures
Land acquisition, development and construction (ADC) exposures Footnote 52 refers to loans to companies or SPVs financing any of the land acquisition for development and construction purposes, or development and construction of any residential or commercial property. ADC exposures will be risk-weighted at 150%, unless they meet the criteria in paragraph 113. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.90]

An ADC exposure is one for which the source of repayment is either the future uncertain sale of the property or cash flows which are substantially uncertain. Loans to corporates or SPVs where repayment of the loan depends on the credit quality of the corporate and not on the future income generated by the property, will be out of scope for the ADC treatment, and should be treated as a corporate exposure. Accordingly, ADC loans may be treated as corporate exposures provided any of the following criteria are met: (i) the property is being developed for the borrower's own use, with a reasonable expectation that no more than 50% of the total property will be leased; or (ii) based on a 3-year average, and for either the borrower or guarantor of an ADC loan, revenue generated from all ADC activities does not total more than 25% of the total revenue of the borrower or guarantor of the ADC loan.

ADC exposures to residential real estate projects may be risk weighted at 100%, provided that the following criteria are met:

	Prudential underwriting standards meet the requirements in paragraph 91 where applicable;

	For construction projects, pre-sale contracts amount to over 50% of total contracts or equity at risk equivalent to at least 25% of the real estate's appraised as-completed value has been contributed by the borrower. Pre-sale contracts must be legally binding written contracts and the purchaser/renter must have made a substantial cash deposit which is subject to forfeiture if the contract is terminated.

	For land acquisition, LTV does not exceed 60%.

In the event the institution holds the exposure in a subordinated or a mezzanine tranche of an ADC loan structure, the exposure should be risk-weighted at 300%. If an institution holds both the senior and the subordinated/mezzanine tranche(s) in the same ADC loan structure, the institution may treat the entire risk exposure as a single loan and use the risk weights in this section.

[Basel Framework, CRE 20.91]

High-rise residential construction projects (defined here as a building with five or more storeys) are only eligible for the 100% risk weight if the 50% pre-sale requirement is met. Purpose-built rental construction projects are excluded from this requirement and may continue to be eligible for the 100% risk weight if it meets the criteria set out in paragraph 113. A construction or development property can be considered residential if at least 50% of its square footage is intended for residential purposes. For mixed-use high-rise development projects, the percentage of total contracts that have been pre-sold should be based on the percentage of the overall project that has been pre-sold (i.e. residential and commercial combined). For mixed use low-rise projects, equity at risk should be calculated on a total project basis.

4.1.14 Reverse mortgages
The Standardized Approach must be used for reverse mortgage exposures. Reverse mortgages are non-recourse loans secured by property that have no defined term and no monthly repayment of principal and interest. The amount owing on a reverse mortgage grows with time as interest is accrued and deferred. The loan is generally repaid from the net proceeds of the sale (i.e. net of disposition costs) after the borrower has vacated the property. Reverse mortgage lenders are repaid the lesser of the fair market value of the home (less disposition costs) at the time it is sold and the amount of the loan. Assuming there is no event of default (for example, failure to pay property taxes and insurance, or failure to keep the home in a good state of repair), reverse mortgage lenders have no recourse to the borrower if the amount realized on the sale of the home is less than the amount owing on the reverse mortgage.

A reverse mortgage exposure includes all advances, plus accrued interest and 40% of undrawn amounts, net of specific allowances. Undrawn amounts on reverse mortgages do not include future loan growth due to capitalizing interest. Undrawn amounts are treated as undrawn commitments and are subject to a credit conversion factor of 40%. A reverse mortgage exposure qualifies for the risk weights set out in Table 14 provided that all of the following conditions are met:

	Disposition costs on the mortgaged property and risk of appraisal error are not expected to exceed 15%-20% of the current appraised value

	The criteria for qualifying residential mortgages set out in section 4.1.11 are met (except that there is no requirement for recourse to the borrower for a deficiency)

	The value of the property must be appraised independently using prudently conservative valuation criteria. The valuation must be done independently from the institution's mortgage acquisition, loan processing and loan decision process. To ensure that the value of the property is appraised in a prudently conservative manner, the valuation must exclude expectations on price increases and must be adjusted to take into account the potential for the current market price to be significantly above the value that would be sustainable over the life of the loan. Footnote 53 In addition, institutions should assess and adjust, as appropriate, the value of the property for the purposes of calculating the LTV by considering relevant risk factors that make the underlying property more vulnerable to a significant house price correction or that may significantly affect the marketability of the property. If a market value can be determined, the valuation should not be higher than the market value.

Further, for a reverse mortgage to qualify for the risk weights set out in Table 14, the underwriting institution must have, at mortgage inception and at the time such risk weight is being considered, each of the following:

	Documented and prudent underwriting standards, including systematic methods for estimating expected occupancy term (which should at minimum refer to standard mortality tables), future real estate appreciation / depreciation, future interest rates on the reverse mortgage and determining appropriate levels for maximum initial LTVs and a maximum dollar amount that may be lent

	Documented procedures for monitoring loan to value ratios on an ongoing basis, based on outstanding loan amounts, including accrued interest, undrawn balances and up to date property values

	Documented procedures for obtaining independent reappraisals of the properties at regular intervals, not less than once every five years, with more frequent appraisals as loan to value ratios approach 80%

	A documented process to ensure timely reappraisal of properties in a major urban centre where resale home prices in that urban centre decline by more than 10%

	Documented procedures for ensuring that borrowers remain in compliance with loan conditions

	A rigorous method for stress testing the reverse mortgage portfolio that addresses expected occupancy, property value and interest rate assumptions

	Ongoing monitoring of reverse mortgage stress testing that is incorporated in the institution's Internal Capital Adequacy Assessment Process and capital planning process.

For purposes of calculating risk weighted assets, current LTV is defined as:

	The reverse mortgage exposure (as defined in paragraph 116) divided by:

	The most recently appraised value of the property.

Table 14 sets out the risk weights that apply to reverse mortgage exposures:

	Table 14: Risk weights for reverse mortgage exposures

			Current LTV  
			Risk Weight

			≤ 35%  
			30%

			> 35% and ≤ 55%  
			35%

			> 55% and ≤ 65%  
			45%

			> 65% and ≤ 80%  
			60%

			> 80%  
			Partial deduction

In particular:

	A reverse mortgage exposure that has a current LTV less than or equal to 35% is risk weighted at 30%.

	A reverse mortgage exposure that has a current LTV greater than 35%, but less than or equal to 55%, is risk weighted at 35%.

	A reverse mortgage exposure that has a current LTV greater than 55%, but less than or equal to 65%, is risk weighted at 45%.

	A reverse mortgage exposure that has a current LTV greater than 65%, but less than or equal to 80%, is risk weighted at 60%.

	Where a reverse mortgage exposure has a current LTV greater than 80%, the exposure amount that exceeds 80% LTV is deducted from Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) capital. The remaining amount is risk-weighted at 100%.

	If a reverse mortgage exposure fails to meet the criteria set out in paragraphs 116 and 117, the exposure amount that exceeds 80% LTV is deducted from CET1 capital. The remaining amount is risk-weighted at 150%.

4.1.15 Mortgage-backed securities
Mortgage backed securities (MBS) will be risk-weighted as follows:
Footnote 54
National Housing Act (NHA) MBS that are guaranteed by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), will receive a risk weight of 0% in recognition of the fact that obligations incurred by CMHC are legal obligations of the Government of Canada.

	Pass-through mortgage-backed securities that are fully and specifically secured against residential mortgages (see section 4.1.11) that meet the requirements for real estate exposures in paragraph 90, and provided that the treatment for ADC exposures in section 4.1.13 is not applicable, will be risk weighted based on the underlying exposures' LTV ratios according to Tables 10 and 11. Risk weights of IPRE exposures as set out in Table 11 would only need to be included in the calculation of the risk weight of the MBS if IPRE exposures form a material portion of the underlying assets of the MBS.

	Pass-through mortgage-backed securities that are fully and specifically secured against commercial mortgages (see section 4.1.12) that meet the requirements for real estate exposures in paragraph 90, and provided that the treatment for ADC exposures in section 4.1.13 is not applicable, will be risk weighted based on the underlying exposures' LTV ratios according to Tables 12 and 13. Risk weights of IPRE exposures as set out in Table 13 would only need to be included in the calculation of the risk weight of the MBS if IPRE exposures form a material portion of the underlying assets of the MBS.

	Amounts receivable resulting from the sale of mortgages under NHA MBS programs should be risk-weighted at 250% according the treatment of other assets (see section 4.1.23).

Where the underlying pool of assets is comprised of assets that would attract different risk weights, the risk weight of the securities will be the highest risk weight associated with the underlying assets. If an institution does not have access to the LTVs of all underlying mortgages, but only to the range of LTVs, then the risk weight for the MBS would be based on the upper bound of that range.

Mortgage-backed securities that are of pass-through type and are effectively a direct holding of the underlying assets shall receive the risk-weight of the underlying assets, provided that all the following conditions are met:

	The underlying mortgage pool contains only mortgages that are fully performing when the mortgage-backed security is created.

	The securities must absorb their pro-rata share of any losses incurred.

	A special-purpose vehicle should be established for securitization and administration of the pooled mortgage loans.

	The underlying mortgages are assigned to an independent third party for the benefit of the investors in the securities who will then own the underlying mortgages.

	The arrangements for the special-purpose vehicle and trustee must provide that the following obligations are observed:

		If a mortgage administrator or a mortgage servicer is employed to carry out administration functions, the vehicle and trustee must monitor the performance of the administrator or servicer.

		The vehicle and/or trustee must provide detailed and regular information on structure and performance of the pooled mortgage loans.

		The vehicle and trustee must be legally separate from the originator of the pooled mortgage loans.

		The vehicle and trustee must be responsible for any damage or loss to investors created by their own or their mortgage servicer's mismanagement of the pooled mortgages.

		The trustee must have a first priority charge on underlying assets on behalf of the holders of the securities.

		The agreement must provide for the trustee to take clearly specified steps in cases when the mortgagor defaults.

		The holder of the security must have a pro-rata share in the underlying mortgage assets or the vehicle that issues the security must have only liabilities related to the issuing of the mortgage-backed security.

		The cash flows of the underlying mortgages must meet the cash flow requirements of the security without undue reliance on any reinvestment income.

		The vehicle or trustee may invest cash flows pending distribution to investors only in short-term money market instruments (without any material reinvestment risk) or in new mortgage loans.

Mortgage-backed securities that do not meet these conditions will receive the risk-weight of the originating entity or SPV.

4.1.16 Risk weight multiplier to certain exposures with currency mismatch
For unhedged residential real estate exposures to individuals where the lending currency differs from the currency of the borrower's source of income, and where more than 10% of the borrower's income used to qualify for the loan is denominated in foreign currency, institutions will apply a 1.5 times multiplier to the applicable risk weight according to paragraphs 95 to 103, subject to a maximum risk weight of 150%. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.92]

For the purposes of paragraph 123, an unhedged exposure refers to an exposure to a borrower that has no natural or financial hedge against the foreign exchange risk resulting from the currency mismatch between the currency of the borrower's income and the currency of the loan. A natural hedge exists where the borrower, in its normal operating procedures, receives foreign currency income that matches the currency of a given loan (e.g. remittances, rental incomes, salaries). A financial hedge generally includes a legal contract with a financial institution (e.g. forward contract). For the purposes of application of the multiplier, only these natural or financial hedges are considered sufficient where they cover at least 90% of the total loan instalment, regardless of the number of hedges. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.93]

4.1.17 Commitments
Commitments are arrangements that obligate an institution, at a client's request, to extend credit, purchase assets or issue credit substitutes. It includes any such arrangement that can be unconditionally cancelled by the institution at any time without prior notice to the obligor. It also includes any such arrangement that can be cancelled by the institution if the obligor fails to meet conditions set out in the facility documentation, including conditions that must be met by the obligor prior to any initial or subsequent drawdown under the arrangement. Counterparty risk weightings for OTC derivative transactions will not be subject to any specific ceiling. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.94]

Normally, commitments involve a written contract or agreement and some form of consideration, such as a commitment fee. Note that unfunded mortgage commitments are treated as commitments for risk-based capital purposes when the borrower has accepted the commitment extended by the institution and all conditions related to the commitment have been fully satisfied.

4.1.18 Off-balance sheet items
Off-balance sheet items will be converted into credit exposure equivalent amounts through the use of credit conversion factors (CCF). In the case of commitments, the committed but undrawn amount of the exposure would be multiplied by the CCF. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.94]

A 100% CCF will be applied to the following items:

	Direct credit substitutes, e.g. general guarantees of indebtedness or equivalent instruments backing financial claims (including standby letters of credit serving as financial guarantees for loans and securities). With a direct credit substitute, the risk of loss to the institution is directly dependent on the creditworthiness of the counterparty.

	Sale and repurchase agreements and asset sales with recourse where the credit risk remains with the institution. A repurchase agreement is a transaction that involves the sale of a security or other asset with the simultaneous commitment by the seller that, after a stated period of time, the seller will repurchase the asset from the original buyer at a pre-determined price. A reverse repurchase agreement consists of the purchase of a security or other asset with the simultaneous commitment by the buyer that, after a stated period of time, the buyer will resell the asset to the original seller at a pre-determined price.

	The lending of an institution's securities or the posting of securities as collateral by an institution, including instances where these arise out of repo-style transactions (i.e. repurchase/reverse repurchase and securities lending/securities borrowing transactions). The risk-weighting treatment for counterparty credit risk must be applied in addition to the credit risk charge on the securities or posted collateral, where the credit risk of the securities lent or posted as collateral remains with the institution. This paragraph does not apply to posted collateral related to derivative transactions that is treated in accordance with the counterparty credit risk standards.

	Forward asset purchases. A forward asset purchase is a commitment to purchase a loan, security, or other asset at a specified future date, usually on prearranged terms.

	Forward forward deposits. Forward forward deposits are agreements between two parties whereby one will pay and other receive an agreed rate of interest on a deposit to be placed by one party with the other at some pre-determined date in the future. Such deposits are distinct from future forward rate agreements in that, with forward/forwards, the deposit is actually placed.

	Partly paid shares and securities.

Footnote 55
Partly paid shares and securities are transactions where only a part of the issue price or notional face value of a security purchased has been subscribed and the issuer may call for the outstanding balance (or a further installment), either on a date pre-determined at the time of issue or at an unspecified future date. These items are to be weighted according to the type of asset and not according to the type of counterparty with whom the transaction has been entered into.

	Off-balance sheet items that are credit substitutes not explicitly included in any other category. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.95]

A 50% CCF will be applied to note issuance facilities (NIFs) and revolving underwriting facilities (RUFs) regardless of the maturity of the underlying facility. These are arrangements whereby a borrower may issue short-term notes, typically three to six months in maturity, up to a prescribed limit over an extended period of time, commonly by means of repeated offerings to a tender panel. If at any time the notes are not sold by the tender at an acceptable price, an underwriter (or group of underwriters) undertakes to buy them at a prescribed price. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.96]

A 50% CCF will be applied to certain transaction-related contingent items (e.g. performance-related guarantees). Transaction-related contingencies relate to the ongoing business activities of a counterparty, where the risk of loss to the reporting institution depends on the likelihood of a future event that is independent of the creditworthiness of the counterparty. Essentially, transaction-related contingencies are guarantees that support particular performance of non- financial or commercial contracts or undertakings, rather than supporting customers' general financial obligations. Performance-related guarantees specifically exclude items relating to non- performance of financial obligations. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.97]

Performance-related and non-financial guarantees include items such as:

	Performance bonds, warranties and indemnities. Performance standby letters of credit represent obligations backing the performance of non-financial or commercial contracts or undertakings. These include arrangements backing:

		Subcontractors' and supplies' performance

		Labour and material contracts

		Delivery of merchandise, bids or tender bonds

		Guarantees of repayment of deposits or prepayments in cases of non-performance

	Customs and excise bonds. The amount recorded for such bonds should be the reporting institution's maximum liability.

A 40% CCF will be applied to commitments, regardless of the maturity of the underlying facility, unless they qualify for a lower CCF. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.98]

A 25% CCF will be applied to undrawn balances of credit card and charge card exposures even if they meet the criteria in paragraph 135.

A 20% CCF will be applied to both the issuing and confirming institutions of short-term (i.e. with a maturity below one year) self-liquidating trade letters of credit arising from the movement of goods (e.g. commercial and documentary letters of credit issued by the institution that are, or are to be, collateralized by the underlying shipment). Letters of credit issued on behalf of a counterparty back-to-back with letters of credit of which the counterparty is a beneficiary ("back-to-back" letters) should be reported as documentary letters of credit. Letters of credit advised by the institution for which the institution is acting as reimbursement agent should not be considered as a risk asset. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.99]

A 10% CCF will be applied to commitments that are unconditionally cancellable at any time by the institution without prior notice, or that effectively provide for automatic cancellation due to deterioration in a borrower's creditworthiness. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.100]

Where there is an undertaking to provide a commitment on an off-balance sheet item, institutions are to apply the lower of the two applicable CCFs.

Footnote 56
[Basel Framework, CRE 20.101]
4.1.19 Exposures that give rise to counterparty credit risk
The credit equivalent amount of SFTs that expose an institution to counterparty credit risk is to be calculated under the comprehensive approach in paragraphs 231 to 256. The credit equivalent amount of OTC derivatives that expose an institution to counterparty credit risk is to be calculated under the rules for counterparty credit risk in paragraph 257. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.102]

Institutions must closely monitor securities, commodities and foreign exchange transactions that have failed, starting from the first day they fail. A capital charge on failed transactions must be calculated in accordance with section 7.2 of Chapter 7 of this guideline. [Basel Framework, CRE 70.2]

Institutions are exposed to the risk associated with unsettled securities, commodities, and foreign exchange transactions from trade date. Irrespective of the booking or the accounting of the transaction, unsettled transactions must be taken into account for regulatory capital requirements purposes. Where they do not appear on the balance sheet (ie settlement date accounting), the unsettled exposure amount will receive a 100% CCF. Institutions are encouraged to develop, implement and improve systems for tracking and monitoring the credit risk exposure arising from unsettled transactions as appropriate so that they can produce management information that facilitates timely action. Furthermore, when such transactions are not processed through a delivery-versus-payment (DvP) or payment-versus-payment (PvP) mechanism, institutions must calculate a capital charge as set forth in section 7.2 in Chapter 7 of this guideline. [Basel Framework, CRE 70.1, CRE 70.2, CRE 70.6, and CRE 70.10]

4.1.20 Credit derivatives
An institution providing credit protection through a first-to-default or second-to-default credit derivative is subject to capital requirements on such instruments. For first-to-default credit derivatives, the risk weights of the assets included in the basket must be aggregated up to a maximum of 1250% and multiplied by the nominal amount of the protection provided by the credit derivative to obtain the risk-weighted asset amount. For second-to-default credit derivatives, the treatment is similar; however, in aggregating the risk weights, the asset with the lowest risk-weighted amount can be excluded from the calculation. This treatment applies respectively for nth-to-default credit derivatives, for which the n-1 assets with the lowest risk- weighted amounts can be excluded from the calculation. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.103]
4.1.21 Defaulted exposures
For risk-weighting purposes under the standardized approach, a defaulted exposure is defined as one that is past due for more than 90 days, or is an exposure to a defaulted borrower. A defaulted borrower is a borrower in respect of whom any of the following events have occurred:

	Any material credit obligation that is past due for more than 90 days. Overdrafts will be considered as being past due once the customer has breached an advised limit or been advised of a limit smaller than current outstandings;

	Any material credit obligation is on non-accrued status (e.g. the lending institution no longer recognizes accrued interest as income or, if recognized, makes an equivalent amount of provisions);

	A write-off or account-specific provision is made as a result of a significant perceived decline in credit quality subsequent to the institution taking on any credit exposure to the borrower;

	Any credit obligation is sold at a material credit-related economic loss;

	A distressed restructuring of any credit obligation (ie a restructuring that may result in a diminished financial obligation caused by the material forgiveness, or postponement, of principal, interest or (where relevant) fees) is agreed by the institution;

	The borrower's bankruptcy or a similar order in respect of any of the borrower's credit obligations to the banking group has been filed;

	The borrower has sought or has been placed in bankruptcy or similar protection where this would avoid or delay repayment of any of the credit obligations to the banking group; or

	Any other situation where the institution considers that the borrower is unlikely to pay its credit obligations in full without recourse by the institution to actions such as realizing security. Additional guidance on indications of unlikeliness to pay can be found in OSFI Implementation Notes, IFRS 9 Guidance and applicable accounting standards.

[Basel Framework, CRE 20.104]

For retail exposures, the definition of default can be applied at the level of a particular facility, rather than at the level of the borrower. As such, default by a borrower on one facility does not require an institution to treat all other facilities from that borrower to the banking group as defaulted. All products secured by the same property issued as part of the same combined loan product (CLP) are to be considered a single facility. That is, if a retail borrower is deemed to have defaulted on any product within a CLP, it is deemed to have defaulted on all products in the CLP. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.104 and CRE 36.71]

With the exception of residential real estate exposures treated under paragraph 144, the unsecured or unguaranteed portion of a defaulted exposure shall be risk-weighted net of specific provisions and partial write-offs as follows:

	150% risk weight when specific provisions are less than 20% of the outstanding amount of the loan; and

	100% risk weight when specific provisions are equal or greater than 20% of the outstanding amount of the loan.

[Basel Framework, CRE 20.106]

Defaulted residential real estate exposures where repayments do not materially depend on cash flows generated by the property securing the loan shall be risk-weighted net of specific provisions and partial write-offs at 100%. Guarantees or financial collateral which are eligible according to the credit risk mitigation framework might be taken into account in the calculation of the exposure in accordance with paragraph 94. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.107]

For the purpose of defining the secured or guaranteed portion of the defaulted exposure, eligible collateral and guarantees will be the same as for credit risk mitigation purposes (see section 4.3). [Basel Framework, CRE 20.108]

4.1.22 Equity Investments in Funds
Chapter 2 of this guideline requires institutions to deduct certain direct and indirect investments in financial institutions from regulatory capital. Exposures, including underlying exposures held by funds, that are required to be deducted according to Chapter 2 should not be risk weighted and therefore are excluded from the treatment in paragraphs 147 to 164 below.

Equity investments in funds that are held in the banking book must be treated in a manner consistent with one or more of the following three approaches, which vary in their risk sensitivity and conservatism: the "look-through approach" (LTA), the "mandate-based approach" (MBA), and the "fall-back approach" (FBA). The requirements set out in this section apply to institutions' equity investments in all types of funds, including off-balance sheet exposures (e.g. unfunded commitments to subscribe to a fund's future capital calls). [Basel Framework, CRE 60.1]

(i) The look-through approach

The LTA requires an institution to risk weight the underlying exposures of a fund as if the exposures were held directly by the institution. This is the most granular and risk-sensitive approach. It must be used when:

	there is sufficient and frequent information provided to the institution regarding the underlying exposures of the fund; and

	such information is verified by an independent third party.

[Basel Framework, CRE 60.2]

To satisfy condition (a) above, the frequency of financial reporting of the fund must be the same as, or more frequent than, that of the institution's and the granularity of the financial information must be sufficient to calculate the corresponding risk weights. To satisfy condition (b) above, there must be verification of the underlying exposures by an independent third party, such as the depository or the custodian institution or, where applicable, the management company. Footnote 57 [Basel Framework, CRE 60.3]

Under the LTA institutions must risk weight all underlying exposures of the fund as if those exposures were directly held. This includes, for example, any underlying exposure arising from the fund's derivatives activities (for situations in which the underlying receives a risk weighting treatment under the calculation of the minimum risk-based capital requirements) and the associated counterparty credit risk (CCR) exposure. Instead of determining a credit valuation adjustment (CVA) charge associated with the fund's derivatives exposures in accordance with section 7.1.7 of Chapter 7, institutions must multiply the CCR exposure by a factor of 1.5 before applying the risk weight associated with the counterparty. Footnote 58 [Basel Framework, CRE 60.4]

Institutions may rely on third-party calculations for determining the risk weights associated with their equity investments in funds (i.e. the underlying risk weights of the exposures of the fund) if they do not have adequate data or information to perform the calculations themselves. In such cases, the applicable risk weight shall be 1.2 times higher than the one that would be applicable if the exposure were held directly by the institution. Footnote 59 [Basel Framework, CRE 60.5]

The following is an example of the calculation of RWA using the LTA:

Consider a fund that replicates an equity index. Moreover, assume the following:

	The institution uses the Standardized Approach for credit risk when calculating its capital requirements;

	The institution owns 20% of the shares of the fund;

	The fund presents the following balance sheet:

Assets:

	Cash: $20;

	Government bonds (AAA rated): $30; and

	Non-significant equity investments in commercial entities: $50

Liabilities:

	Notes payable $5

Equity

	Shares $95

Balance sheet exposures of $100 will be risk-weighted according to the risk weights applied for cash (RW=0%), government bonds (RW=0%), and non-significant equity holdings of commercial entities (RW = 250%).

The leverage of the fund is 100/95≈1.05.

Therefore, the risk-weighted assets for the institution's equity investment in the fund are calculated as follows:

Avg RWfund × Leverage × Equity investment

= ((RWAcash + RWAbonds + RWAequities)/TotalAssetsfund) × Leverage × Equity investment

= (($20×0% + $30×0% + $50×250%)/$100) × 1.05 × (20%×$95)

= $24.9375

(ii) The mandate-based approach

The second approach, the MBA, provides a method for calculating regulatory capital that can be used when the conditions for applying the LTA are not met. [Basel Framework, CRE 60.6]

Under the MBA institutions may use the information contained in a fund's mandate or in the national regulations governing such investment funds.

Footnote 60
To ensure that all underlying risks are taken into account (including CCR) and that the MBA renders capital requirements no less than the LTA, the risk-weighted assets for the fund's exposures are calculated as the sum of the following three items:

	Balance sheet exposures (i.e. the funds' assets) are risk weighted assuming the underlying portfolios are invested to the maximum extent allowed under the fund's mandate in those assets attracting the highest capital requirements, and then progressively in those other assets implying lower capital requirements. If more than one risk weight can be applied to a given exposure, the maximum risk weight applicable must be used. Footnote 61 Whenever the underlying risk of a derivative exposure or an off-balance-sheet item receives a risk weighting treatment under the risk-based capital requirements, the notional amount of the derivative position or of the off-balance sheet exposure is risk weighted accordingly. Footnote 62

Footnote 63
The CCR associated with the fund's derivative exposures is calculated using the Standardized Approach for measuring Counterparty Credit Risk (SACCR), set out in section 7.1.7 of Chapter 7 of this guideline. SACCR calculates the counterparty credit risk exposure of a netting set of derivatives by multiplying (i) the sum of the replacement cost and aggregate add-on for potential future exposure (PFE); by (ii) a multiplier set at 1.4. Whenever the replacement cost is unknown, the exposure measure for CCR will be calculated in a conservative manner by using the notional amount of the derivatives in each netting set as a proxy for the replacement cost. Whenever the aggregate add-on for PFE is unknown, it will be calculated as 15% of the sum of the notional values of the derivatives in the netting set. Footnote 64 The risk weight associated with the counterparty is applied to the counterparty credit risk exposure. Instead of determining a CVA charge associated with the fund's derivative exposures in accordance with Chapter 8 of this guideline, institutions must multiply the CCR exposure by a factor of 1.5 before applying the risk weight associated with the counterparty. Footnote 65 [Basel Framework, CRE 60.7]

The following is an example of the calculation of the RWA using the MBA.

Consider a fund with assets of $100, where it is stated in the mandate that the fund replicates an equity index. In addition to being permitted to invest its assets in either cash or listed equities, the mandate allows the fund to take long positions in equity index futures up to a maximum nominal amount equivalent to the size of the fund's balance sheet ($100). This means that the total on balance sheet and off balance sheet exposures of the fund can reach $200. Consider also that a maximum financial leverage (fund assets/fund equity) of 1.1 applies according to the mandate. The bank holds 20% of the shares of the fund, which represents an investment of $18.18.

First, the on-balance sheet exposures of $100 will be risk weighted according to the risk weights applied to listed equity exposures (RW=250%), i.e. RWAon-BS = $100 × 250% = $250.

Second, we assume that the fund has exhausted its limit on derivative positions, ie $100 notional amount. The RWA for the maximum notional amount of underlying the derivatives positions calculated by multiplying the following three amounts: (1) the SA credit conversion factor of 100% that is applicable to forward purchases; (2) the maximum exposure to the notional of $100; and (3) the applicable risk weight for listed equities under the SA which is 250%. Thus, RWAunderlying = 100% × $100 × 250% = $250.

Third, we would calculate the counterparty credit risk associated with the derivative contract. As set out in paragraph 154:

	If we do not know the replacement cost related to the futures contract, we would approximate it by the maximum notional amount, i.e. $100.

	If we do not know the aggregate add-on for potential future exposure, we would approximate this by 15% of the maximum notional amount (i.e. 15% of $100 = $15).

	The CCR exposure is calculated by multiplying (i) the sum of the replacement cost and aggregate add-on for potential future exposure; by (ii) 1.4, which is the prescribed value of alpha.

The counterparty credit risk exposure in this example, assuming the replacement cost and aggregate add-on amounts are unknown, is therefore $161 (= 1.4 × ($100 + $15)). Assuming the futures contract is cleared through a qualifying CCP, a risk weight of 2% applies, so that RWACCR = $161 × 2% = $3.2. There is no CVA charge assessed since the futures contract is cleared through a CCP.

The RWA of the fund is hence obtained by adding RWAon-BS, RWAunderlying and RWACCR, i.e. $503.2 (= $250 + $250 + $3.2).

The RWA ($503.2) will be divided by the total assets of the fund ($100) resulting in an average risk-weight of 503.2%. The bank's total RWA associated with its equity investment is calculated as the product of the average risk weight of the fund, the fund's maximum leverage and the size of the bank's equity investment. That is the bank's total associated RWA are 503.2% × 1.1 × $18.18 = $100.6.

(iii) The fall-back approach

Where neither the LTA nor the MBA is feasible, institutions are required to apply the FBA. Under the FBA, the institution's equity investment in the fund is to be deducted from CET1 capital. [Basel Framework, CRE 60.8]

(iv) Treatment of funds that invest in other funds

When an institution has an investment in a fund (e.g. Fund A) that itself has an investment in another fund (e.g. Fund B), which the institution identified by using either the LTA or the MBA, the risk weight applied to the investment of the first fund (i.e. Fund A's investment in Fund B) can be determined by using one of the three approaches set out above. For all subsequent layers (e.g. Fund B's investments in Fund C and so forth), the risk weights applied to an investment in another fund (Fund C) can be determined by using the LTA under the condition that the LTA was also used for determining the risk weight for the investment in the fund at the previous layer (Fund B). Otherwise, the FBA must be applied. [Basel Framework, CRE 60.9]

(v) Partial use of an approach

An institution may use a combination of the three approaches when determining the capital requirements for an equity investment in an individual fund, provided that the conditions set out in paragraphs 148 to 157 are met. [Basel Framework, CRE 60.10]

(vi) Exclusions to the look-through, mandate-based and fall-back approaches

Equity holdings in entities whose debt obligations qualify for a zero risk weight are excluded from the LTA, MBA and FBA approaches (including those publicly sponsored entities where a zero risk weight can be applied). [Basel Framework, CRE 60.11]

Equity investments made pursuant to the Specialized Financing (Banks) Regulations of the Bank Act qualify for the exclusion contained in paragraph 77 and are risk weighted at 100%. Equity holdings made under legislated programmes can only be excluded up to an aggregate of 10% of an institution's total regulatory capital. [Basel Framework, CRE 60.12]

(vii) Leverage adjustment

Leverage is defined as the ratio of total assets to total equity. Leverage is taken into account in the MBA by using the maximum financial leverage permitted in the fund's mandate or in the national regulation governing the fund. [Basel Framework, CRE 60.13]

When determining the capital requirement related to its equity investment in a fund, an institution must apply a leverage adjustment to the average risk weight of the fund, as set out in paragraph 163, subject to a cap of 1,250%.[Basel Framework, CRE 60.14]

After calculating the total risk-weighted assets of the fund according to the LTA or the MBA, institutions will calculate the average risk weight of the fund (Avg RWfund) by dividing the total risk-weighted assets by the total assets of the fund. Using Avg RWfund and taking into account the leverage of a fund (Lvg), the risk-weighted assets for an institution's equity investment in a fund can be represented as follows:

RWAinvestment = Avg RWfund × Lvg × equity investment

[Basel Framework, CRE 60.15]

The effect of the leverage adjustments depends on the underlying riskiness of the portfolio (ie the average risk weight) as obtained by applying the Standardized Approach or the IRB approaches for credit risk. The formula can therefore be re-written as:

RWAinvestment = RWAfund × percentage of shares

[Basel Framework, CRE 60.16]

4.1.23 Other assets
Other assets will be risk weighted as follows:

0% Risk weight

	cash and gold bullion held in the institution's own vaults or on an allocated basis to the extent backed by bullion liabilities,

	unrealized gains and accrued receivables on foreign exchange and interest rate-related off-balance sheet transactions where they have been included in the off-balance sheet calculations.

20% Risk weight

	cheques and other items in transit.

100% Risk weight

	premises, plant and equipment and other fixed assets,

	real estate and other investments (including non-consolidated investment participation in other companies),

	prepaid expenses,

	deferred charges,

	non-credit enhancing interest-only strips on transactions that are not subject to prepayment risk,

	right-of-use (ROU) assets where the leased asset is a tangible asset, Footnote 66 corporate and retail receivables for which the counterparty cannot be identified, Footnote 67 prepaid portfolio insurance (unamortized portion), subject to the following amortization expectations: the lesser of 5 years or the expected life (assuming no renewals) of the first term of the underlying mortgage loans or MBS pool, and

	all other assets.

250% Risk weight

	Items described as Threshold Deductions (basket) in Chapter 2 - Definition of Capital, section 2.3.1 which fall below the applicable thresholds.

	Deferred placement fees receivable, non-credit-enhancing interest-only strips, and any other assets that represent the present value of future spread income subject to prepayment risk.

1250% Risk weight

	The following securitization exposures:

		Credit-enhancing interest-only strips, net of any related gain on sale deducted from capital

		Certain unrated securitization exposures (refer to Chapter 6 – Securitization)

Deduction from CET1 capital

	Non-payment/delivery on non-DvP and non-PvP transactions (refer to section 2.3.4 of Chapter 2 – Definition of Capital),

	Significant investments in commercial entities (refer to section 2.3.4 of Chapter 2 – Definition of Capital), and

	Intangible assets (refer to section 2.3.1 of Chapter 2 – Definition of Capital)

	Exposures to non-qualifying central counterparties (refer to section 7.1.9.2 of Chapter 7 – Settlement and Counterparty Risk)

	Any other assets that are required to be deducted from CET1 capital pursuant to Chapter 2 of this guideline.

[Basel Framework, CRE 20.109-20.110 ]

4.1.24 Treatment of purchased receivables
Purchased retail receivables that meet the four criteria for regulatory retail exposures, as specified in paragraph 83, are risk weighted at 75%. Purchased receivables to corporate entities or exposures that do not meet the retail definition, are risk-weighted as corporate exposures as per section 4.1.7.

In addition, as part of the institution's risk management processes, it should establish underwriting criteria and monitoring procedures for all purchased assets/receivables, particularly where an institution regularly purchases assets from a seller pursuant to a facility or program. Therefore, an institution is expected to:

	establish quality criteria both for receivables to be purchased and for the seller/servicer of the receivables,

	regularly monitor the purchased receivables to ensure they meet the criteria,

	regularly monitor the financial condition of the seller/servicer of the receivables,

	have legal certainty that the institution has ownership of the receivables and all associated cash remittances,

	have confidence that current and future advances or purchases can be repaid from the liquidation or collections from the receivables pool,

	periodically verify the accuracy of reports related to both the seller/servicer and the receivables/obligors,

	periodically verify the credit and collection policies of the seller/servicer, and

	establish procedures for monitoring adherence to all contractual terms by the seller/servicer and regular audits of critical phases of the program.

4.2. External credit assessments and the mapping process

4.2.1 The recognition process
For purposes of using external ratings for regulatory purposes, only credit assessments from credit rating agencies recognized by OSFI as external credit assessment institutions (ECAIs) will be allowed. OSFI's review of applicants in determining ECAI eligibility is consistent with the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) Code of Conduct Fundamentals for Credit Rating Agencies. Footnote 68 As part of its recognition process, Footnote 69 OSFI determines whether a rating agency initially meets and subsequently continues to meet the criteria listed in paragraph 170. OSFI's recognition is provided only in respect of ECAI ratings for types of exposures where all criteria and conditions are met. As such, ECAIs may be recognized on a limited basis, e.g. by type of exposure or by jurisdiction. OSFI will communicate changes to recognized ECAIs through this guideline. [Basel Framework, CRE 21.1]

OSFI will permit institutions to recognize credit ratings from the following rating agencies for capital adequacy purposes:

	DBRS

	Moody's Investors Service

	Standard and Poor's (S&P)

	Fitch Rating Services

	Kroll Bond Rating Agency, Inc. (KBRA)

4.2.2 Eligibility criteria
An ECAI must satisfy each of the following eight criteria.

	Objectivity: The methodology for assigning credit assessments must be rigorous, systematic, and subject to some form of validation based on historical experience. Moreover, assessments must be subject to ongoing review and responsive to changes in financial condition. Before being recognized by OSFI, an assessment methodology for each market segment, including rigorous backtesting, must have been established for at least one year and preferably three years.

	Independence: An ECAI should be independent and should not be subject to political or economic pressures that may influence the rating. In particular, an ECAI should not delay or refrain from taking a rating action based on its potential effect (economic, political or otherwise). The rating process should be as free as possible from any constraints that could arise in situations where the composition of the board of directors or the shareholder structure of the CRA may be seen as creating a conflict of interest. Furthermore, an ECAI should separate operationally, legally and, if practicable, physically its rating business from other businesses and analysts.

	International access/transparency: The individual ratings, the key elements underlining the assessments and whether the issuer participated in the assessment process should be publically available on a non-selective basis, unless they are private ratings, which should be at least available to both domestic and foreign insitutions with legitimate interest and on equivalent terms. In addition, the ECAI's general procedures, methodologies and assumptions for arriving at ratings should be publicly available.

	Disclosure: An ECAI should disclose the following information: its code of conduct; the general nature of its compensation arrangements with assessed entities; any conflict of interest, Footnote 70 the ECAI's compensation arrangements, Footnote 71 its rating assessment methodologies, including the definition of default, the time horizon, and the meaning of each rating; the actual default rates experienced in each assessment category; and the transitions of the ratings, e.g. the likelihood of AA ratings becoming A over time. A rating should be disclosed as soon as practicably possible after issuance. When disclosing a rating, the information should be provided in plain language, indicating the nature and limitation of credit ratings and the risk of unduly relying on them to make investments.

	Resources: An ECAI should have sufficient resources to carry out high quality credit assessments. These resources should allow for substantial ongoing contact with senior and operational levels within the entities assessed in order to add value to the credit assessments. In particular, ECAIs should assign analysts with appropriate knowledge and experience to assess the creditworthiness of the type of entity or obligation being rated. Such assessments should be based on methodologies combining qualitative and quantitative approaches.

	Credibility: To some extent, credibility is derived from the criteria above. In addition, the reliance on an ECAI's external credit assessments by independent parties (investors, insurers, trading partners) is evidence of the credibility of the assessments of an ECAI. The credibility of an ECAI is also underpinned by the existence of internal procedures to prevent the misuse of confidential information. In order to be eligible for recognition, an ECAI does not have to assess firms in more than one country.

	No abuse of unsolicited ratings: ECAIs must not use unsolicited ratings to put pressure on entities to obtain solicited ratings. OSFI may initiate a review of an ECAI's continued recognition as eligible for capital adequacy purposes, if such behaviour is identified.

	Cooperation with OSFI: ECAIs should notify OSFI of any significant changes to methodologies and provide access to external ratings and other relevant data in order to support initial and continued determination of eligibility.

[Basel Framework, CRE 21.2]

Regarding the disclosure of conflicts on interest referenced in criterion (4) in paragraph 170 above, at a minimum, the following situations and their influence on the ECAI's credit rating methodologies or credit rating actions shall be disclosed:

	The ECAI is being paid to issue a credit rating by the rated entity or by the obligor, originator, underwriter, or arranger of the rated obligation;

	The ECAI is being paid by subscribers with a financial interest that could be affected by a credit rating action of the ECAI;

	The ECAI is being paid by rated entities, obligors, originators, underwriters, arrangers, or subscribers for services other than issuing credit ratings or providing access to the ECAI's credit ratings;

	The ECAI is providing a preliminary indication or similar indication of credit quality to an entity, obligor, originator, underwriter, or arranger prior to being hired to determine the final credit rating for the entity, obligor, originator, underwriter, or arranger; and

	The ECAI has a direct or indirect ownership interest in a rated entity or obligor, or a rated entity or obligor has a direct or indirect ownership interest in the ECAI.

[Basel Framework, CRE 21.3]

Regarding the disclosure of conflicts on interest referenced in criterion (4) in paragraph 170 above:

	An ECAI should disclose the general nature of its compensation arrangements with rated entities, obligors, lead underwriters, or arrangers.

	When the ECAI receives from a rated entity, obligor, originator, lead underwriter, or arranger compensation unrelated to its credit rating services, the ECAI should disclose such unrelated compensation as a percentage of total annual compensation received from such rated entity, obligor, lead underwriter, or arranger in the relevant credit rating report or elsewhere, as appropriate.

	An ECAI should disclose in the relevant credit rating report or elsewhere, as appropriate, if it receives 10% or more of its annual revenue from a single client (e.g. a rated entity, obligor, originator, lead underwriter, arranger, or subscriber, or any of their affiliates).

[Basel Framework, CRE 21.4]

In addition to the above criteria, OSFI requires that an ECAI be recognized as a designated rating organization by the Canadian Securities Administrators National Instrument 25-101 in order to be an eligible ECAI in Canada.

4.2.3 Implementation considerations
4.2.3.1 The mapping process

As part of the mapping process, OSFI will assign eligible ECAIs' ratings to the risk weights available under the standardized approach (i.e. deciding which rating categories correspond to which risk weights). The objective of this mapping process is a risk weight assignment consistent with that of the level of credit risk reflected in Tables 1 through 14 in this chapter. This process is intended to cover the full spectrum of risk weights. [Basel Framework, CRE 21.5]

	Long-term rating

			Standardized risk weight category  
			DBRS  
			Moody's  
			S&P  
			Fitch  
			KBRA

			(AAA to AA−)  
			AAA to AA (low)  
			Aaa to Aa3  
			AAA to AA−  
			AAA to AA−  
			AAA to AA−

			(A+ to A−)  
			A (high) to A (low)  
			A1 to A3  
			A+ to A−  
			A+ to A−  
			A+ to A−

			(BBB+ to BBB−)  
			BBB (high) to BBB (low)  
			Baa1 to Baa3  
			BBB+ to BBB−  
			BBB+ to BBB−  
			BBB+ to BBB−

			(BB+ to BB−)  
			BB (high) to BB (low)  
			Ba1 to Ba3  
			BB+ to BB−  
			BB+ to BB−  
			BB+ to BB−

			(B+ to B−)  
			B (high) to B (low)  
			B1 to B3  
			B+ to B−  
			B+ to B−  
			B+ to B−

			Below B−  
			CCC or lower  
			Below B3  
			Below B−  
			Below B−  
			Below B−

For mapping purposes OSFI considers factors such as: the size and scope of the pool of issuers that each ECAI covers, the range and meaning of the assessments that it assigns, and the definition of default used by the ECAI. [Basel Framework, CRE 21.6]

The OSFI process for mapping of ratings into risk weights is intended to be consistent with BCBS guidance published in the Standardized approach – implementing the mapping process (April 2019).

Footnote 72
[Basel Framework, CRE 21.7]

Institutions must use the chosen ECAIs and their ratings consistently for each type of exposure where they have been recognized by OSFI as an eligible ECAI, for both risk weighting and risk management purposes. Institutions will not be allowed to "cherry-pick" the assessments provided by different ECAIs and to arbitrarily change the use of ECAIs. [Basel Framework, CRE 21.8]

4.2.3.2 Multiple external ratings

If there is only one rating by an ECAI chosen by an institution for a particular exposure, that rating should be used to determine the risk weight of the exposure. [Basel Framework, CRE 21.9]

If there are two ratings by ECAIs chosen by an institution which map into different risk weights, the higher risk weight will be applied. [Basel Framework, CRE 21.10]

If there are three or more ratings with different risk weights, the two ratings that correspond to the lowest risk weights should be referred to. If these give rise to the same risk weight, that risk weight should be applied. If different, the higher risk weight should be applied. [Basel Framework, CRE 21.11]

4.2.3.3 Determination of whether an exposure is rated: Issue-specific and issuer-specific ratings

Where an institution invests in a particular issue that has an issue-specific rating, the risk weight of the exposure will be based on this rating. Where the institution's exposure is not an investment in a specific rated issue, the following general principles apply.

	In circumstances where the borrower has a specific rating for an issued debt – but the institution's exposure is not an investment in this particular debt – a high-quality credit rating (one which maps into a risk weight lower than that which applies to an unrated exposure) on that specific debt may only be applied to the institution's unrated exposure if this exposure ranks in all respects pari passu or senior to the exposure with a rating. If not, the external rating cannot be used and the unassessed exposure will receive the risk weight for unrated exposures.

	In circumstances where the borrower has an issuer rating, this rating typically applies to senior unsecured exposures to that issuer. Consequently, only senior exposures to that issuer will benefit from a high-quality issuer rating. Other unassessed exposures of a highly rated issuer will be treated as unrated. If either the issuer or a single issue has a low-quality rating (mapping into a risk weight equal to or higher than that which applies to unrated exposures), an unassessed exposure to the same counterparty that ranks pari passu or is subordinated to either the senior unsecured issuer rating or the exposure with a low-quality rating will be assigned the same risk weight as is applicable to the low-quality rating.

	In circumstances where the issuer has a specific high-quality rating (one which maps into a lower risk weight) that only applies to a limited class of liabilities (such as a deposit rating or a counterparty risk rating), this may only be used in respect of exposures that fall within that class.

[Basel Framework, CRE 21.12]

Whether the institution intends to rely on an issuer- or an issue-specific rating, the rating must take into account and reflect the entire amount of credit risk exposure the institution has with regard to all payments owed to it. For example, if an institution is owed both principal and interest, the assessment must fully take into account and reflect the credit risk associated with repayment of both principal and interest. [Basel Framework, CRE 21.13]

In order to avoid any double counting of credit enhancement factors, OSFI will not take into account any credit risk mitigation techniques if the credit enhancement is already reflected in the issue specific rating (see paragraph 195). [Basel Framework, CRE 21.14]

4.2.3.4 Domestic currency and foreign currency assessments

Where unrated exposures are risk weighted based on the rating of an equivalent exposure to that borrower, the general rule is that foreign currency ratings would be used for exposures in foreign currency. Domestic currency ratings, if separate, would only be used to risk weight exposures denominated in the domestic currency. Footnote 73 [Basel Framework, CRE 21.15]

4.2.3.5 Short-term/long-term assessments

For risk-weighting purposes, short-term ratings are deemed to be issue-specific. They can only be used to derive risk weights for exposures arising from the rated facility. They cannot be generalized to other short-term exposures, except under the conditions of paragraph 187. In no event can a short-term rating be used to support a risk weight for an unrated long-term exposure. Short-term ratings may only be used for short-term exposures against banks and corporates. The table below provides a framework for institutions' exposures to specific short-term facilities, such as a particular issuance of commercial paper:

	Table 15: Risk weights for issue-specific short-term ratings


			External rating

			A-1/P-1

Footnote 74
A-2/P-2
A-3/P-3
Others
Footnote 75
Risk weight
20%
50%
100%
150%

[Basel Framework, CRE 21.16]

	Short-term rating

			Standardized Risk Weight Category  
			DBRS  
			Moody's  
			S&P  
			Fitch  
			KBRA

			(A-1/P-1)  
			R-1 (high) to R-1 (low)  
			P-1  
			A-1+, A-1  
			F1+, F1  
			K1+, K1

			(A-2/P-2)  
			R-2 (high) to R-2 (low)  
			P-2  
			A-2  
			F2  
			K2

			(A-3/P-3)  
			R-3  
			P-3  
			A-3  
			F3  
			K3

			Others  
			Below R-3  
			NP  
			All short-term ratings below A-3  
			Below F3  
			Below K3

If a short-term rated facility attracts a 50% risk-weight, unrated short-term exposures cannot attract a risk weight lower than 100%. If an issuer has a short-term facility with an assessment that warrants a risk weight of 150%, all unrated exposures, whether long-term or short-term, should also receive a 150% risk weight, unless the institution uses recognized credit risk mitigation techniques for such exposures. [Basel Framework, CRE 21.17]

In cases where short-term ratings are available, the following interaction with the general preferential treatment for short-term exposures to banks as described in paragraph 29 will apply:

	The general preferential treatment for short-term exposures applies to all exposures to banks of up to three months original maturity when there is no specific short-term exposure assessment.

	When there is a short-term rating and such a rating maps into a risk weight that is more favourable (i.e. lower) or identical to that derived from the general preferential treatment, the short-term rating should be used for the specific exposure only. Other short-term exposures would benefit from the general preferential treatment.

	When a specific short-term rating for a short term exposure to a bank maps into a less favourable (higher) risk weight, the general short-term preferential treatment for interbank exposures cannot be used. All unrated short-term exposures should receive the same risk weighting as that implied by the specific short-term rating.

[Basel Framework, CRE 21.18]

When a short-term rating is to be used, the institution making the assessment needs to meet all of the eligibility criteria for recognizing ECAIs, as described in paragraph 170, in terms of its short-term ratings. [Basel Framework, CRE 21.19]

4.2.3.6 Level of application of the rating

External ratings for one entity within a corporate group cannot be used to risk weight other entities within the same group. [Basel Framework, CRE 21.20]

4.2.3.7 Unsolicited ratings

As a general rule, institutions should use solicited ratings from eligible ECAIs. Institutions can use unsolicited ratings in the same way as solicited ratings for sovereign ratings in cases were solicited ratings are not available. [Basel Framework, CRE 21.21]

4.3. Credit Risk Mitigation – Standardized Approach

4.3.1 Overarching Issues
(i) Introduction

Institutions use a number of techniques to mitigate the credit risks to which they are exposed. For example, exposures may be collateralized by first priority claims, in whole or in part with cash or securities, a loan exposure may be guaranteed by a third party, or an institution may buy a credit derivative to offset various forms of credit risk. Additionally institutions may agree to net loans owed to them against deposits from the same counterparty. Footnote 76 [Basel Framework, CRE 22.1]

The framework set out in this section is applicable to banking book exposures that are risk-weighted under the standardized approach. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.2]

(ii) General requirements

No transaction in which credit risk mitigation (CRM) techniques are used shall receive a higher capital requirement than an otherwise identical transaction where such techniques are not used. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.3]

The requirements set out in OSFI's Pillar 3 Disclosure Requirements Guideline Footnote 77 must be fulfilled for institutions to obtain capital relief in respect of any CRM techniques. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.4]

The effects of CRM must not be double-counted. Therefore, no additional supervisory recognition of CRM for regulatory capital purposes will be granted on exposures for which the risk weight already reflects that CRM. Consistent with paragraph 182, principal-only ratings will also not be allowed within the CRM framework. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.5]

While the use of CRM techniques reduces or transfers credit risk, it may simultaneously increase other risks (i.e. residual risks). Residual risks include legal, operational, liquidity and market risks. Therefore, institutions must employ robust procedures and processes to control these risks, including strategy; consideration of the underlying credit; valuation; policies and procedures; systems; control of roll-off risks; and management of concentration risk arising from the institution's use of CRM techniques and its interaction with the institution's overall credit risk profile. Where these risks are not adequately controlled, OSFI may impose additional capital charges or take other supervisory actions as outlined in OSFI's Supervisory Framework. Footnote 78 [Basel Framework, CRE 22.6]

In order for CRM techniques to provide protection, the credit quality of the counterparty must not have a material positive correlation with the employed CRM technique or with the resulting residual risks (as defined in paragraph 196). For example, securities issued by the counterparty (or by any counterparty-related entity) provide little protection as collateral and are thus ineligible. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.7]

In the case where an institution has multiple CRM techniques covering a single exposure (e.g. an institution has both collateral and a guarantee partially covering an exposure), the institution must subdivide the exposure into portions covered by each type of CRM technique (e.g. portion covered by collateral, portion covered by guarantee) and the risk-weighted assets of each portion must be calculated separately. When credit protection provided by a single protection provider has differing maturities, they must be subdivided into separate protection as well. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.8]

(iii) Legal requirements

In order for institutions to obtain capital relief for any use of CRM techniques, all documentation used in collateralized transactions, on-balance sheet netting agreements, guarantees and credit derivatives must be binding on all parties and legally enforceable in all relevant jurisdictions. Institutions must have conducted sufficient legal review to verify this and have a well-founded legal basis to reach this conclusion, and undertake such further review as necessary to ensure continuing enforceability. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.9]

(iv) General treatment of maturity mismatches

For the purposes of calculating risk-weighted assets, a maturity mismatch occurs when the residual maturity of a credit protection arrangement (e.g. hedge) is less than that of the underlying exposure. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.10]

In the case of financial collateral, maturity mismatches are not allowed under the simple approach (see paragraph 224). [Basel Framework, CRE 22.11]

Under the other approaches, when there is a maturity mismatch the credit protection arrangement may only be recognized if the original maturity of the arrangement is greater than or equal to one year, and its residual maturity is greater than or equal to three months. In such cases, credit risk mitigation may be partially recognized as detailed below in paragraph 203. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.12]

When there is a maturity mismatch with recognized credit risk mitigants, the following adjustment applies

  Pa  =  P ×   t − 0.25   T − 0.25

Where:

Pa = value of the credit protection adjusted for maturity mismatch

P = credit protection amount (e.g. collateral amount, guarantee amount) adjusted for any haircuts

t = min {T, residual maturity of the credit protection arrangement expressed in years}

T = min {five years, residual maturity of the exposure expressed in years}

[Basel Framework, CRE 22.13]

The maturity of the underlying exposure and the maturity of the hedge must both be defined conservatively. The effective maturity of the underlying must be gauged as the longest possible remaining time before the counterparty is scheduled to fulfil its obligation, taking into account any applicable grace period. For the hedge, (embedded) options that may reduce the term of the hedge must be taken into account so that the shortest possible effective maturity is used. For example: where, in the case of a credit derivative, the protection seller has a call option, the maturity is the first call date. Likewise, if the protection buyer owns the call option and has a strong incentive to call the transaction at the first call date, for example because of a step-up in cost from this date on, the effective maturity is the remaining time to the first call date. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.14]

(v) Currency mismatches

Currency mismatches are allowed under all approaches. Under the simple approach there is no specific treatment for currency mismatches, given that a minimum risk weight of 20% (floor) is generally applied. Under the comprehensive approach and in case of guarantees and credit derivatives, a specific adjustment for currency mismatches is prescribed in paragraphs 241 and 278, respectively. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.15]

4.3.2 Overview of Credit Risk Mitigation Techniques
(i) Collateralized transactions

A collateralized transaction is one in which:

	institutions have a credit exposure or potential credit exposure; and

	that credit exposure or potential credit exposure is hedged in whole or in part by collateral posted by a counterparty or by a third party on behalf of the counterparty.

[Basel framework, CRE 22.16]

Where institutions take eligible financial collateral, they may reduce their regulatory capital requirements through the application of CRM techniques. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.17]

Institutions may opt for either:

	The simple approach, which replaces the risk weight of the counterparty with the risk weight of the collateral for the collateralized portion of the exposure (generally subject to a 20% floor as per paragraph 224); or

	The comprehensive approach, which allows a more precise offset of collateral against exposures, by effectively reducing the exposure amount by a volatility-adjusted value ascribed to the collateral.

[Basel Framework, CRE 22.18]

Detailed operational requirements for the simple approach and comprehensive approach are given in paragraphs 223 to 256. Institutions may operate under either, but not both, approaches in the banking book. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.19]

For collateralized OTC transactions, exchange traded derivatives and long settlement transactions, institutions may use the standardized approach for counterparty credit risk (SA-CCR) or the Internal Models Method to calculate the exposure amount, in accordance with paragraph 257. Only those institutions that are subject to the market risk requirements as defined in section 1.3.2 of Chapter 1 of this guideline are eligible to apply to use IMM to calculate counterparty credit risk exposure amounts. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.20]

(ii) On-balance sheet netting

Where institutions have legally enforceable netting arrangements for loans and deposits that meet the conditions in paragraph 258 they may calculate capital requirements on the basis of net credit exposures as set out in that paragraph. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.21]

(iii) Guarantees and credit derivatives

Where guarantees or credit derivatives fulfil the minimum operational conditions set out in paragraphs 260 to 262, institutions may take account of the credit protection offered by such credit risk mitigation techniques in calculating capital requirements. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.22]

A range of guarantors and protection providers are recognized and a substitution approach applies for capital requirement calculations. Only guarantees issued by or protection provided by entities with a lower risk weight than the counterparty lead to reduced capital charges for the guaranteed exposure, since the protected portion of the counterparty exposure is assigned the risk weight of the guarantor or protection provider, whereas the uncovered portion retains the risk weight of the underlying counterparty. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.23]

Detailed conditions and operational requirements for guarantees and credit derivatives are given in paragraphs 260 to 281. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.24]

4.3.3 Collateralized transactions
(i) General Requirements

Before capital relief is granted in respect of any form of collateral, the standards set out below in paragraphs 215 to 222 must be met, irrespective of whether the simple or the comprehensive approach is used. Institutions that lend securities or post collateral must calculate capital requirements for both of the following: (i) the credit risk or market risk of the securities, if this remains with the institution; and (ii) the counterparty credit risk arising from the risk that the borrower of the securities may default. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.25]

The legal mechanism by which collateral is pledged or transferred must ensure that the institution has the right to liquidate or take legal possession of it, in a timely manner, in the event of the default, insolvency or bankruptcy (or one or more otherwise-defined credit events set out in the transaction documentation) of the counterparty (and, where applicable, of the custodian holding the collateral). Additionally, institutions must take all steps necessary to fulfil those requirements under the law applicable to the institution's interest in the collateral for obtaining and maintaining an enforceable security interest, e.g. by registering it with a registrar, or for exercising a right to net or set off in relation to the title transfer of the collateral. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.26]

For property taken as collateral, institutions may use title insurance in place of a title search to achieve compliance with paragraph 215. OSFI expects institutions that rely on title insurance to reflect the risk of non-performance on these insurance contracts in their estimates of LGD if this risk is material.

Institutions must have clear and robust procedures for the timely liquidation of collateral to ensure that any legal conditions required for declaring the default of the counterparty and liquidating the collateral are observed, and that collateral can be liquidated promptly. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.27]

Institutions must ensure that sufficient resources are devoted to the orderly operation of margin agreements with OTC derivative and securities-financing counterparties, as measured by the timeliness and accuracy of its outgoing margin calls and response time to incoming margin calls. Institutions must have collateral risk management policies in place to control, monitor and report:

	the risk to which margin agreements expose them (such as the volatility and liquidity of the securities exchanged as collateral);

	the concentration risk to particular types of collateral;

	the reuse of collateral (both cash and non-cash) including the potential liquidity shortfalls resulting from the reuse of collateral received from counterparties; and

	the surrender of rights on collateral posted to counterparties

[Basel Framework, CRE 22.28]

Where the collateral is held by a custodian, institutions must take reasonable steps to ensure that the custodian segregates the collateral from its own assets. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.29]

A capital requirement must be applied on both sides of a transaction. For example, both repos and reverse repos will be subject to capital requirements. Likewise, both sides of a securities lending and borrowing transaction will be subject to explicit capital charges, as will the posting of securities in connection with derivatives exposures or with any other borrowing transaction. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.30]

Where an institution, acting as an agent, arranges a repo-style transaction (ie repurchase/reverse repurchase and securities lending/borrowing transactions) between a customer and a third party and provides a guarantee to the customer that the third party will perform on its obligations, then the risk to the institution is the same as if the institution had entered into the transaction as a principal. In such circumstances, an institution must calculate capital requirements as if it were itself the principal. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.31]

Transactions where an institution acts as an agent and provides a guarantee to the customer should be treated as a direct credit substitute (i.e. a separate netting set) unless the transaction is covered by a master netting arrangement.

(ii) The simple approach

(a) General requirements for the simple approach

Under the simple approach, the risk weight of the counterparty is replaced by the risk weight of the collateral instrument collateralizing or partially collateralizing the exposure. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.32]

For collateral to be recognized in the simple approach, it must be pledged for at least the life of the exposure and it must be marked to market and revalued with a minimum frequency of six months. Those portions of exposures collateralized by the market value of recognized collateral receive the risk weight applicable to the collateral instrument. The risk weight on the collateralized portion is subject to a floor of 20% except under the conditions specified in paragraphs 227 to 230. The remainder of the exposure must be assigned the risk weight appropriate to the counterparty. Maturity mismatches are not allowed under the simple approach (see paragraphs 200 and 201). [Basel Framework, CRE 22.33]

(b) Eligible financial collateral under the simple approach

The following collateral instruments are eligible for recognition in the simple approach:

	Cash (as well as certificates of deposit or comparable instruments issued by the lending institution) on deposit with the institution which is incurring the counterparty exposure.

Footnote 79

Footnote 80
Gold

	Debt securities rated by a recognized ECAI where these are either:

		at least BB− when issued by sovereigns or PSEs that are treated as sovereigns by the national regulatory authority; or

		at least BBB− when issued by other entities (including banks and securities firms); or

		at least A-3/P-3 for short-term debt instruments.

	Debt securities not rated by a recognized ECAI where these are:

		issued by a bank; and

		listed on a recognized exchange; and

		classified as senior debt; and

		all rated issues of the same seniority by the issuing institution must be rated at least BBB− or A-3/P-3 by a recognized ECAI; and

		the institution holding the securities as collateral has no information to suggest that the issue justifies a rating below BBB− or A-3/P-3 (as applicable) and

		OSFI is sufficiently confident about the market liquidity of the security.

	Equities (including convertible bonds) that are included in a main index.

	Undertakings for Collective Investments in Transferable Securities (UCITS) and mutual funds where:

		a price for the units is publicly quoted daily; and

		the UCITS/mutual fund is limited to investing in the instruments listed in this paragraph.

Footnote 81
[Basel Framework, CRE 22.34]

Resecuritizations as defined in Chapter 6 of this guideline are not eligible collateral.

Repo-style transactions that fulfil all of the following conditions are exempted from the risk-weight floor under the simple approach:

	Both the exposure and the collateral are cash or a sovereign security or PSE security qualifying for a 0% risk weight under the standardized approach;

	Both the exposure and the collateral are denominated in the same currency;

	Either the transaction is overnight or both the exposure and the collateral are marked to market daily and are subject to daily remargining;

	Following a counterparty's failure to remargin, the time that is required between the last mark-to-market before the failure to remargin and the liquidation of the collateral is considered to be no more than four business days;

	The transaction is settled across a settlement system proven for that type of transaction;

	The documentation covering the agreement is standard market documentation for repo-style transactions in the securities concerned;

	The transaction is governed by documentation specifying that if the counterparty fails to satisfy an obligation to deliver cash or securities or to deliver margin or otherwise defaults, then the transaction is immediately terminable; and

	Upon any default event, regardless of whether the counterparty is insolvent or bankrupt, the institution has the unfettered, legally enforceable right to immediately seize and liquidate the collateral for its benefit.

[Basel Framework, CRE 22.36]

Core market participants include, the following entities:

	Sovereigns, central banks and PSEs;

	Banks and securities firms;

	Other financial companies (including insurance companies) eligible for a 20% risk weight in the standardized approach;

	Regulated mutual funds that are subject to capital or leverage requirements;

	Regulated pension funds; and

	Qualifying central counterparties (QCCPs).

[Basel Framework, CRE 22.37]

Repo transactions that fulfil the requirement in paragraph 227 receive a 10% risk weight, as an exemption to the risk weight floor described in paragraph 224. If the counterparty to the transaction is a core market participant, institutions may apply a risk weight of 0% to the transaction. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.38]

The 20% floor for the risk weight on a collateralized transaction does not apply and a 0% risk weight may be applied where the exposure and the collateral are denominated in the same currency, and either:

	the collateral is cash on deposit as defined in paragraph 225(a); or

	the collateral is in the form of sovereign/PSE securities eligible for a 0% risk weight, and its market value has been discounted by 20%.

[Basel Framework, CRE 22.39]

(iii) The comprehensive approach

(a) General requirements for the comprehensive approach

In the comprehensive approach, when taking collateral, institutions must calculate their adjusted exposure to a counterparty in order to take account of the risk mitigating effect of that collateral. Institutions must use the applicable supervisory haircuts to adjust both the amount of the exposure to the counterparty and the value of any collateral received in support of that counterparty to take account of possible future fluctuations in the value of either, Footnote 82 as occasioned by market movements. Unless either side of the transaction is cash or a zero haircut is applied, the volatility-adjusted exposure amount is higher than the nominal exposure and the volatility-adjusted collateral value is lower than the nominal collateral value. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.40]

The size of the haircuts that banks must use depends on the prescribed holding period for the transaction. For the purposes of this guideline, the holding period is the period of time over which exposure or collateral values are assumed to move before the bank can close out the transaction. The supervisory prescribed minimum holding period is used as the basis for the calculation of the standard supervisory haircuts. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.41]

The holding period, and thus the size of the individual haircuts depends on the type of instrument, type of transaction, residual maturity and the frequency of marking to market and remargining as provided in paragraphs 240 and 241. For example, repo-style transactions subject to daily marking-to-market and to daily remargining will receive a haircut based on a 5-business day holding period and secured lending transactions with daily mark-to-market and no remargining clauses will receive a haircut based on a 20-business day holding period. Haircuts must be scaled up using the square root of time formula depending on the frequency of remargining or marking to market. This formula is included in paragraph 249. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.42]

Additionally, where the exposure and collateral are held in different currencies, institutions must apply an additional haircut to the volatility-adjusted collateral amount in accordance with paragraphs 241 and 278 to take account of possible future fluctuations in exchange rates. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.43]

The effect of master netting agreements covering securities financing transactions can be recognized for the calculation of capital requirements subject to the conditions and requirements in paragraphs 253 to 256. Where SFTs are subject to a master netting agreement whether they are held in the banking book or trading book, an institution may choose not to recognize the netting effects in calculating capital. In that case, each transaction will be subject to a capital charge as if there were no master netting agreement. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.44]

(b) Eligible financial collateral under the comprehensive approach

The following collateral instruments are eligible for recognition in the comprehensive approach:

	All of the instruments in paragraph 225;

	Equities and convertible bonds which are not included in a main index but which are listed on a recognized exchange;

	UCITS/mutual funds which include the instruments in point (2) above.

[Basel Framework, CRE 22.45]

For a collateralized transaction, the exposure amount after risk mitigation is calculated as follows:

  E   ′   = max  { 0 ,  [ E ×  ( 1 +  H e  )  − C ×  ( 1 −  H c  −  H  fx   )  ]  }

where:

  E   ′     = the exposure value after risk mitigation

E = current value of the exposure

He = haircut appropriate to the exposure

C = the current value of the collateral received

Hc = haircut appropriate to the collateral

Hfx = haircut appropriate for currency mismatch between the collateral and exposure

[Basel Framework, CRE 22.46]

In the case of maturity mismatches, the value of the collateral received (collateral amount) must be adjusted in accordance with paragraphs 200 to 203. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.47]

The exposure amount after risk mitigation (   E   ′     ) must be multiplied by the risk weight of the counterparty to obtain the risk-weighted asset amount for the collateralized transaction. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.48]

Standard supervisory haircuts for comprehensive approach

These are the standard supervisory haircuts (assuming daily mark-to-market, daily remargining and a 10-business day holding period), expressed as percentages:

			Issue rating for debt securities  
			Residual Maturity  
			Sovereigns

Footnote 83
Other issuers
Footnote 84
Securitization Exposures
Footnote 85
AAA to AA−/A-1
≤ 1 year
0.5

			>1 year, ≤ 3 years

			>3 year, ≤ 5 years

			>5 year, ≤ 10 years

			> 10 years

			A+ to BBB−/A-2/A-3/P-3 and unrated institution securities per para. 225 ≤ 1 year

			>1 year, ≤ 3 years

			>3 year, ≤ 5 years

			>5 year, ≤ 10 years

			> 10 years

			BB+ to BB−  
			All  
			Not eligible  
			Not eligible

			Main index equities (including convertible bonds) and Gold

			Other equities and convertible bonds listed on a recognized exchange

			UCITS/Mutual funds  
			Highest haircut applicable to any security in which the fund can invest, unless the institution can apply the look-through approach (LTA) for equity investments in funds, in which case the institution may use a weighted average of haircuts applicable to instruments held by the fund.

			Cash in the same currency

Footnote 86

[Basel Framework, CRE 22.49]

The haircut for currency risk (Hfx) where exposure and collateral are denominated in different currencies is 8% (also based on a 10-business day holding period and daily mark-to-market). [Basel Framework, CRE 22.52]

For SFTs and secured lending transactions, a haircut adjustment may need to be applied in accordance with paragraphs 246 to 249. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.53]

Cash variation margin (VM) is not subject to any additional haircut provided the variation margin is posted in a currency that is agreed to and listed in the applicable contract.

Footnote 87
Cash initial margin (IM) that is exchanged in a currency other than the termination currency (that is, the currency in which the institution will submit its claim upon a counterparty default) is subject to the additional haircut for foreign currency risk.

For SFTs in which the institution lends, or posts as collateral, non-eligible instruments, the haircut to be applied on the exposure must be 30%. For transactions in which the institution borrows non-eligible instruments, credit risk mitigation may not be applied. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.54]

Where the collateral is a basket of assets, the haircut (H) on the basket must be calculated as follows:

  H =   ∑  i   a i   H i

Where:

ai is the weight of the asset (as measured by units of currency) in the basket and Hi the haircut applicable to that asset.

[Basel Framework, CRE 22.55]

(d) Adjustment for different holding periods and non-daily mark-to-market or re-margining

For some transactions, depending on the nature and frequency of the revaluation and remargining provisions, different holding periods are appropriate and thus different haircuts must be applied. The framework for collateral haircuts distinguishes between repo-style transactions (i.e. repo/reverse repos and securities lending/borrowing), "other capital-market-driven transactions" (i.e. OTC derivatives transactions and margin lending) and secured lending. In capital-market-driven transactions and repo-style transactions, the documentation contains remargining clauses; in secured lending transactions, it generally does not. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.56]

The minimum holding period for various products is summarized in the following table.

			Transaction type  
			Minimum holding period  
			Condition

			Repo-style transaction five business days daily remargining

			Other capital market transactions  
			10 business days daily remargining

			Secured lending  
			20 business days daily revaluation

[Basel Framework, CRE 22.57]

Regarding the minimum holding periods set out in paragraph 247, if a netting set includes both repo-style and other capital market transactions, the minimum holding period of ten business days must be used. Furthermore, a higher minimum holding period must be used in the following cases:

	For all netting sets where the number of trades exceeds 5,000 at any point during a quarter, a 20 business day minimum holding period for the following quarter must be used.

	For netting sets containing one or more trades involving illiquid collateral, a minimum holding period of 20 business days must be used. "Illiquid collateral" must be determined in the context of stressed market conditions and will be characterized by the absence of continuously active markets where a counterparty would, within two or fewer days, obtain multiple price quotations that would not move the market or represent a price reflecting a market discount. Examples of situations where trades are deemed illiquid for this purpose include, but are not limited to, trades that are not marked daily and trades that are subject to specific accounting treatment for valuation purposes (eg repo-style transactions referencing securities whose fair value is determined by models with inputs that are not observed in the market).

	If a bank has experienced more than two margin call disputes on a particular netting set over the previous two quarters that have lasted longer than the bank's estimate of the margin period of risk (as defined in CRE50.19), then for the subsequent two quarters the bank must use a minimum holding period that is twice the level that would apply excluding the application of this sub-paragraph.

When the frequency of remargining or revaluation is longer than the minimum, the minimum haircut numbers will be scaled up depending on the actual number of business days between remargining or revaluation. The 10-business day haircuts provided in paragraph 240 are the default haircuts and these haircuts must be scaled up or down using the formula below:

  H =    H   10        N   R   +  (   T   M   - 1 )    10

where:

H = haircut

H10 = 10-business day haircut for instrument

NR = actual number of business days between remargining for capital market transactions or revaluation for secured transactions.

TM = minimum holding period for the type of transaction

[Basel Framework, CRE 22.59]

(e) Exemptions under the comprehensive approach for qualifying repo-style transactions involving core market participants

For repo-style transactions with core market participants as defined in paragraph 228 and that satisfy the conditions in paragraph 227 OSFI will permit a haircut of zero. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.60]

Under the comprehensive approach, OSFI applies a specific carve-out to repo-style transactions in securities issued by the Government of Canada and securities issued by Canadian provinces and territories. This carve out is available, provided the following conditions are satisfied:

	Both the exposure and the collateral are cash or a sovereign security or PSE security qualifying for a 0% risk weight in the standardized approach; Footnote 88 Both the exposure and the collateral are denominated in the same currency;

	Either the transaction is overnight or both the exposure and the collateral are marked-to-market daily and are subject to daily remargining;

	Following a counterparty's failure to remargin, the time that is required between the last mark-to-market before the failure to remargin and the liquidation Footnote 89 of the collateral is considered to be no more than four business days;

	The transaction is settled across a settlement system proven for that type of transaction;

	The documentation covering the agreement is standard market documentation for repo-style transactions in the securities concerned;

Institutions applying this carve-out must be able to confirm that the above criteria are met.

[Basel Framework, CRE 22.61]

Canadian institutions may apply carve-outs permitted by other G-10 Footnote 90 supervisors to repo-style transactions in securities issued by their domestic governments to business in those markets. For the purposes of the carve out core market participants are defined in paragraph 228. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.61]

(f) Treatment under the comprehensive approach of SFTs covered by master netting agreements

The effects of bilateral netting agreements covering securities financing transactions will be recognized on a counterparty-by-counterparty basis if the agreements are legally enforceable in each relevant jurisdiction upon the occurrence of an event of default and regardless of whether the counterparty is insolvent or bankrupt. In addition, netting agreements must:

	provide the non-defaulting party the right to terminate and close-out in a timely manner all transactions under the agreement upon an event of default, including in the event of insolvency or bankruptcy of the counterparty;

	provide for the netting of gains and losses on transactions (including the value of any collateral) terminated and closed out under it so that a single net amount is owed by one party to the other;

	allow for the prompt liquidation or set-off of collateral upon the event of default; and

	be, together with the rights arising from the provisions required in (1) to (3) above, legally enforceable in each relevant jurisdiction upon the occurrence of an event of default and regardless of the counterparty's insolvency or bankruptcy.

[Basel Framework, CRE 22.62]

Netting across positions in the banking and trading book will only be recognized when the netted transactions fulfil the following conditions:

	All transactions are marked to market daily; Footnote 91 and

	The collateral instruments used in the transactions are recognized as eligible financial collateral in the banking book.

[Basel Framework, CRE 22.63]

The formula in paragraph 256 will be used to calculate the counterparty credit risk capital requirements for SFTs with netting agreements. This formula includes the current exposure, an amount for systematic exposure of the securities based on the net exposure, an amount for the idiosyncratic exposure of the securities based on the gross exposure, and an amount for currency mismatch. All other rules regarding the calculation of haircuts under the comprehensive approach stated in paragraphs 231 to 252 equivalently apply for institutions using bilateral netting agreements for SFTs. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.64]

For institutions using the standard supervisory haircuts for SFTs conducted under a master netting agreement must calculate their amount amount using the following formula:

	E' is the exposure value of the netting set after risk mitigation

	Ei is the current value of all cash and securities lent, sold with an agreement to repurchase or otherwise posted to the counterparty under the netting agreement

	Cj is the current value of all cash and securities borrowed, purchased with an agreement to resell or otherwise held by the bank under the netting agreement

	  net exposure =   |   ∑  s      E   s   ×   H   s     |

	  gross exposure =    ∑  s      E   s   ×   |   H   s   |

	Es is the net current value of each security issuance under the netting set (always a positive value)

	Hs is the haircut appropriate to Es as described in table of paragraph 240

		Hs has a positive sign if the security is lent, sold with an agreement to repurchased, or transacted in manner similar to either securities lending or a repurchase agreement

		Hs has a negative sign if the security is borrowed, purchased with an agreement to resell, or transacted in a manner similar to either a securities borrowing or reverse repurchase agreement

	N is the number of security issues contained in the netting set (except that issuances where the value Es is less than one tenth of the value of the largest Es in the netting set are not included the count)

	Efx is the absolute value of the net position in each currency fx different from the settlement currency

	Hfx is the haircut appropriate for currency mismatch of currency fx

  E   ′   = max  { 0 ;   ∑  i   E i  −   ∑  j   C j  + 0.4 × net exposure + 0.6 ×   gross exposure   N   +   ∑  fx   (  E fx  ×  H fx  )  } Footnote 92 [Basel Framework, CRE 22.65]

(iv) Collateralized OTC derivatives transactions

Under the Standardized Approach for Counterparty Credit Risk (SA-CCR) described in section 7.1.7 of Chapter 7, the counterparty credit risk charge for an individual contract will be calculated using the following formula, where:

	Alpha = 1.4;

	RC = the replacement cost calculated according to section 7.1.7.1

	PFE = the potential future exposure calculated according to section 7.1.7.2

  Exposure amount  =  alpha  ×  ( RC  +  PFE )

[Basel Framework, CRE 22.66]

4.3.4 On-balance sheet netting
An institution may use the net exposure of loans and deposits as the basis for its capital adequacy calculation in accordance with the formula in paragraph 237, when the institution:

	has a well-founded legal basis for concluding that the netting or offsetting agreement is enforceable in each relevant jurisdiction regardless of whether the counterparty is insolvent or bankrupt;

	is able at any time to determine those assets and liabilities with the same counterparty that are subject to the netting agreement;

	monitors and controls its roll-off risks; and

	monitors and controls the relevant exposures on a net basis.

[Basel Framework, CRE 22.68]

When calculating the net exposure described in the paragraph above, assets (loans) are treated as exposure and liabilities (deposits) as collateral. The haircuts will be zero except when a currency mismatch exists. A 10-business day holding period will apply when daily mark-to-market is conducted and all the requirements contained in paragraphs 240, 249, and 200 to 203 will apply. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.69]

4.3.5 Guarantees and credit derivatives
(i) Operational requirements for guarantees and credit derivatives

If conditions set below are met, institutions can substitute the risk weight of the counterparty with the risk weight of the guarantor. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.70]

A guarantee (counter-guarantee) or credit derivative must satisfy the following requirements:

	it represents a direct claim on the protection provider;

	it is explicitly referenced to specific exposures or a pool of exposures, so that the extent of the cover is clearly defined and incontrovertible;

	other than non-payment by a protection purchaser of money due in respect of the credit protection contract it is irrevocable;

	there is no clause in the contract that would allow the protection provider unilaterally to cancel the credit cover, change the maturity agreed ex-post, or that would increase the effective cost of cover as a result of deteriorating credit quality in the hedged exposure;

	it must be unconditional; there should be no clause in the protection contract outside the direct control of the institution that could prevent the protection provider from being obliged to pay out in a timely manner in the event that the underlying counterparty fails to make the payment(s) due.

[Basel Framework, CRE 22.71]

In the case of maturity mismatches, the amount of credit protection that is provided must be adjusted in accordance with paragraphs 200 to 203. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.72]

(ii) Specific operational requirements for guarantees

In addition to the legal certainty requirements in paragraphs 199, in order for a guarantee to be recognized, the following conditions must be satisfied:

	On the qualifying default/non-payment of the counterparty, the institution may in a timely manner pursue the guarantor for any monies outstanding under the documentation governing the transaction. The guarantor may make one lump sum payment of all monies under such documentation to the institution, or the guarantor may assume the future payment obligations of the counterparty covered by the guarantee. The institution must have the right to receive any such payments from the guarantor without first having to take legal actions in order to pursue the counterparty for payment.

	The guarantee is an explicitly documented obligation assumed by the guarantor.

	Except as noted in the following sentence, the guarantee covers all types of payments the underlying obligor is expected to make under the documentation governing the transaction, for example notional amount, margin payments etc. Where a guarantee covers payment of principal only, interests and other uncovered payments should be treated as an unsecured amount in accordance with the rules for proportional cover in paragraph 276.

[Basel Framework, CRE 22.73]

(iii) Specific operational requirements for mortgage insurance

A protection purchaser must establish internal policies and procedures to implement and ensure compliance with the protection provider(s) credit underwriting and other contractual requirements. In addition, institutions are expected to have appropriate policies and procedures in place to originate, underwrite and administer insured mortgages.

If, as part of its supervisory work, OSFI determines that there is evidence that an institution has not implemented the required policies and procedures from paragraph 264, a supervisory assessment will be made to determine whether recognition of the mortgage insurance as a guarantee for credit risk mitigation purposes should be reduced by OSFI. As part of this assessment, OSFI may use, but will not rely on, information available from third parties. In determining the size of the reduction of the risk mitigating impact of mortgage insurance, OSFI will take into account the scope and severity of the deficiencies identified as well as the time required to address deficiencies noting that contractual obligations of the protection provider are not a substitute for inadequate policies and/or procedures on the part of the institution. This does not preclude OSFI from imposing additional capital requirements under Pillar 2 as per paragraph 196 of this chapter.

(iv) Specific operational requirements for credit derivatives

In addition to the legal certainty requirements in paragraph 199, in order for a credit derivative contract to be recognized, the following conditions must be satisfied:

	The credit events specified by the contracting parties must at a minimum cover:

		failure to pay the amounts due under terms of the underlying obligation that are in effect at the time of such failure (with a grace period that is closely in line with the grace period in the underlying obligation);

		bankruptcy, insolvency or inability of the obligor to pay its debts, or its failure or admission in writing of its inability generally to pay its debts as they become due, and analogous events; and

		restructuring

Footnote 93 of the underlying obligation involving forgiveness or postponement of principal, interest or fees that results in a credit loss event (i.e. charge-off, specific provision or other similar debit to the profit and loss account). When restructuring is not specified as a credit event, refer to paragraph 267.

	If the credit derivative covers obligations that do not include the underlying obligation, section (7) below governs whether the asset mismatch is permissible.

	The credit derivative shall not terminate prior to expiration of any grace period required for a default on the underlying obligation to occur as a result of a failure to pay. In the case of a maturity mismatch, the provisions of paragraphs 200 to 203 must be applied.

	Credit derivatives allowing for cash settlement are recognized for capital purposes insofar as a robust valuation process is in place in order to estimate loss reliably. There must be a clearly specified period for obtaining post-credit-event valuations of the underlying obligation. If the reference obligation specified in the credit derivative for purposes of cash settlement is different than the underlying obligation, section (7) below governs whether the asset mismatch is permissible.

	If the protection purchaser's right/ability to transfer the underlying obligation to the protection provider is required for settlement, the terms of the underlying obligation must provide that any required consent to such transfer may not be unreasonably withheld.

	The identity of the parties responsible for determining whether a credit event has occurred must be clearly defined. This determination must not be the sole responsibility of the protection seller. The protection buyer must have the right/ability to inform the protection provider of the occurrence of a credit event.

	A mismatch between the underlying obligation and the reference obligation under the credit derivative (i.e. the obligation used for purposes of determining cash settlement value or the deliverable obligation) is permissible if (a) the reference obligation ranks pari passu with or is junior to the underlying obligation, and (b) the underlying obligation and reference obligation share the same obligor (i.e. the same legal entity) and legally enforceable cross-default or cross-acceleration clauses are in place.

	A mismatch between the underlying obligation and the obligation used for purposes of determining whether a credit event has occurred is permissible if (a) the latter obligation ranks pari passu with or is junior to the underlying obligation, and (b) the underlying obligation and reference obligation share the same obligor (i.e. the same legal entity) and legally enforceable cross-default or cross-acceleration clauses are in place.

[Basel Framework, CRE 22.74]

When the restructuring of the underlying obligation is not covered by the credit derivative, but the other requirements in paragraph 266 are met, partial recognition of the credit derivative will be allowed. If the amount of the credit derivative is less than or equal to the amount of the underlying obligation, 60% of the amount of the hedge can be recognized as covered. If the amount of the credit derivative is larger than that of the underlying obligation, then the amount of eligible hedge is capped at 60% of the amount of the underlying obligation. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.75]

(v) Range of eligible guarantors (counter-guarantors)/protection providers and credit derivatives

Credit protection given by the following entities can be recognized when they have a lower risk weight than the counterparty:

	Sovereign entities,

Footnote 94
PSEs, multilateral developments banks, banks, securities firms and other prudentially regulated financial institutions with a lower risk weight than the counterparty; Footnote 95 Other entities that are externally rated except when credit protection is provided to a securitzation exposure. This would include credit protection provided by a parent, subsidiary, and affiliate companies when they have a lower risk weight than the obligor.

	When credit protection is provided to a securitization exposure, other entities that currently are externally rated BBB− or better and that were externally rated A− or better at the time the credit protection was provided. This would include credit protection provided by parent, subsidiary, and affiliate companies when they have a lower risk weight than the obligor.

[Basel Framework, CRE 22.76]

An institution may not reduce the risk weight of an exposure to a third party because of a guarantee or credit protection provided by a related party (parent, subsidiary or affiliate) of the lending institution. This treatment follows the principle that guarantees within a corporate group are not a substitute for capital in the regulated Canadian institution. An exception is made for self-liquidating trade-related transactions that have a tenure of 360 days or less, are market-driven and are not structured to avoid the requirements of this guideline. The requirement that the transaction be "market-driven" necessitates that the guarantee or letter of credit is requested and paid for by the customer and/or that the market requires the guarantee in the normal course of business.

Only credit default swaps and total return swaps that provide credit protection equivalent to guarantees are eligible for recognition.

Footnote 96
The following exception applies: where an institution buys credit protection through a total return swap and records the net payments received on the swap as net income, but does not record offsetting deterioration in the value of the asset that is protected (either through reductions in fair value or by an addition to reserves), the credit protection will not be recognized. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.77]

First-to-default and all other nth-to-default credit derivatives (i.e. by which an institution obtains credit protection for a basket of reference names and where the first- or nth–to-default among the reference names triggers the credit protection and terminates the contract) are not eligible as a credit risk mitigation technique and therefore cannot provide any regulatory capital relief. In transactions in which an institution provided credit protection through such instruments, it shall apply the treatment described in paragraph 140. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.78]

(vi) Risk-weight treatment of transactions in which eligible credit protection is provided

General risk weight treatment

The general risk weight treatment for transactions in which eligible credit protection is provided is as follows:

	The protected portion is assigned the risk weight of the protection provider. The uncovered portion of the exposure is assigned the risk weight of the underlying counterparty.

	Materiality thresholds on payments below which the protection provider is exempt from payment in the event of loss are equivalent to retained first-loss positions. The portion of the exposure that is below a materiality threshold must be deducted from CET1 capital by the institution purchasing the credit protection.

[Basel Framework, CRE 22.79]

Residential mortgages insured under the NHA or equivalent provincial mortgage insurance programs may be assigned the risk weight of the guarantor, that is, the Government of Canada risk weight of 0%. Where a mortgage is comprehensively insured by a private sector mortgage insurer that has a backstop guarantee provided by the Government of Canada (for example, a guarantee made pursuant to section 22 of the Protection of Residential Mortgage or Hypothecary Insurance Act), institutions may recognize the risk-mitigating effect of the government guarantee by reporting the portion of the exposure that is covered by the Government of Canada backstop as if this portion were directly guaranteed by the Government of Canada. The remainder of the exposure should be treated as an insured mortgage in accordance with the rules set out in this chapter.

To reflect the effect of the Government of Canada backstop guarantee on a privately insured mortgage exposure, institutions may separate the full amount of the privately insured mortgage exposure into a deductible portion and a backstop portion:

	the deductible portion is calculated as 10% of the original loan amount (i.e. the deductible portion grows as a percentage of the full amount of the total exposure as the mortgage amortizes), and is to be risk weighted according to paragraph 275;

	the backstop portion is the amount covered by the government guarantee (i.e. the total outstanding amount less the deductible portion), and is to be treated as a sovereign exposure as set out in section 4.1.

For residential mortgages insured by a private mortgage insurer having a Government of Canada backstop guarantee, institutions may choose not to recognize the mortgage insurance and/or the Government of Canada backstop guarantee if doing so would result in a higher capital requirement. Accordingly, the loan should be risk weighted in one of the following three ways:

	As a loan to the private mortgage insurer recognizing the Government of Canada backstop. In this case, the deductible exposure defined in paragraph 274 can be risk weighted as either i) an exposure to the private mortgage insurer (according to paragraph 56) or ii) an exposure to the mortgage borrower (according to paragraphs 95 to 103), multiplied by a factor of 2.2. Footnote 97 The backstop exposure is treated as an exposure to the Governmnet of Canada.

	As an uninsured residential mortgage according to paragraphs 95 to 103.

	As a loan to the private mortgage insurer (without a Government of Canada backstop) according to paragraph 56.

Where losses are shared pari passu on a pro rata basis between the institution and the guarantor, capital relief is afforded on a proportional basis, i.e. the protected portion of the exposure receives the treatment applicable to eligible guarantees/credit derivatives, with the remainder treated as unsecured. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.80]

Where the institution transfers a portion of the risk of an exposure in one or more tranches to a protection seller or sellers and retains some level of risk of the loan and the risk transferred and the risk retained are of different seniority, institutions may obtain credit protection for either the senior tranches (e.g. second loss portion) or the junior tranche (e.g. first loss portion). In this case the rules as set out in Chapter 6 - Securitization will apply. [Basel Framework, CRE 20.81]

(vii) Currency mismatches

Where the credit protection is denominated in a currency different from that in which the exposure is denominated – i.e. there is a currency mismatch – the amount of the exposure deemed to be protected will be reduced by the application of a haircut HFX, using the formula:

    G   A   = G ×  ( 1 -   H   FX   )

where:

GA = adjusted amount of the credit protection

G = nominal amount of the credit protection

HFX = haircut appropriate for currency mismatch between the credit protection and underlying obligation.

The currency mismatch haircut for a 10-business day holding period (assuming daily marking-to-market) is 8%. This haircut must be scaled up using the square root of time formula, depending on the frequency of revaluation of the credit protection as described in paragraph 249. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.82]

A currency mismatch occurs when the currency an institution receives differs from the currency of the collateral held. A currency mismatch always occurs when an institution receives payments in more than one currency under a single contract. [Basel Framework, CRE 22.83]

(viii) Sovereign guarantees and counter-guarantees

Institutions may apply a lower risk weight to an exposures to the sovereign (or central bank) where the institution is incorporated and where the exposure is denominated in domestic currency and funded in that currency. This treatment applies to an exposure that is covered by a guarantee which is indirectly counter-guaranteed by a sovereign, provided that the following conditions are met:

	the sovereign counter-guarantee covers all credit risk elements of the exposure;

	both the original guarantee and the counter-guarantee meet all operational requirements for guarantees, except that the counter-guarantee need not be direct and explicit to the original exposure; and

	OSFI is satisfied that the cover is robust and that no historical evidence suggests that the coverage of the counter-guarantee is less than effectively equivalent to that of a direct sovereign guarantee.

[Basel Framework, CRE 22.84]

Appendix I – Summary of the simplified treatment under the standardized approach
Category I and II institutions as defined in OSFI's SMSB Guideline Footnote 98 will be eligible to apply a simplified treatment to certain asset classes provided the total exposure to the asset class grouping to which the simplified treatment is being applied does not exceed $500 million.

The following table provides a list of all of the asset classes outlined in this chapter and identifies those for which there is a simplified treatment available. For the remaining asset classes, there is no distinction between a simplified treatment and the more risk-sensitive treatment.

		Section  
		Asset Class  
		Simplified treatment

		4.1.1  
		Sovereigns and central banks  
		N/ANot applicable

		4.1.2  
		Non-central government public sector entities (PSEs) N/ANot applicable

		4.1.3  
		Multilateral development banks (MDBs)  
		N/ANot applicable

		4.1.4  
		Banks  
		Paragraph 26

		4.1.5  
		Covered bonds  
		Paragraph 47

		4.1.6  
		Securities firms and other financial institutions Paragraph 26

		4.1.7  
		Corporates  
		Paragraph 58

		4.1.8  
		Subordinated debt, equity and other capital instruments N/ANot applicable

		4.1.9  
		Retail exposures  
		Paragraph 81

		4.1.10  
		Real estate exposures  
		N/ANot applicable

		4.1.11  
		Exposures secured by residential real estate Paragraph 96

		4.1.12  
		Exposures secured by commercial real estate Paragraph 105

		4.1.13  
		Land acquisition, development and construction N/ANot applicable

		4.1.14  
		Reverse mortgages  
		N/ANot applicable

		4.1.15  
		Mortgage-backed securities  
		N/ANot applicable

		4.1.16  
		Currency mismatch  
		N/ANot applicable

		4.1.17  
		Commitments  
		N/ANot applicable

		4.1.18  
		Off-balance sheet items  
		N/ANot applicable

		4.1.19  
		Counterparty credit risk exposures  
		N/ANot applicable

		4.1.20  
		Credit derivatives  
		N/ANot applicable

		4.1.21  
		Defaulted exposures  
		N/ANot applicable

		4.1.22  
		Equity investment in funds  
		N/ANot applicable

		4.1.23  
		Other assets  
		N/ANot applicable

		4.1.24  
		Purchased receivables  
		N/ANot applicable

Appendix II –Use of the Simplified Treatment for Credit Risk for Category I and II SMSBs
As per paragraph 2 of this chapter, Category I and II SMSBs are eligible to use a simplified treatment for certain asset classes where they have less than $500 million in total exposure.
Footnote 99
The exposure amount is based on an average of the end-of-quarter amounts calculated at fiscal year-end using data points from the BCAR Footnote 100 regulatory return.

The threshold calculation is performed on an annual basis.
Footnote 101
If a Category I or II SMSB's position relative to the thresholds has changed from the previous year, the institution would be given one year to implement the applicable treatment. For example, if an asset class that was considered material becomes immaterial (by falling below the $500 million threshold), the Category I or II SMSB has the option to use the simplified treatment for the asset class effective Q1 of the following year. Conversely, if an asset class that was previously considered immaterial becomes material (by rising above the $500 million threshold), the Category I or II SMSB would be required to use the more risk sensitive treatment for the asset class effective Q1 of the following year. In addition, to ensure some stability in the capital treatment, once a Category I or II SMSB treats a portfolio as material or immaterial, it would be required to maintain that treatment for two years.

The following examples illustrate how the exposure for an asset class would be calculated to determine if it is above or below the $500 million threshold.

For Q2 2023, the threshold for Corporate exposures would be assessed using fiscal 2021 data:
Footnote 102
Table 1: Total (measure 500 in BCAR Schedule 40.080)

Since the average using fiscal 2021 data is above $500 million, the Category I or II SMSB's Corporate exposures would be deemed material and capital requirements would need to be calculated using the regular treatment for fiscal years 2023 and 2024.

In Q1 2024, the calculation would be performed again using fiscal 2023 data:

Table 2: Total (measure 500 in BCAR Schedule 40.080)

		Q1 2023  
		Q2 2023  
		Q3 2023  
		Q4 2023  
		Average

		$490M  
		$480M  
		$485M  
		$500M  
		$489M

Since the average exposure amount is below the $500 million threshold, the Category I or II SMSB would have the option of using the simplified treatment effective Q1 2025. If the Category I or II SMSB switched to the simplified treatment for 2025, it would be required to use this treatment for fiscal 2026 as well.
Appendix III – List of risk weight tables
Section
Asset Class
Table

		4.1.1  
		Sovereigns and central banks  
		Table 1,  
		Table 2

		4.1.2  
		Non-central government public sector entities (PSEs)  
		Table 3

		4.1.3  
		Multilateral development banks (MDBs)  
		Table 4

		4.1.4  
		Banks  
		Table 5,  
		Table 6

		4.1.5  
		Covered bonds  
		Table 7,  
		Table 8

		4.1.7  
		Corporates  
		Table 9

		4.1.11  
		Exposures secured by residential real estate  
		Table 10,  
		Table 11

		4.1.12  
		Exposures secured by commercial real estate  
		Table 12,  
		Table 13

		4.1.14  
		Reverse mortgages  
		Table 14

		4.2.3.5  
		Issue-specific short-term ratings  
		Table 15

Footnotes
Footnote 1

The Basel Framework

Return to footnote 1 referrer

Footnote 2

Following the format: [Basel Framework XXX yy.zz].

Return to footnote 2 referrer

Footnote 3

SMSBs are banks (including federal credit unions), bank holding companies, federally regulated trust companies, and federally regulated loan companies that have not been designated by OSFI as domestic systemically important banks (D-SIBs). This includes subsidiaries of SMSBs or D-SIBs that are banks (including federal credit unions), federally regulated trust companies or federally regulated loan companies.

Return to footnote 3 referrer

Footnote 4

SMSB Capital and Liquidity Guideline.

Return to footnote 4 referrer

Footnote 5

As stated in footnote 6 in Chapter 1 of this guideline, all dollar values in this guideline are in Canadian dollars, unless otherwise noted.

Return to footnote 5 referrer

Footnote 6

Total exposure includes both on and off balance sheet, net of Stage 3 allowances but before taking into account credit risk mitigation.

Return to footnote 6 referrer

Footnote 7

OSFI Guideline IFRS 9 Financial Instruments and Disclosures, June 2016.

Return to footnote 7 referrer

Footnote 8

This notation refers to the methodology used by Standard and Poor's. Refer to section 4.2.3 to determine the applicable risk weight using the rating methodology of other recognized ECAIs.

Return to footnote 8 referrer

Footnote 9

In order to qualify for the lower risk weight, the institution needs to have a local presence (subsidiary or branch) in the country of the sovereign exposure.

Return to footnote 9 referrer

Footnote 10

The institution would also have corresponding liabilities denominated in the domestic currency.

Return to footnote 10 referrer

Footnote 11

This lower risk weight may be extended to the risk weighting of collateral and guarantees under the credit risk mitigation (CRM) framework. See section 4.3.2 of this chapter.

Return to footnote 11 referrer

Footnote 12

Current tax assets are defined as an over installment of tax, or current year tax losses carried back to prior years that result in the recognition for accounting purposes of a claim or receivable from the government or local tax authority.

Return to footnote 12 referrer

Footnote 13

The consensus country risk classifications of the Participants to the Arrangement on Officially Supported Export Credits are available on the OECD's website.

Return to footnote 13 referrer

Footnote 14

MDBs currently eligible for a 0% risk weight are: the World Bank Group comprising the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) and the International Development Association (IDA), the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the African Development Bank (AfDB), the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), the European Investment Bank (EIB), the European Investment Fund (EIF), the Nordic Investment Bank (NIB), the Caribbean Development Bank (CDB), the Islamic Development Bank (IDB), the Council of Europe Development Bank (CEDB), the International Finance Facility for Immunization (IFFIm), and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB).

Return to footnote 14 referrer

Footnote 15

MDBs that request to be added to the list of MDBs eligible for a 0% risk weight must comply with the AAA rating criterion at the time of the application. Once included in the list of eligible MDBs, the rating may be downgraded, but in no case lower than AA–. Otherwise, exposures to such MDBs will be subject to the treatment set out in paragraph 22.

Return to footnote 15 referrer

Footnote 16

For internationally active banks, appropriate prudential standards (e.g. capital and liquidity requirements) and level of supervision should be in accordance with the Basel framework. For domestic banks, appropriate prudential standards are determined by the national supervisors but should include at least a minimum regulatory capital requirement.

Return to footnote 16 referrer

Footnote 17

This may include on-balance sheet exposures such as loans and off-balance sheet exposures such as self liquidating trade-related contingent items.

Return to footnote 17 referrer

Footnote 18

OSFI, Leverage Requirements Guideline

Return to footnote 18 referrer

Footnote 19

This may include on-balance sheet exposures such as loans and off-balance sheet exposures such as self-liquidating trade-related contingent items.

Return to footnote 19 referrer

Footnote 20

In Canada, CMHC's Covered Registered Bond Programs Guide establishes the legal framework for covered bond programs in Canada.

Return to footnote 20 referrer

Footnote 21

An exposure is rated from the perspective of an institution if the exposure is rated by a recognized ECAI which has been nominated by the institution (i.e. the institution has informed OSFI of its intention to use the ratings of such ECAI for regulatory purposes in a consistent manner (see paragraph 177). In other words, if an external rating exists but the credit rating agency is not a recognized ECAI by OSFI, or the rating has been issued by an ECAI which has not been nominated by the institution, the exposure would be considered as being unrated from the perspective of the institution.

Return to footnote 21 referrer

Footnote 22

That is, capital requirements that are comparable to those applied to banks in this guideline. Implicit in the meaning of the word "comparable" is that the securities firm (but not necessarily its parent) is subject to consolidated regulation and supervision with respect to any downstream affiliates.

Return to footnote 22 referrer

Footnote 23

Paragraph 62 allows institutions to choose to identify whether their unrated corporate exposures meet the "investment grade" definition. Institutions may not choose to identify only a portion of their unrated corporate exposures. An institution that chooses to identify their "investment grade" unrated exposures must do so consistently for both pre-floor RWA and for the purposes of the output floor.

Return to footnote 23 referrer

Footnote 24

Availability-based revenues mean that once construction is completed, the project finance entity is entitled to payments from its contractual counterparties (e.g. the government), as long as contract conditions are fulfilled. Availability payments are sized to cover operating and maintenance costs, debt service costs and equity returns as the project finance entity operates the project. Availability payments are not subject to swings in demand, such as traffic levels, and are adjusted typically only for lack of performance or lack of availability of the asset to the public.

Return to footnote 24 referrer

Footnote 25

For investments in the capital and/or Other TLAC Instruments of banking, financial, or insurance entities, institutions should also refer to section 2.3 of Chapter 2 of this guideline and apply the applicable regulatory adjustment.

Return to footnote 25 referrer

Footnote 26

Indirect equity interests include holdings of derivative instruments tied to equity interests, and holdings in corporations, partnerships, limited liability companies or other types of enterprises that issue ownership interests and are engaged principally in the business of investing in equity instruments.

Return to footnote 26 referrer

Footnote 27

For certain obligations that require or permit settlement by issuance of a variable number of the issuer's equity shares, the change in the monetary value of the obligation is equal to the change in the fair value of a fixed number of equity shares multiplied by a specified factor. Those obligations meet the conditions of item (c) if both the factor and the referenced number of shares are fixed. For example, an issuer may be required to settle an obligation by issuing shares with a value equal to three times the appreciation in the fair value of 1,000 equity shares. That obligation is considered to be the same as an obligation that requires settlement by issuance of shares equal to the appreciation in the fair value of 3,000 equity shares.

Return to footnote 27 referrer

Footnote 28

Equities that are recorded as a loan but arise from a debt/equity swap made as part of the orderly realization or restructuring of the debt are included in the definition of equity holdings. However, these instruments may not attract a lower capital charge than would apply if the holdings remained in the debt portfolio.

Return to footnote 28 referrer

Footnote 29

Supervisors may decide not to require that such liabilities be included where they are directly hedged by an equity holding, such that the net position does not involve material risk.

Return to footnote 29 referrer

Footnote 30

OSFI may re-characterize debt holdings as equites for regulatory purposes to ensure the proper treatment of holdings under the supervisory review process.

Return to footnote 30 referrer

Footnote 31

As in section 9.2 of this guideline, positions held with trading intent are those held intentionally for short-term resale and/or with the intent of benefiting from actual or expected short-term price movements or to lock in arbitrage profits. Investments in unlisted equities of corporate clients with which the institution has or intends to establish a long-term business relationship and debt-equity swaps for corporate restructuring purposes would be excluded.

Return to footnote 31 referrer

Footnote 32

This treatment is extended to a Canadian institution's foreign operations' holdings of equities made under nationally legislated programs of the countries in which they operate.

Return to footnote 32 referrer

Footnote 33

Refer to section 2.3.1 of Chapter 2 for the definition of significant investment.

Return to footnote 33 referrer

Footnote 34

Aggregated exposure means gross amount (i.e. not taking any credit risk mitigation into account) of all forms of retail exposures, excluding residential real estate exposures. In case of off-balance sheet claims, the gross amount would be calculated after applying credit conversion factors. In addition, "to one counterparty" means one or several entities that may be considered as a single beneficiary (e.g. in the case of a small business that is affiliated to another small business, the limit would apply to the institution's aggregated exposure on both businesses).

Return to footnote 34 referrer

Footnote 35

To apply the 0.2% threshold of the granularity criterion, banks must: first, identify the full set of exposures in the retail exposure class (as defined by paragraph 80); second, identify the subset of exposure that meet product criterion and do not exceed the threshold for the value of aggregated exposures to one counterparty (as defined by criteria (a) and (b) in paragraph 83); and third, exclude any exposures that have a value greater than 0.2% of the subset before exclusions.

Return to footnote 35 referrer

Footnote 36

New accounts will not be deemed transactors until the account has been open for at least 12 months and the definition of a transactor is satisfied.

Return to footnote 36 referrer

Footnote 37

The primary residence of a borrower is the residence ordinarily inhabited by the borrower.

Return to footnote 37 referrer

Footnote 38

Likewise, this would apply to junior liens held by the same institution that holds the senior lien in case there is an intermediate lien from another institution (ie the senior and junior liens held by the institution are not in sequential ranking order).

Return to footnote 38 referrer

Footnote 39

Loans to individuals for the purchase of residential property that are provided as loans guaranteed by a highly rated monoline guarantor that is required to repay the institution in full if the borrower defaults, and where the institution has legal right to take a mortgage on the property in the event that the guarantor fails, may be treated as residential real estate exposures (rather than guaranteed loans) if the following additional conditions are met:

	the borrower shall be contractually committed not to grant any mortgage lien without the consent of the institution that granted the loan; the guarantor shall be either a bank or a financial institution subject to capital requirements comparable to those applied to banks or an insurance undertaking; the guarantor shall establish a fully-funded mutual guarantee fund or equivalent protection for insurance undertakings to absorb credit risk losses, whose calibration shall be periodically reviewed by its supervisors and subject to periodic stress testing; and the institution shall be contractually and legally allowed to take a mortgage on the property in the event that the guarantor fails.

Return to footnote 39 referrer

Footnote 40

Metrics and levels for measuring the ability to repay should mirror the FSB Principles for sound residential mortgage underwriting practices (April 2012).

Return to footnote 40 referrer

Footnote 41

If an institution grants different loans secured by the same property and they are sequential in ranking order (i.e. there is no intermediate lien from another institution), the different loans should be considered as a single exposure for risk-weighting purposes, and the amount of the loans should be added to calculate the LTV ratio.

Return to footnote 41 referrer

Footnote 42

Where a junior lien held by a different institution than that holding the senior lien is recognized (in accordance with paragraph 90), the loan amount of the junior liens must include all other loans secured with liens of equal or higher ranking than the institution's lien securing the loan for purposes of defining the LTV bucket and risk weight for the junior lien. If there is insufficient information for ascertaining the ranking of the other liens, the institution should assume that these liens rank pari passu with the junior lien held by the institution. The institution will first determine the "base" risk weight based on Tables 10, 11, 12, or 13 as applicable and adjust the "base" risk weight by a multiplier of 1.25, for application to the loan amount of the junior lien. If the "base" risk weight corresponds to the lowest LTV bucket, the multiplier will not be applied. The resulting risk weight of multiplying the "base" risk weight by 1.25 will be capped at the risk weight applied to the exposure when the requirements in paragraph 90 are not met.

Return to footnote 42 referrer

Footnote 43

In line with OSFI's Guideline B-20: Residential Mortgage Insurance Underwriting Practices and Procedures, FRFIs should have clear and transparent property valuation policies and procedures including a framework for critically reviewing and, where appropriate, effectively challenging the assumptions and methodologies underlying valuations and property appraisals. In assessing the value of a property, FRFIs should take a risk-based approach, and consider a combination of valuation tools and appraisal processes appropriate to the risk being undertaken. FRFIs should have robust processes in place for regularly monitoring, reviewing and updating their LTV ratio frameworks. The valuation process can include various methods such as on-site inspections, third-party appraisals and/or automated valuation tools.

Return to footnote 43 referrer

Footnote 44

In the case where the mortgage loan is financing the purchase of the property, the value of the property for LTV ratio purposes will not be higher than the effective purchase price.

Return to footnote 44 referrer

Footnote 45

An institution's use of mortgage insurance should mirror the FSB Principles for sound residential mortgage underwriting (PDF) (April 2012).

Return to footnote 45 referrer

Footnote 46

For residential property under construction described in paragraph 89, this means there should be an expectation that the property will satisfy all applicable laws and regulations enabling the property to be occupied for housing purposes.

Return to footnote 46 referrer

Footnote 47

This treatment applies to all exposures secured by the same residential real estate collateral where one or more of the exposures do not meet OSFI's expectations related to Guideline B-20.

Return to footnote 47 referrer

Footnote 48

Exposures for which paragraph 111 (land acquisition, development and construction) is applicable and exposures that do not meet the requirements of paragraph 95 (regulatory real estate) are not eligible for this treatment.

Return to footnote 48 referrer

Footnote 49

It is expected that the material dependence condition would predominantly apply to loans to corporates, SMEs or SPVs, but is not restricted to those borrower types.

Return to footnote 49 referrer

Footnote 50

It is expected that the material dependence condition would predominantly apply to loans to corporates, SMEs or SPVs, but is not restricted to those borrower types.

Return to footnote 50 referrer

Footnote 51

For such exposures, institutions may apply the treatment described in paragraph 107 subject to the following conditions: (i) the losses stemming from commercial real estate lending up to 60% of LTV must not exceed 0.3% of the outstanding loans in any given year and (ii) overall losses stemming from commercial real estate lending must not exceed 0.5% of the outstanding loans in any given year. If either of these tests are not satisfied in a given year, the eligibility of the exemption will cease and the exposures where the prospect for servicing the loan materially depend on cash flows generated by the property securing the loan rather than the underlying capacity of the borrower to service the debt from other sources will again be risk weighted according to paragraph 109 until both tests are satisfied again in the future. Institutions applying such treatment must publicly disclose whether these conditions are met.

Return to footnote 51 referrer

Footnote 52

ADC exposures do not include the acquisition of forest or agricultural land, where there is no planning consent or intention to apply for planning consent.

Return to footnote 52 referrer

Footnote 53

In line with OSFI's Guideline B-20: Residential Mortgage Insurance Underwriting Practices and Procedures, FRFIs should have clear and transparent property valuation policies and procedures including a framework for critically reviewing and, where appropriate, effectively challenging the assumptions and methodologies underlying valuations and property appraisals. In assessing the value of a property, FRFIs should take a risk-based approach, and consider a combination of valuation tools and appraisal processes appropriate to the risk being undertaken. FRFIs should have robust processes in place for regularly monitoring, reviewing and updating their LTV ratio frameworks. The valuation process can include various methods such as on-site inspections, third-party appraisals and/or automated valuation tools.

Return to footnote 53 referrer

Footnote 54

For the treatment of mortgage-backed securities issued in tranches, refer to Chapter 6 – Securitization.

Return to footnote 54 referrer

Footnote 55

These items are to be weighted according to the type of asset and not according to the type of counterparty with whom the transaction has been entered into.

Return to footnote 55 referrer

Footnote 56

For example if an institution has a commitment to open short-term self liquidating trade letters of credit arising from the movement of goods, a 20% CCF will be applied (instead of a 40% CCF); and if an institution has an unconditionally cancellable commitment described in paragraph 135 to issue direct credit substitutes, a 10% CCF will be applied (instead of a 100% CCF).

Return to footnote 56 referrer

Footnote 57

An external audit is not required.

Return to footnote 57 referrer

Footnote 58

An institution is not required to apply the 1.5 factor for situations in which the CVA capital charge would not otherwise be applicable. This includes: (i) transactions with a central counterparty and (ii) securities financing transactions (SFTs), unless OSFI determines that the institution's CVA loss exposure arising from SFTs are material.

Return to footnote 58 referrer

Footnote 59

For instance, any exposure that is subject to a 20% risk weight under the Standardized Approach would be weighted at 24% (1.2 × 20%) when the look through is performed by a third party.

Return to footnote 59 referrer

Footnote 60

Information used for this purpose is not strictly limited to a fund's mandate or national regulations governing like funds. It may also be drawn from other disclosures of the fund.

Return to footnote 60 referrer

Footnote 61

For instance, for investments in corporate bonds with no ratings restrictions, a risk weight of 150% must be applied.

Return to footnote 61 referrer

Footnote 62

If the underlying is unknown, the full notional amount of derivative positions must be used for the calculation.

Return to footnote 62 referrer

Footnote 63

If the notional amount of derivatives mentioned in paragraph 153 is unknown, it will be estimated conservatively using the maximum notional amount of derivatives allowed under the mandate.

Return to footnote 63 referrer

Footnote 64

For instance, if both replacement cost and add-on components are unknown, the CCR exposure will be calculated as 1.4 × (sum of the notionals in the netting set + 0.15 × sum of the notionals in the netting set).

Return to footnote 64 referrer

Footnote 65

A bank is not required to apply the 1.5 factor for situations in which the CVA capital charge would not otherwise be applicable. This includes: (i) transactions with a central counterparty and (ii) securities financing transactions (SFTs), unless OSFI determines that the bank's CVA loss exposure arising from SFTs is material.

Return to footnote 65 referrer

Footnote 66

ROU assets where the leased asset is an intangible asset are subject to the same capital treatment as if the leased asset was owned, as specified in section 2.3.1 of this guideline.

Return to footnote 66 referrer

Footnote 67

When the counterparty for a receivable can be identified, receivables (including from related entities) should be included under the appropriate asset class rather than in "other assets."

Return to footnote 67 referrer

Footnote 68

Available at Code of Conduct Fundamentals for Credit Rating Agencies (PDF, 918 KB).

Return to footnote 68 referrer

Footnote 69

The recognition process included completion of a self-assessment template and submission of data required to complete a mapping exercise (see paragraph 174).

Return to footnote 69 referrer

Footnote 70

At a minimum, the following situations and their influence on the ECAI's credit rating methodologies or credit rating actions shal be disclosed:

	The ECAI is being paid to issue a credit rating by the rated entity or by the obligor, originator, underwriter, or arranger of the rated obligation; The ECAI is being paid by subscribers with a financial interest that could be affected by a credit rating action of the ECAI; The ECAI is being paid by rated entities, obligors, originators, underwriters, arrangers, or subscribers for services other than issuing credit ratings or providing access to the ECAI's credit ratings; The ECAI is providing a preliminary indication or similar indication of credit quality to an entity, obligor, originator, underwriter, or arranger prior to being hired to determine the final credit rating for the entity, obligor, originator, underwriter, or arranger; and The ECAI has a direct or indirect ownership interest in a rated entity or obligor, or a rated entity or obligor has a direct or indirect ownership interest in the ECAI.

Return to footnote 70 referrer

Footnote 71

An ECAI should disclose the general nature of its compensation arrangements with rated entities, obligors, lead underwriters, or arrangers. When the ECAI receives from a rated entity, obligor, originator, lead underwriter, or arranger compensation unrelated to its credit rating services, the ECAI should disclose such unrelated compensation as a percentage of total annual compensation received from such rated entity, obligor, lead underwriter, or arranger in the relevant credit rating report or elsewhere, as appropriate. An ECAI should disclose in the relevant credit rating report or elsewhere, as appropriate, if it receives 10% or more of its annual revenue from a single client (eg a rated entity, obligor, originator, lead underwriter, arranger, or subscriber, or any of their affiliates).

Return to footnote 71 referrer

Footnote 72

Standardised approach - implementing the mapping process.

Return to footnote 72 referrer

Footnote 73

However, when an exposure arises through an institution's participation in a loan that has been extended, or has been guaranteed against convertibility and transfer risk, by certain MDBs, its convertibility and transfer risk can be considered to be effectively mitigated. To qualify, MDBs must have preferred creditor status recognized in the market and be included in section 4.1.3. In such cases, for risk weighting purposes, the borrower's domestic currency rating may be used instead of its foreign currency rating. In the case of a guarantee against convertibility and transfer risk, the local currency rating can be used only for the portion that has been guaranteed. The portion of the loan not benefiting from such a guarantee will be risk-weighted based on the foreign currency rating.

Return to footnote 73 referrer

Footnote 74

The notations follow the methodology used by S&P and by Moody's Investors Service. The A-1 rating of S&P includes both A-1+ and A-1−.

Return to footnote 74 referrer

Footnote 75

The "others" category includes all non-prime and B or C ratings.

Return to footnote 75 referrer

Footnote 76

In this section, "counterparty" is used to denote a party to whom a bank has an on- or off-balance sheet credit exposure. That exposure may, for example, take the form of a loan of cash or securities (where the counterparty would traditionally be called the borrower), of securities posted as collateral, of a commitment or of exposure under an over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives contract.

Return to footnote 76 referrer

Footnote 77

Pillar 3 Disclosure Requirements

Return to footnote 77 referrer

Footnote 78

OSFI's Supervisory Framework

Return to footnote 78 referrer

Footnote 79

Cash-funded credit linked notes issued by the institution against exposures in the banking book which fulfil the criteria for credit derivatives will be treated as cash-collateralized transactions.

Return to footnote 79 referrer

Footnote 80

When cash on deposit, certificates of deposit or comparable instruments issued by the lending bank are held as collateral at a third-party bank in a non-custodial arrangement, if they are openly pledged/assigned to the lending bank and if the pledge/assignment is unconditional and irrevocable, the exposure amount covered by the collateral (after any necessary haircuts for currency risk) will receive the risk weight of the third-party bank.

Return to footnote 80 referrer

Footnote 81

However, the use or potential use by a UCITS/mutual fund of derivative instruments solely to hedge investments listed in this paragraph and paragraph 236 shall not prevent units in that UCITS/mutual fund from being eligible financial collateral.

Return to footnote 81 referrer

Footnote 82

Exposure amounts may vary where, for example, securities are being lent.

Return to footnote 82 referrer

Footnote 83

"Sovereigns" includes PSEs that are treated as sovereigns by the national supervisor as well MDBs receiving a 0% risk weight.

Return to footnote 83 referrer

Footnote 84

"Other issuers" includes PSEs which are not treated as sovereigns by the national supervisor.

Return to footnote 84 referrer

Footnote 85

"Securitization exposures" are defined as those exposures that meet the definition set forth in Chapter 6.

Return to footnote 85 referrer

Footnote 86

"Cash in the same currency" refers to eligible cash collateral specified in paragraph 225.

Return to footnote 86 referrer

Footnote 87

Currencies listed in the CSA are not subject to additional haircuts.

Return to footnote 87 referrer

Footnote 88

Note that where a national regulatory authority has designated domestic-currency claims on its sovereign or central bank to be eligible for a 0% risk weight in the standardized approach, such claims will satisfy this condition.

Return to footnote 88 referrer

Footnote 89

This does not require the institution to always liquidate the collateral but rather to have the capability to do so within the given time frame.

Return to footnote 89 referrer

Footnote 90

For the purposes of this paragraph, G-10 refers to participants in the General Arrangements to Borrow (GAB) agreement.

Return to footnote 90 referrer

Footnote 91

The holding period for the haircuts will depend as in other repo-style transactions on the frequency of margining.

Return to footnote 91 referrer

Footnote 92

The starting point for this formula is the formula in paragraph 237 which can also be presented as the following:   E   ′   = ( E − C ) + ( E ×  H e  ) + ( C ×  H c  ) + ( C ×  H  fx   )   .

Return to footnote 92 referrer

Footnote 93

When hedging corporate exposures, this particular credit event is not required to be specified provided that: (i) A 100% vote is needed to amend maturity, principal, coupon, currency or seniority status of the underlying corporate exposure; and (ii) The legal domicile in which the corporate exposure is governed has a well-established bankruptcy code that allows for a company to reorganize/restructure and provides for an orderly settlement of creditor claims. If these conditions are not met, then the treatment in paragraph 267 may be eligible.

Return to footnote 93 referrer

Footnote 94

This includes the Bank for International Settlements, the International Monetary Fund, the European Central Bank, the European Union, the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) and the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF), as well as MDBs eligible for 0% risk weight as defined in section 4.1.3.

Return to footnote 94 referrer

Footnote 95

A prudentially regulated financial institution is defined as: a legal entity supervised by a regulator that imposes prudential requirements consistent with international norms or a legal entity (parent company or subsidiary) included in a consolidated group where any substantial legal entity in the consolidated group is supervised by a regulator that imposes prudential requirements consistent with international norms. These include, but are not limited to, prudentially regulated insurance companies, broker/dealers, thrifts and futures commission merchants, and qualifying central counterparties as defined in Chapter 7 of this guideline.

Return to footnote 95 referrer

Footnote 96

Cash-funded credit-linked notes issued by the bank against exposures in the banking book that fulfil all minimum requirements for credit derivatives are treated as cash-collateralized transactions. However, in this case the limitations regarding the protection provider as set out in paragraph 268 do not apply.

Return to footnote 96 referrer

Footnote 97

The 2.2 factor aligns the private mortgage insurer and mortgage borrower risk-weights with the application of a 100% LGD as prescribed under the IRB approach in section 5.4.2 of this guideline.

Return to footnote 97 referrer

Footnote 98

SMSB Capital and Liquidity Guideline.

Return to footnote 98 referrer

Footnote 99

Total exposures includes both on and off balance sheet, net of Stage 3 allowances but before taking into account credit risk mitigation.

Return to footnote 99 referrer

Footnote 100

Basel Capital Adequacy Reporting

Return to footnote 100 referrer

Footnote 101

For the initial implementation in Q2 2023, the threshold calculation would be performed based on data from fiscal 2021 (using quarter-end data from Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 of 2021).

Return to footnote 101 referrer

Footnote 102

In 2023 only, materiality threshold calculations are to be performed using two year old data (i.e, using fiscal 2021 data) to allow institutions to identify whether they are eligible to use the simplified treatment upon implementation of this guideline. Starting in Q1 2024, and for every year afterwards, data for the previous year is to be used to perform the materiality threshold calculations, with any changes only being implemented the following fiscal year.

Return to footnote 102 referrer

Consultation status: Closed
The consultation for chapter 5 of the 2027 CAR Guideline closed on February 18, 2026. We'll keep the draft on the site until the final guideline is released.
Note
For institutions with a fiscal year ending October 31 or December 31, respectively.

Chapter 1 - Overview of Risk-Based Capital Requirements  
Chapter 2 - Definition of Capital  
Chapter 3 - Operational Risk  
Chapter 4 - Credit Risk – Standardized Approach  
Chapter 5 - Credit Risk – Internal Ratings-Based Approach  
Chapter 6 - Securitization  
Chapter 7 - Settlement and Counterparty Risk  
Chapter 8 - Credit Valuation Adjustment (CVA) Risk  
Chapter 9 - Market Risk

5.1. Overview
This chapter of the guideline describes the IRB approach to credit risk. Subject to certain minimum conditions and disclosure requirements, institutions that have received OSFI approval to use the IRB approach may rely on their own internal estimates of risk components in determining the capital requirement for a given exposure. The risk components include measures of the probability of default (PD), loss given default (LGD), the exposure at default (EAD), and effective maturity (M). In some cases, institutions may be required to use a supervisory value as opposed to an internal estimate for one or more of the risk components.

[Basel Framework, CRE 30.1]

The IRB approach is based on measures of unexpected losses (UL) and expected losses (EL). The risk-weight functions, as outlined in section 5.3, produce capital requirements for the UL portion. Expected losses are treated separately, as outlined in section 5.7 and section 2.1.3.7 of Chapter 2. [Basel Framework, CRE 30.2]

In this chapter, the asset classes eligible for the IRB approach are defined in section 5.2. Adoption of the IRB approach across all asset classes is also discussed in this section. The risk-weight functions that have been developed for separate asset classes are defined in section 5.3. For example, there is a risk-weight function for corporate exposures and another one for qualifying revolving retail exposures. The risk components, each of which is defined in section 5.4, serve as inputs to the risk-weight functions. The legal certainty standards for recognizing CRM as set out in section 4.3 apply for both the foundation and advanced IRB approaches. There are also unique treatments for specialized lending and purchased receivables that are defined in sections 5.5 and 5.6, followed by a description of the treatment of the EL component in section 5.7. The minimum requirements that institutions must satisfy to use the IRB approach are presented at the end of this chapter in section 5.8.

5.2. Mechanics of the IRB approach
In this section, first the asset classes (e.g. corporate exposures and retail exposures) eligible for the IRB approach are defined. Second, section 5.2.2 provides a description of the risk components to be used by institutions by asset class. Third, sections 5.2.3 outline an institution's adoption of the IRB approach at the asset class level and the related roll out requirements. In cases where an IRB treatment is not specified, institutions should refer to the treatment specified under the standardized approach, as outlined in Chapter 4 of this guideline, and the resulting risk-weighted assets are assumed to represent UL only. Moreover, institutions must apply the risk weights referenced in Chapter 4 to investments that are assessed against materiality thresholds.

[Basel Framework, CRE 30.3]

For securities lent or sold under repurchase agreements or under securities lending and borrowing transactions, institutions are required to hold capital for both the original exposure and the exposure to the counterparty of the repo-style transaction as described in section 5.4.

5.2.1 Categorization of exposures
Under the IRB approach, institutions must categorize banking book exposures into broad classes of assets with different underlying risk characteristics, subject to the definitions set out below. The broad classes of assets are (a) corporate, (b) sovereign, (c) public sector entity, (d) bank, (e) retail, and (f) equity. Within the corporate asset class, five sub-classes of specialized lending are separately identified. Within the retail asset class, three sub-classes are separately identified. Within the corporate and retail asset classes, a distinct treatment for purchased receivables may also apply provided certain conditions are met. For the equity asset class the IRB approach is not permitted, as outlined further in paragraph 49. For a discussion of the IRB treatment of securitization exposures, see Chapter 6 of this guideline.

[Basel Framework, CRE 30.4]

The classification of exposures in this way is broadly consistent with established institution practice. However, some institutions may use different definitions in their internal risk management and measurement systems. While it is not OSFI's intention to require institutions to change the way in which they manage their business and risks, institutions are required to apply the appropriate treatment to each exposure for the purposes of deriving their minimum capital requirement. Institutions must demonstrate to OSFI that their methodology for assigning exposures to different classes is appropriate and consistent over time.

[Basel Framework, CRE 30.5]

(i) Definition of corporate exposures

In general, a corporate exposure is defined as a debt obligation or obligation under a derivative contract of a corporation, limited liability company, partnership, proprietorship or special purpose entities (including those created specifically to finance and /or operate physical assets). Institutions are permitted to distinguish separately exposures to small- and medium-sized entities (SME), as defined in paragraph 69. Corporate exposures also include U.S. Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs).

[Basel Framework, CRE 30.6]

In addition to general corporates, five sub-classes of specialized lending (SL) are identified. Such lending possesses all the following characteristics, in legal form or economic substance:

	The exposure is typically to an entity (often a special purpose entity (SPE)) which was created specifically to finance and/or operate physical assets;

	The borrowing entity has little or no other material assets or activities, and therefore little or no independent capacity to repay the obligation, apart from the income that it receives from the asset(s) being financed;

	The terms of the obligation give the lender a substantial degree of control over the asset(s) and the income that it generates; and

	As a result of the preceding factors, the primary source of repayment of the obligation is the income generated by the asset(s), rather than the independent capacity of a broader commercial enterprise.

[Basel Framework, CRE 30.7]

The five sub-classes of specialized lending are project finance (PF), object finance (OF), commodities finance (CF), income-producing real estate (IPRE), and high-volatility commercial real estate (HVCRE). Each of these sub-classes is defined below.

[Basel Framework, CRE 30.8]

Project finance

PF is a method of funding in which the lender looks primarily to the revenues generated by a single project, both as the source of repayment and as security for the exposure. This type of financing is usually for large, complex and expensive installations that might include, for example, power plants, chemical processing plants, mines, transportation infrastructure, environment, and telecommunications infrastructure. Project finance may take the form of financing of the construction of a new capital installation, or refinancing of an existing installation, with or without improvements. [Basel Framework, CRE 30.9]

In such transactions, the lender is usually paid solely or almost exclusively out of the money generated by the contracts for the facility's output, such as the electricity sold by a power plant. The borrower is usually an SPE that is not permitted to perform any function other than developing, owning, and operating the installation. The consequence is that repayment depends primarily on the project's cash flow and on the collateral value of the project's assets. In contrast, if repayment of the exposure depends primarily on a well-established, diversified, credit-worthy, contractually obligated end user for repayment, it is considered a secured exposure to that end-user.

[Basel Framework, CRE 30.10]

Object finance

OF refers to a method of funding the acquisition of physical assets (e.g. ships, aircraft, satellites, railcars, and fleets) where the repayment of the exposure is dependent on the cash flows generated by the specific assets that have been financed and pledged or assigned to the lender. A primary source of these cash flows might be rental or lease contracts with one or several third parties. In contrast, if the exposure is to a borrower whose financial condition and debt-servicing capacity enables it to repay the debt without undue reliance on the specifically pledged assets, the exposure should be treated as a collateralized corporate exposure.

[Basel Framework, CRE 30.11]

Commodities finance

CF refers to structured short-term lending to finance reserves, inventories, or receivables of exchange-traded commodities (e.g. crude oil, metals, or crops), where the exposure will be repaid from the proceeds of the sale of the commodity and the borrower has no independent capacity to repay the exposure. This is the case when the borrower has no other activities and no other material assets on its balance sheet. The structured nature of the financing is designed to compensate for the weak credit quality of the borrower. The exposure's rating reflects its self-liquidating nature and the lender's skill in structuring the transaction rather than the credit quality of the borrower. [Basel Framework, CRE 30.12]

Such lending can be distinguished from exposures financing the reserves, inventories, or receivables of other more diversified corporate borrowers. Institutions are able to rate the credit quality of the latter type of borrowers based on their broader ongoing operations. In such cases, the value of the commodity serves as a risk mitigant rather than as the primary source of repayment.

[Basel Framework, CRE 30.13]

Income-producing real estate lending

IPRE lending refers to a method of providing funding to real estate (such as, office buildings to let, retail space, multifamily residential buildings, industrial or warehouse space, and hotels) where the prospects for repayment and recovery on the exposure depend primarily on the cash flows generated by the asset. The primary source of these cash flows would generally be lease or rental payments or the sale of the asset. The borrower may be, but is not required to be, an SPE, an operating company focused on real estate construction or holdings, or an operating company with sources of revenue other than real estate. The distinguishing characteristic of IPRE versus other corporate exposures that are collateralized by real estate is the strong positive correlation between the prospects for repayment of the exposure and the prospects for recovery in the event of default, with both depending primarily on the cash flows generated by a property.

[Basel Framework, CRE 30.14]

High-volatility commercial real estate

HVCRE lending is the financing of commercial real estate that exhibits higher loss rate volatility (i.e. higher asset correlation) compared to other types of SL. HVCRE includes:

	Commercial real estate exposures in foreign jurisdictions secured by properties of types that are categorized by the relevant foreign national supervisor as sharing higher volatilities in portfolio default rates;

	Loans financing any of the land acquisition, development and construction (ADC), as defined in Chapter 4, section 4.1.13 phases for properties of those types in such jurisdictions; and

	Loans financing ADC of any other properties (including Canadian properties) where the source of repayment at origination of the exposure is either the future uncertain sale of the property or cash flows whose source of repayment is substantially uncertain (e.g. the property has not yet been leased to the occupancy rate prevailing in that geographic market for that type of commercial real estate), unless the borrower has substantial equity at risk. "Substantial equity at risk" means that at least 25% of the real estate's appraised as-completed value has been contributed by the borrower, as defined in Chapter 4, section 4.1.10 and 4.1.13.

[Basel Framework, CRE 30.15]

Commercial ADC loans exempted from the treatment as HVCRE loans on the basis of certainty of repayment of borrower equity are, however, ineligible for the additional reductions for SL exposures described in paragraph 161. Loans financing the construction of pre-sold one- to four-family residential properties are also excluded from the ADC category.

[Basel Framework, CRE 30.15]

The HVCRE risk weights still apply to Canadian loans financing ADC of properties where the source of repayment is uncertain without substantial equity at risk, as defined in Chapter 4, section 4.1.13, as well as Canadian institutions foreign operations' loans on properties in jurisdictions where the national supervisor has designated specific property types as HVCRE. No other specific Canadian property types are designated as sharing higher volatilities in portfolio default rates.

[Basel Framework, CRE 30.16]

(ii) Definition of sovereign exposures

This asset class covers all exposures to counterparties treated as sovereigns under the standardized approach. This includes all entities referred to in Chapter 4, section 4.1.1, as well as public sector entities (PSEs) that are treated as sovereigns in section 4.1.2, and multilateral development banks (MDBs) that meet the criteria for a 0% risk weight under section 4.1.3. [Basel Framework, CRE 30.17]

(iii) Definition of public sector entity exposures

This asset class covers all exposures to counterparties treated as public sector entities (PSEs) under the standardized approach as defined in section 4.1.2.

(iv) Definition of bank exposures

This asset class covers exposures to banks outlined in section 4.1.4, securities firms and other financial institutions set out in section 4.1.6 that are treated as exposures to banks, and MDBs that do not meet the criteria for a 0% risk weight under the standardized approach. Bank exposures also include covered bonds as defined in section 4.1.5.

[Basel Framework, CRE 30.18]

This asset class also includes exposures to the entities listed in paragraph 23 that are in the form of subordinated debt or regulatory capital instruments (which form their own asset class within the standardized approach), provided that such instruments:

	do not fall within the scope of equity exposures as defined in paragraph 30; are not deducted from regulatory capital or risk-weighted at 250% according to Chapter 2 Footnote 3 ; and are not risk weighted at 1250% according to Chapter 4.

[Basel Framework, CRE 30.18]

(v) Definition of regulatory retail exposures

A retail exposure is categorized as a regulatory retail exposure if it meets all of the six following criteria related to the nature of the borrowers and the size of the pool of exposures, otherwise the exposure is categorized as a non-regulatory retail exposure, and is subject to the Corporate SME risk-weight function:

Nature of borrower or low value of individual exposures

	Exposures to individuals – such as revolving credits and lines of credit (e.g. credit cards, overdrafts, and retail facilities secured by financial instruments) as well as personal term loans and leases (e.g. instalment loans, auto loans and leases, student and educational loans, personal finance, and other exposures with similar characteristics) – are eligible for retail treatment regardless of exposure size.

	Residential mortgage loans

Footnote 4
(including first and subsequent liens, term loans and revolving home equity lines of credit) are eligible for retail treatment regardless of exposure size so long as:

		the credit is secured by a one-to-four unit residence as set out in Chapter 4, section 4.1.10; the residence is or will be occupied by the borrower, or is rented, and is extended to:

			an individual, or a condominium association, cooperative, or similar body with the purpose of granting its members the use of a primary residence in the property securing the loan.

	Loans extended to small businesses and managed as retail exposures are eligible for retail treatment provided the total exposure of the banking group to a small business borrower (on a consolidated basis where applicable) is less than $1.5 million.

Footnote 5
Small business loans extended through or guaranteed by an individual are subject to the same exposure threshold.

	The maximum aggregated retail exposure to one counterparty cannot exceed an absolute threshold of $1.5 million. Aggregated exposures means the gross amount of all forms of retail exposures, excluding residential real estate exposures. The gross amount (before any credit risk mitigation) would include the credit equivalent amount (after applying the applicable credit conversion factor) of any off-balance sheet exposure. Small business loans extended through or guaranteed by an individual are to be aggregated with direct loans to the individual and are subject to the same exposure threshold.

Size of the pool of exposures

	The exposure must be one of a large pool of exposures, which are managed by the institution on a pooled basis.

	Small business exposures below $1.5 million may be treated as retail exposures if the institution treats such exposures in its internal risk management systems consistently over time and in the same manner as regulatory retail exposures. This requires that such an exposure be originated in a similar manner to regulatory retail exposures. Furthermore, it must not be managed individually in a way comparable to corporate exposures, but rather as part of a portfolio segment or pool of exposures with similar risk characteristics for purposes of risk assessment and quantification. However, this does not preclude regulatory retail exposures from being treated individually at some stages of the risk management process. The fact that an exposure is rated individually does not by itself deny the eligibility as a regulatory retail exposure.

[Basel Framework, CRE 30.19 to 30.22]

Within the regulatory retail asset class category, institutions are required to identify separately three sub-classes of exposures:

	residential mortgage loans as defined above, qualifying revolving retail exposures, as defined in paragraph 27, and all other regulatory retail exposures.

[Basel Framework, CRE 30.23]

(vi) Definition of qualifying revolving retail exposures

All of the following criteria must be satisfied for a sub-portfolio to be treated as a qualifying revolving retail exposure (QRRE). These criteria must be applied at a sub-portfolio level consistent with the institution's segmentation of its retail activities generally. If credit cards are managed separately from lines of credit (LOC), then credit cards and LOCs may be considered as separate sub-portfolios. Segmentation at the national or country level (or below) should be the general rule.

	The exposures are revolving, unsecured, and uncommitted (both contractually and in practice). In this context, revolving exposures are defined as those where customers' outstanding balances are permitted to fluctuate based on their decisions to borrow and repay, up to a limit established by the institution.

	The exposures are to individuals.

	The maximum exposure to a single individual in the sub-portfolio is $150,000 or less.

	Because the asset correlation assumptions for the QRRE risk-weight function are markedly below those for all other regulatory retail risk-weight function at low PD values, institutions must demonstrate that the use of the QRRE risk-weight function is constrained to portfolios that have exhibited low volatility of loss rates, relative to their average level of loss rates, especially within the low PD bands.

	Data on loss rates for the sub-portfolio must be retained in order to allow analysis of the volatility of loss rates.

	OSFI must concur that treatment as a qualifying revolving retail exposure is consistent with the underlying risk characteristics of the sub-portfolio.

[Basel Framework, CRE 30.24]

The QRRE sub-class is split into exposures to transactors and revolvers. A QRRE transactor is an exposure to an obligor that meets the definition of a transactor set out in section 4.1.9 of Chapter 4. That is, the exposure is to an obligor in relation to a facility such as a credit card or charge card with an interest free grace period, where the total accrued interest over the previous 12 months is less than $50, or the exposure is in relation to an overdraft facility or a line of credit if the facility has not been drawn down at any point in time over the previous 12 months. All QRRE exposures that are not transactors are revolvers. Footnote 6 [Basel Framework, CRE 30.25]

In cases where an institution is unable to ensure compliance with the retail thresholds (for both QRR in paragraph 27 and total aggregate exposures in paragraph 25), they must be able to, on at least an annual basis, verify and document that the amount of exposures that breach these thresholds are less than 2% of retail exposures, and upon request, provide this documentation to OSFI. If the amount of exposures that breach the exposure threshold is above the 2% threshold, the institution must notify OSFI immediately and develop a plan to either reduce the materiality of these exposures or move these exposures to the Corporate asset class.

(vii) Definition of equity exposures

This asset class covers exposures to equities as defined in section 4.1.8.

[Basel Framework, CRE 30.26]

(viii) Definition of eligible purchased receivables

Eligible purchased receivables are divided into retail and corporate receivables as defined below. [Basel Framework, CRE 30.27]

Retail receivables

Purchased retail receivables, provided the purchasing institution complies with the IRB rules for retail exposures, are eligible for the top-down approach as permitted for retail exposures. The institution must also apply the minimum operational requirements as set forth in sections 5.6 and 5.8. [Basel Framework, CRE 30.28]

Corporate receivables

In general, for purchased corporate receivables, institutions are expected to assess the default risk of individual obligors as specified in sections 5.3.1 and 5.3.2 consistent with the treatment of other corporate exposures. However, the top-down approach may be used, provided that the purchasing institution's programme for corporate receivables complies with both the criteria for eligible receivables and the minimum operational requirements of this approach. The use of the top-down purchased receivables treatment is limited to situations where it would be an undue burden on an institution to be subjected to the minimum requirements for the IRB approach to corporate exposures that would otherwise apply. Primarily, it is intended for receivables that are purchased for inclusion in asset-backed securitization structures, but institutions may also use this approach, with the approval of OSFI, for appropriate on-balance sheet exposures that share the same features. [Basel Framework, CRE 30.29]

OSFI may deny the use of the top-down approach for purchased corporate receivables depending on the institution's compliance with minimum requirements. In particular, to be eligible for the proposed 'top-down' treatment, purchased corporate receivables must satisfy the following conditions:

	The receivables are purchased from unrelated, third party sellers, and as such the institution has not originated the receivables either directly or indirectly.

	The receivables must be generated on an arm's-length basis between the seller and the obligor. (As such, intercompany accounts receivable and receivables subject to contra-accounts between firms that buy and sell to each other are ineligible.)

Footnote 7
The purchasing institution has a claim on all proceeds from the pool of receivables or a pro-rata interest in the proceeds.
Footnote 8
If any single receivable or group of receivables guaranteed by the same seller or made to the same obligor represents more than 4% of the pool of receivables, capital charges must be calculated using the minimum requirements for the bottom-up approach for corporate exposures.

[Basel Framework, CRE 30.30]

The existence of full or partial recourse to the seller does not automatically disqualify an institution from adopting this top-down approach, as long as the cash flows from the purchased corporate receivables are the primary protection against default risk as determined by the rules in paragraphs 174 to 177 for purchased receivables and the institution meets the eligibility criteria and operational requirements. [Basel Framework, CRE 30.31]

(ix) Definition of a Commitment

Commitments are defined as arrangements offered by the bank and accepted by the client that obligate an institution, at a client's request, to:

	Extend credit in the form of loans or participations in loans, lease financing receivables, mortgages (including the undrawn portion of HELOCs), overdrafts;

	Purchase loans, securities, or other assets; or

	Issue credit substitutes such as letters of credit and guarantees.

This includes arrangements that can be:

	unconditionally cancelled by the institution at any time without prior notice to the obligor

	cancelled by the institution if the obligor fails to meet conditions set out in the facility documentation, including conditions that must be met by the obligor prior to any initial or subsequent drawdown under the arrangement.

	cancelled by the bank if the obligor fails to meet conditions set out in the facility documentation, including conditions that must be met by the obligor prior to any initial or subsequent drawdown under the arrangement

	Normally, commitments involve a written contract or agreement and some form of consideration, such as a commitment fee. Note that unfunded mortgage commitments are treated as commitments for risk-based capital purposes when the borrower has accepted the commitment extended by the institution and all conditions related to the commitment have been fully satisfied.

5.2.2 Foundation and advanced approaches
For each of the asset classes covered under the IRB framework, there are three key elements:

	Risk components ─ estimates of risk parameters provided by institutions some of which are supervisory estimates.  
	Risk-weight functions ─ the means by which risk components are transformed into risk-weighted assets and therefore capital requirements.  
	Minimum requirements ─ the minimum standards that must be met in order for an institution to use the IRB approach for a given asset class.

[Basel Framework, CRE 30.32]

For certain asset classes, two broad approaches are available: a foundation and an advanced approach. Under the foundation approach (FIRB approach), as a general rule, institutions provide their own estimates of PD and their own calculation of M and rely on supervisory estimates for other risk components. Under the advanced approach (AIRB approach), institutions provide their own estimates of PD, LGD and EAD, and their own calculation of M, subject to meeting minimum standards. For both the foundation and advanced approaches, institutions must always use the risk-weight functions provided in this guideline for the purpose of deriving capital requirements. The full suite of approaches is described below.

[Basel Framework, CRE 30.33]

For exposures to equities, as defined in paragraph 30, the IRB approaches are not permitted (see paragraph 49). In addition, the AIRB approach cannot be used for the following:

	Exposures to general corporates (i.e. exposures to corporates that are not classified as specialized lending) belonging to a group with total consolidated annual revenues greater than $750 million.

	Exposures in the bank asset class as defined in paragraph 24, and other securities firms and financial institutions (including insurance companies and other financial institutions in the corporate asset class), including all exposures to financial institutions to which a 1.25 correlation parameter multiplier applies as referenced in paragraph 68. Footnote 9 [Basel Framework, CRE 30.34]

In making the assessment for the revenue threshold in paragraph 39(1), the amounts must be as reported in the audited financial statements of the corporates or, for corporates that are part of consolidated groups, their consolidated groups (according to the accounting standard applicable to the ultimate parent of the consolidated group). The figures must be based either (i) on the average amounts calculated over the prior three years, or (ii) on the latest amounts available to the institution, updated at least every three years. Institutions are expected to choose an approach and use it consistently, where possible. However, institutions are requested to store the annual revenue data of corporate borrowers on an ongoing basis, even if only the latest amount is used for purposes of comparing against the threshold amount.

[Basel Framework, CRE 30.35]

Apart from the asset classes listed in paragraph 39, the FIRB approach may only be applied where insufficient loss data is available to apply the AIRB approach (such as for low-default portfolios), and the use of the approach for such asset classes is subject to OSFI approval. The size or materiality of a portfolio cannot, in isolation, justify applying the FIRB approach.

(i) Corporate, sovereign, PSE and bank exposures

Under the foundation approach, institutions must provide their own estimates of PD associated with each of their borrower grades, and must calculate M using the definition provided in paragraphs 131 to 143 but must use supervisory estimates for the other relevant risk components. The other risk components are LGD and EAD.

[Basel Framework, CRE 30.36]

Under the advanced approach, institutions must calculate the effective maturity (M) Footnote 10 and provide their own estimates of PD, LGD and EAD.

[Basel Framework, CRE 30.37]

There is an exception to this general rule (specified in paragraphs 42 and 43) for the five sub-classes of assets identified as SL.

[Basel Framework, CRE 30.38]

The SL categories: PF, OF, CF, IPRE, and HVCRE

Institutions that do not meet the requirements for the estimation of PD under the corporate foundation approach for their SL exposures are required to map their internal risk grades to five supervisory categories, each of which is associated with a specific risk weight. This approach is termed the 'supervisory slotting criteria approach'. [Basel Framework, CRE 30.39]

Institutions that meet the requirements for the estimation of PD are able to use the foundation approach to corporate exposures to derive risk weights for all classes of SL exposures except HVCRE. With the exception of exposures in specified in paragraph 20, there are no HVCRE exposures in Canada. However at the discretion of host regulators, institutions meeting the requirements for HVCRE exposures in foreign jurisdictions may be able to use a foundation approach that is similar in all respects to the corporate approach, with the exception of a separate risk-weight function as described in paragraph 76.

[Basel Framework, CRE 30.40]

Institutions that meet the requirements for the estimation of PD, LGD and EAD are permitted to use the advanced approach to corporate exposures to derive risk weights for all classes of SL exposures except HVCRE. With the exception of exposures in specified in paragraph 20, there are no HVCRE exposures in Canada. However at the discretion of host regulators, institutions meeting these requirements for HVCRE exposures in a foreign jurisdiction may be permitted to use an advanced approach that is similar in all respects to the corporate approach, with the exception of a separate risk-weight function as described in paragraph 76. [Basel Framework, CRE 30.41]

(ii) Retail exposures

For retail exposures, institutions must provide their own estimates of PD, LGD and EAD. There is no foundation approach for this asset class.

[Basel Framework, CRE 30.42]

(iii) Equity exposures

The treatment of equity exposures is set out in Chapter 2 and section 4.1.8 of this guideline, with the exception of equity investment in funds. Equity investments in funds are subject to the requirements set out in section 4.1.22 of this guideline, with the following exceptions:

Under the look-through approach (LTA):

	Institutions using an IRB approach must calculate the IRB risk components (i.e. PD of the underlying exposures and, where applicable, LGD and EAD) associated with the fund's underlying exposures (except where the underlying exposures are equity exposures, in respect of which the standardized approach must be used as required by paragraph 39).

	Institutions using an IRB approach may use the standardized approach for credit risk when applying risk weights to the underlying components of funds if they are permitted to do so under the provisions relating to the adoption of the IRB approach set out in earlier in this chapter in the case of directly held investments. In addition, when an IRB calculation is not feasible (e.g. the institution cannot assign the necessary risk components to the underlying exposures in a manner consistent with its own underwriting criteria), the methods set out in paragraph 50 must be used.

	Institutions may rely on third-party calculations for determining the risk weights associated with their equity investments in funds (i.e. the underlying risk weights of the exposures of the fund) if they do not have adequate data or information to perform the calculations themselves. In this case, the third party must use the methods set out in paragraph 50, with the applicable risk weight set 1.2 times higher than the one that would be applicable if the exposure were held directly by the institution.

[Basel Framework, CRE 60.19]

In cases when the IRB calculation is not feasible (paragraph 49 ii above), a third party is performing the calculation of risk weights (paragraph 49 above) or when the institution is using the mandate-based approach (MBA), the following methods must be used to determine the risk weights associated with the fund's underlying exposures:

	for securitization exposures, the Securitization External Ratings-Based Approach (SEC-ERBA) set out in section 6.6.2 of this guideline or the Securitization Standardized Approach (SEC-SA) set out in section 6.6.4 of this guideline if the institution is not able to use the SEC-ERBA; or a 1250% risk weight where the specified requirements for using the SEC-ERBA or SEC-SA are not met; and

	the Standardized Approach as described in chapter 4 of this guideline for all other exposures.

[Basel Framework, CRE 60.20]

(iv) Eligible purchased receivables

The treatment of eligible purchased receivables potentially straddles two asset classes. For eligible corporate receivables, both a foundation and advanced approach are available subject to certain operational requirements being met. As noted in paragraph 33, for corporate purchased receivables institutions are in general expected to assess the default risk of individual obligors. The institution may use the AIRB treatment for purchased corporate receivables (paragraphs 176 and 177) only for exposures to individual corporate obligors that are eligible for the AIRB approach according to paragraphs 39 and 40. Otherwise, the FIRB treatment for purchased corporate receivables should be used. For eligible retail receivables, as with the retail asset class, only the AIRB approach is available. [Basel Framework, CRE 30.44]

(v) Asset-backed securities

Exposures to asset-backed securities that are tranched are treated as securitization exposures, defined under Chapter 6, Securitization. For other asset-backed securities, section 4.1.15 outlines the required criteria for capitalizing the exposure based on the underlying assets rather than the originator/SPV. If the criteria outlined in section in 4.1.15 are met and the institution has received IRB approval for the underlying assets, then the underlying assets may be treated as purchased receivables.

5.2.3 Adoption of the IRB approach across asset classes
Once an institution adopts an IRB approach for part of its holdings within an asset class, it is expected to extend it across all holdings within that asset class. In this context, the relevant asset classes are as follows:

	Sovereigns  
	Public Sector Entities  
	Banks  
	Corporates (excluding specialized lending and purchased receivables) Specialized lending Corporate purchased receivables QRRE Retail residential mortgages All other regulatory retail (excluding purchased receivables) Retail purchased receivables

[Basel Framework, CRE 30.45]

OSFI recognizes that for many institutions it may not be practicable for various reasons to implement the IRB approach across all material asset classes and business units at the same time. Furthermore, once on IRB, data limitations may mean that institutions can meet the standards for the use of own estimates of LGD and EAD for some but not all of their exposures within an asset class at the same time (for example, exposures that are in the same asset class, but are in different business units). [Basel Framework, CRE 30.46]

As such, OSFI may allow institutions to adopt a phased rollout of the IRB approach across an asset class. The phased rollout includes (i) adoption of IRB across the asset class within the same business unit; (ii) adoption of IRB across business units in the same banking group; and (iii) the move from the foundation approach to the advanced approach for certain risk components where use of the advanced approach is permitted. However, when an institution adopts an IRB approach for an asset class within a particular business unit (or in the case of retail exposures for an individual sub-class), it must apply the IRB approach to all exposures within that asset class (or sub-class) in that unit. [Basel Framework, CRE 30.47]

If an institution intends to adopt an IRB approach for an asset class, it must produce an implementation plan, specifying to what extent and when it intends to roll out IRB approaches within the asset class and business units. The plan should be realistic, and must be agreed with OSFI. It should be driven by the practicality and feasibility of moving to the more advanced approaches, and not motivated by a desire to adopt an approach that minimizes its capital charge. During the roll-out period, OSFI will ensure that no capital relief is granted for intra-group transactions which are designed to reduce a banking group's aggregate capital charge by transferring credit risk among entities on the standardized approach, foundation and advanced IRB approaches. This includes, but is not limited to, asset sales or cross guarantees.

[Basel Framework, CRE 30.48]

Some exposures that are immaterial in terms of size and perceived risk profile may be exempt from the requirements paragraphs 55 and 56, subject to supervisory approval. Capital requirements for such operations will be determined according to the standardized approach, with OSFI determining whether an institution should hold more capital under Pillar 2 for such positions.

[Basel Framework, CRE 30.49]

Institutions adopting an IRB approach for an asset class are expected to continue to employ an IRB approach for that asset class. A voluntary return to the standardized or foundation approach is permitted only in extraordinary circumstances, such as divestiture of a large fraction of the institution's credit-related business, and must be approved by OSFI.

[Basel Framework, CRE 30.50]

Given the data limitations associated with SL exposures, an institution may remain on the supervisory slotting criteria approach for one or more of the PF, OF, CF, IPRE or HVCRE sub-classes, and move to the foundation or advanced approach for the other sub-classes. However, an institution should not move to the advanced approach for the HVCRE sub-class without also doing so for material IPRE exposures at the same time. [Basel Framework, CRE 30.51]

Irrespective of the materiality, exposures to central counterparties arising from over-the-counter derivatives, exchange traded derivatives transactions and securities financing transactions must be treated according to the dedicated treatment laid down in section 7.1.8.

[Basel Framework, CRE 30.52]

Institutions adopting the IRB approaches are required to calculate their capital requirements using these approaches, as well as the standardized approach as set out in section 1.5. Institutions moving directly from the standardized to the IRB approaches will be subject to parallel calculations or impact studies in the years leading up to their adoption of the advanced approaches.

5.3. IRB approach risk weight functions
Section 5.3 presents the calculation of risk-weighted assets under the IRB approach for i) corporate, sovereign, PSE and bank exposures and ii) retail exposures. Risk-weighted assets are designed to address unexpected losses from exposures. The method for calculating expected losses, and for determining the difference between that measure and provisions is described in section 5.7. [Basel Framework, CRE 31.1]
Explanation of the risk-weight functions
Regarding the risk-weight functions for deriving risk weighted assets set out in section 5.3:

	Probability of default (PD) and loss-given-default (LGD) are measured as decimals.

	Exposure at default (EAD) is measured as currency (e.g. CAD), except where explicitly noted otherwise.

	ln denotes the natural logarithm and e the base of the natural logarithm.

	N(x) denotes the cumulative distribution function for a standard normal random variable (i.e. the probability that a normal random variable with mean zero and variance of one is less than or equal to x). The normal cumulative distribution function is, for example, available in Excel as the function NORMSDIST.

	G(z) denotes the inverse cumulative distribution function for a standard normal random variable (i.e. the value of x such that N(x) = z). The inverse of the normal cumulative distribution function is, for example, available in Excel as the function NORMSINV.

[Basel Framework, CRE 31.2]

Risk-weighted assets for all exposures that are in default The capital requirement (K) for a defaulted exposure is equal to the greater of zero and the difference between its LGD (described in paragraph 283) and the institution's best estimate of expected loss (described in paragraph 286). The risk-weighted asset amount for the defaulted exposure is the product of K, 12.5, and the EAD. [Basel Framework, CRE 31.3]
5.3.1 RWA for corporate, sovereign, PSE, and bank exposures not in default
(i) Risk weight functions for corporate, sovereign, PSE, and bank exposures

The derivation of risk-weighted assets is dependent on estimates of the PD, LGD, EAD and, in some cases, effective maturity (M), for a given exposure. [Basel Framework, CRE 31.4]

For exposures not in default, the formula for calculating risk-weighted assets is:

  Correlation ( R ) = 0.12 ×   1 −   e   − 50 × PD     1 −   e   − 50     + 0.24 ×  ( 1 −     1 − e   − 50 × PD     1 −   e   − 50     )

  Maturity adjustment ( b ) =   [  0.11852 − 0.05478 ×   ln ⁡  ⁡  ( PD )   ]    2

  Capital requirement ( K ) =  [ LGD × N  [   G  ( PD )      ( 1 − R )     +    R   ( 1 − R )    × G  ( 0.999 )  ]  − PD × LGD ]  ×    ( 1 +  ( M − 2.5 )  × b )    1 − 1.5 × b Footnote 11 Risk-weighted assets  ( RWA ) = K × 12.5 × EAD

Illustrative risk weights are shown in Appendix 5-1.

[Basel Framework, CRE 31.5]

The M used in the calculation of K in paragraph 66 is the effective maturity, calculated according to paragraphs 131 to 142, and the following term is used to refer to a specific part of the capital requirements formula:

  Full maturity adjustment =   ( 1 + ( M − 2.5 ) × b )   ( 1 − 1.5 × b )

[Basel Framework, CRE 31.6]

A multiplier of 1.25 is applied to the correlation parameter of all exposures to financial institutions meeting the following criteria:

	Regulated financial institutions whose total assets are greater than or equal to $150 billion. The most recent audited financial statement of the parent company and consolidated subsidiaries must be used in order to determine asset size. For the purpose of this paragraph, a regulated financial institution is defined as a parent and its subsidiaries where any substantial legal entity in the consolidated group Footnote 12 is supervised by a regulator that imposes prudential requirements consistent with international norms. These include, but are not limited to, prudentially regulated Insurance Companies, Broker/Dealers, Banks, Thrifts and Futures Commission Merchants; Unregulated financial institutions, regardless of size. Unregulated financial institutions are, for the purposes of this paragraph, legal entities whose main business includes: the management of financial assets, lending, factoring, leasing, provision of credit enhancements, securitization, investments, financial custody, central counterparty services, proprietary trading and other financial services activities identified by regulatory authorities (including OSFI), including financial institutions or leveraged funds that are not subject to prudential solvency regulation.

  Correlation ( R_FI ) = 1.25 ×  [ 0.12 ×    ( 1 −   e    ( − 50 × PD )    )     ( 1 −   e    ( − 50 )    )    + 0.24 ×  [ 1 −    ( 1 −   e    ( − 50 × PD )    )     ( 1 −   e   − 50 )   )    ]  ]

[Basel Framework, CRE 31.7]

(ii) Firm-size adjustment for small- and medium-sized entities (SME)

Under the IRB approach for corporate credits, institutions will be permitted to separately distinguish exposures to SME borrowers (defined as corporate exposures where the reported sales for the consolidated group of which the firm is a part is less than $75 million) from those to large firms. A firm-size adjustment (i.e. 0.04 x (1- (S - 7.5)/67.5)) is made to the corporate risk weight formula for exposures to SME borrowers. S is expressed as total annual sales in millions of dollars with values of S falling in the range of equal to or less than $75 million or greater than or equal to $7.5 million. Reported sales of less than $7.5 million will be treated as if they were equivalent to $7.5 million for the purposes of the firm-size adjustment for SME borrowers.

  Correlation ( R ) = 0.12 ×    ( 1 −   e    ( − 50 × PD )    )     ( 1 −   e    ( − 50 )    )    + 0.24 ×  [ 1 −   1 −   e    ( − 50 × PD )      1 −   e    ( − 50 )      ]  − 0.04 ×  ( 1 −   S − 7.5   67.5    )

[Basel Framework, CRE 31.8]

Annual sales, rather than total assets, are to be used to measure borrower size, unless in limited circumstances an institution can demonstrate that it would be more appropriate to use the total assets of the borrower. OSFI is willing to consider limited recognition for classes of entities that always have much smaller sales than total assets, because assets are a more appropriate indicator in this case. The use of total assets should be a limited exception. The maximum reduction in the risk weight for SMEs is achieved when borrower size is $7.5 million. For borrower sizes below $7.5 million, borrower size is set equal to $7.5 million. The adjustment shrinks to zero as borrower size approaches $75 million. Additionally, the Corporate SME RWA formula must be used with $7.5 million for the annual sales amount for exposures to individuals for non-regulatory retail exposures. [Basel Framework, CRE 31.9]

(iii) Risk weights for specialized lending

Risk weights for PF, OF, CF, and IPRE

Institutions that meet the requirements for the estimation of PD will be able to use the FIRB approach for the corporate asset class to derive risk weights for SL sub-classes.

[Basel Framework, CRE 31.10]

Institutions that meet the requirements for the estimation of PD and LGD and EAD (where relevant) will be able to use the AIRB approach for the corporate asset class to derive risk weights for SL sub-classes.

[Basel Framework, CRE 31.10]

Institutions that do not meet the requirements for the estimation of PD under the IRB approach for corporate exposures must follow the supervisory slotting approach outlined in section 5.5.1.

[Basel Framework, CRE 31.10]

Risk weights for HVCRE

For Canadian exposures, the HVCRE category only applies to loans financing ADC properties where the source of repayment at origination is substantially uncertain without the borrower having substantial equity at risk.

However, the HVCRE risk weights may apply more broadly to loans made by Canadian institutions' foreign operations that are secured by property types designated by the host supervisor as HVCRE, where the host supervisor has given the foreign operation approval to use the IRB approach. In this instance, a Canadian institution shall use the HVCRE risk weights required by the foreign supervisor in calculating its consolidated capital requirements for loans secured by these properties.

Institutions will use the same formula for the derivation of HVCRE risk weights that is used for other SL exposures, except that they will apply the following asset correlation formula:

  Correlation ( R ) = 0.12 ×    ( 1 −   e   (  − 50 x PD  )   )     ( 1 −   e    ( − 50 )    )    + 0.30 ×  [ 1 −   (  1 −   e   − 50 × PD   )     ( 1 −   e   − 50   )    ]

[Basel Framework, CRE 31.11]

Institutions that do not meet the requirements for estimation of LGD and EAD for HVCRE exposures must use the supervisory parameters for LGD and EAD for corporate exposures or use the supervisory slotting approach for HVCRE exposures outlined in section 5.5.2.

[Basel Framework, CRE 31.12]

5.3.2 RWA for retail exposures that are not in default
There are four separate risk-weight functions for retail exposures, as defined in paragraphs 79 to 82. Risk weights for retail exposures are based on separate assessments of PD and LGD as inputs to the risk-weight functions. None of the three non-regulatory retail risk-weight functions contain the explicit maturity adjustment component that is present in the risk weight function for exposures to banks, sovereigns, PSEs and corporates. Illustrative risk weights are shown in Appendix 5-1. [Basel Framework, CRE 31.13]

(i) Residential mortgage exposures

For exposures defined in paragraph 25 that are not in default and are secured or partly secured Footnote 13 by residential mortgages, risk weights will be assigned based on the following formula:

Correlation (R)

= 0.15 where repayment is not materially dependent on cash flows generated by the property; Footnote 14 or

= 0.22 where one or more of the following applies and with the exception noted below:

	repayment is materially dependent on cash flows generated by the property; Footnote 15 OSFI's expectations related to Guideline B-20 Footnote 16 are not met; the mortgage is a variable rate fixed-payment residential mortgage with an LTV above 65% for which the payments are insufficient to cover the interest component of the mortgage for three or more consecutive months due to increases in interest rates.

OSFI may exempt an institution from using the 0.22 correlation factor for a variable rate fixed payment mortgage described above if the institution can demonstrate, to OSFI's satisfaction, that its estimates of IRB parameters account for this risk in a manner that is at least as conservative as increasing the correlation factor from 0.15 to 0.22.

  Capital requirement ( K ) =  [ LGD × N  [   G  ( PD )     ( 1 − R )    +   (   R   1 − R   )   × G  ( 0.999 )  ]  − PD × LGD ]

  RWA = K × 12.5 × EAD

[Basel Framework, CRE 31.14]

(ii) Qualifying revolving retail exposures

For qualifying revolving retail exposures as defined in paragraph 27 that are not in default, risk weights are defined based on the following formula:

  Correlation ⁡  ( R )  = 0.04

  Capital requirement ( K ) =  [ LGD × N  [   G  ( PD )      ( 1 − R )     +   (   R   1 − R   )   × G  ( 0.999 )  ]  − PD × LGD ]

  Risk-weighted assets = K × 12.5 × EAD

[Basel Framework, CRE 31.15]

(iii) All other regulatory retail exposures

For all other regulatory retail exposures that are not in default, risk weights are assigned based on the following function, which allows correlation to vary with PD:

  Correlation ( R ) = 0.03 ×    ( 1 −   e   − 35 PD   )     ( 1 −   e   − 35   )    + 0.16 ×  [ 1 −   1 −   e   − 35 × PD     1 −   e   − 35     ]

  Capital requirement ( K ) =  [ LGD × N  [ (   G  ( PD )      1 − R     ) +   (   R   1 − R   )   × G ( 0.999 ) ]  − PD × LGD ]

  Risk-weighted assets = K × 12.5 × EAD

[Basel Framework, CRE 31.16]

(iv) Non-regulatory retail

Retail exposures which fail to meet any of the six criteria related to the nature of the borrowers and the size of the pool of exposures in paragraph 25 are categorized as non-regulatory retail. They are subject to the Corporate SME risk-weight function.

5.4. IRB risk components
Section 5.4 presents the calculation of the risk components (PD, LGD, EAD, M) that are used in the formulas set out in section 5.3. In calculating these components, the legal certainty standards for recognizing credit risk mitigation (CRM) under the standardized approach as set out in section 4.3 apply for both the FIRB and AIRB approaches. [Basel Framework, CRE 32.1]
5.4.1 Risk components for corporate, sovereign, PSE, and bank exposures
Section 5.4.1 sets out the calculation of the risk components for corporate, sovereign, PSE, and bank exposures. In the case of an exposure that is guaranteed by a sovereign, the floors that apply to the risk components do not apply to that part of the exposure covered by the sovereign guarantee (i.e. any part of the exposure that is not covered by the guarantee is subject to the relevant floors). [Basel Framework, CRE 32.2]

(i) Probability of default (PD)

For corporate, sovereign, PSE and bank exposures, the PD is the one-year PD associated with the internal borrower grade to which that exposure is assigned. The PD of borrowers assigned to a default grade(s), consistent with the reference definition of default, is 100%. The minimum requirements for the derivation of the PD estimates associated with each internal borrower grade are outlined in paragraphs 276 to 278. [Basel Framework, CRE 32.3]

The PD floor for exposures to U.S. GSEs in conservatorship or receivership is 0.03%. For all other exposures except those in the sovereign asset class (including PSEs treated as sovereigns as defined in paragraph 21), the PD for each exposure that is used as input into the risk weight formula and the calculation of expected loss must not be less than 0.05%. [Basel Framework, CRE 32.4]

(ii) Loss given default (LGD)

An institution must provide an estimate of the LGD for each corporate, sovereign, PSE, and bank exposure. There are two approaches for deriving this estimate: a foundation approach and an advanced approach. As noted in paragraph 39, the advanced approach is not permitted for exposures to certain entities. [Basel Framework, CRE 32.5]

LGD under the foundation approach: treatment of unsecured claims and non-recognized collateral

Under the foundation approach, senior claims on sovereigns, PSEs, banks, securities firms and other financial institutions (including insurance companies and any financial institutions in the corporate asset class) that are not secured by recognized collateral will be assigned a 45% LGD. Senior claims on other corporates that are not secured by recognized collateral will be assigned a 40% LGD. [Basel Framework, CRE 32.6]

All subordinated claims on corporates, sovereigns, PSEs and banks will be assigned a 75% LGD. A subordinated loan is a facility that is expressly subordinated to another facility. The legal definition of subordination applies for the purpose of this paragraph.

[Basel Framework, CRE 32.7]

LGD under the foundation approach: collateral recognition

In addition to the eligible financial collateral recognized in the standardized approach, under the foundation IRB approach some other forms of collateral, known as eligible IRB collateral, are also recognized. These include receivables, specified commercial and residential real estate (CRE/RRE), and other collateral, where they meet the minimum requirements set out in paragraphs 337 to 353. For eligible financial collateral, the requirements are identical to the operational standards as set out in section 4.3. [Basel Framework, CRE 32.8]

The methodology for the recognition of eligible financial collateral closely follows that outlined in the comprehensive approach to collateral in section 4.3.3 (iii).

The simple approach to collateral presented in section 4.3.3 (ii) is not available to institutions applying the IRB approach. [Basel Framework, CRE 32.9]

The effective LGD applicable to a collateralized transaction (LGD`) must be calculated as the exposure weighted average of the LGD applicable to the unsecured part of an exposure (LGDU) and the LGD applicable to the collateralized part of an exposure (LGDS). Specifically, the formula that follows must be used, where:

	E is the current value of the exposure (i.e. cash lent or securities lent or posted). In the case of securities lent or posted the exposure value has to be increased by applying the appropriate haircuts (HE) according to the comprehensive approach for financial collateral;

	ES is the current value of the collateral received after the application of the haircut applicable for the type of collateral (HC) and for any currency mismatches between the exposure and the collateral, as specified in the paragraphs 94 to 96. ES is capped at the value of E×(1 + HE);

	EU = E×(1 + HE) − ES. The terms Eu and ES are only used to calculate LGD`. Institutions must continue to calculate EAD without taking into account the presence of any collateral, unless otherwise specified;

	LGDU is that applicable for an unsecured exposure, as set out in paragraphs 88 and 89;

	LGDS is the LGD applicable to exposures secured by the type of collateral used in the transaction, as specified in paragraph 94;

  LGD` =   LGD   U   ×     E   U     E ·  ( 1 +   H   E   )    +   LGD   S   ×     E   S     E · ( 1 +   H   E   )

[Basel Framework, CRE 32.10]

The following table specifies the LGDS and haircuts applicable when calculating ES in the formula set out in paragraph 93:

	Supervisory LGDs and Haircuts under the Foundation IRB

			Type of collateral  
			LGDS  
			Haircut

			Eligible financial collateral  
			0%

			As determined by the haircuts that apply in the comprehensive formula of the standardized approach for credit risk (see section 4.3.3 iii).

			The haircuts have to be adjusted for different holding periods and non-daily remargining or revaluation according to section 4.3.3 iii.

			Eligible receivables  
			20%  
			40%

			Eligible residential real estate / commercial real estate Footnote 17 20% 40%

			Other eligible physical collateral  
			25%  
			40%

			Ineligible collateral  
			N/A  
			100%

[Basel Framework, CRE 32.11]

When eligible collateral is denominated in a different currency to that of the exposure, the haircut for currency risk used to calculate ES is the same haircut that applies in the comprehensive approach (section 4.3.3 (iii) of Chapter 4). [Basel Framework, CRE 32.12]

Institutions that lend securities or post collateral must calculate capital requirements for both of the following: (i) the credit risk or market risk of the securities, if this remains with the institution; and (ii) the counterparty credit risk arising from the risk that the borrower of the securities may default. Paragraphs 124 to 130 set out the calculation of the EAD arising from transactions that give rise to counterparty credit risk such as securities financing transactions. For such transactions where the collateral has been reflected through EAD, the LGD of the counterparty must be determined using the LGD specified for unsecured exposures, as set out in paragraph 88 and 89. [Basel Framework, CRE 32.13]

LGD under the F-IRB approach: methodology for the treatment of pools of collateral

In the case where an institution has obtained multiple types of collateral it may apply the formula set out in paragraph 93 sequentially for each individual type of collateral. In doing so, after each step of recognizing one individual type of collateral, the remaining value of the unsecured exposure (EU) will be reduced by the adjusted value of the collateral (ES) recognized in that step. In line with paragraph 93, the total of ES across all collateral types is capped at the value of E × (1+HE). This results in the formula that follows, where for each collateral type i:

	LGDSi is the LGD applicable to that form of collateral (as specified in paragraph 94).

	ESi is the current value of the collateral received after the application of the haircut applicable for the type of collateral (Hc) (as specified in paragraph 94).

	    LGD   *   =   LGD   U   ×     E   U     E ×  ( 1 +   H   E   )    +   ∑ i     LGD   S i   ×     E   S i     E × ( 1 +   H   E   )

[Basel Framework, CRE 32.14]

LGD under the advanced approach

Subject to certain additional minimum requirements specified below (and the conditions set out in paragraph 33), institutions may use their own internal estimates of LGD for corporate, PSE and sovereign exposures. LGD must be measured as the loss given default as a percentage of the EAD. Institutions eligible for the IRB approach that are unable to meet these additional minimum requirements must utilize the foundation LGD treatment described above.

[Basel Framework, CRE 32.15]

The LGD for each corporate and PSE exposure that is used as input into the risk weight formula and the calculation of expected loss must not be less than the parameter floors indicated in the table below (the floors do not apply to the LGD for exposures in the sovereign asset class):

	LGD Parameter Floors

			Wholesale classes  
			LGD

			Unsecured  
			Secured

			Corporate and PSE  
			0% for U.S. GSEs in conservatorship or receivership and 25% otherwise Varying by collateral type:

				0% financial  
				10% receivables  
				10% commercial or residential real estate 15% other physical 25% intangibles

[Basel Framework, CRE 32.16]

The LGD floors for secured exposures in the table above apply when the exposure is fully secured (i.e. the value of collateral after the application of haircuts exceeds the value of the exposure). The LGD floor for a partially secured exposure is calculated as a weighted average of the unsecured LGD floor for the unsecured portion and the secured LGD floor for the secured portion. That is, the following formula should be used to determine the LGD floor, where:

	LGDU floor and LGDS floor are the floor values for fully unsecured and fully secured exposures respectively, as specified in the table in paragraph 99.

	The other terms are defined as set out in paragraphs 93 and 94.

	  Floor =   LGD   Ufloor   ×     E   U     E ×  ( 1 +   H   E   )    +   LGD   Sfloor   ×     E   S     E ×  ( 1 +   H   E   )

[Basel Framework, CRE 32.17]

In cases where an institution has met the conditions to use their own internal estimates of LGD for a pool of unsecured exposures, and takes collateral against one of these exposures, it may not be able to model the effects of the collateral (i.e. it may not have enough data to model the effect of the collateral on recoveries). In such cases, the institution is permitted to apply the formula set out in paragraph 93 or 97, with the exception that the LGDU term would be the institution's own internal estimate of the unsecured LGD. To adopt this treatment the collateral must be eligible under the F-IRB and the institution's estimate of LGDU must not take account of any effects of collateral recoveries. [Basel Framework, CRE 32.18]

The minimum requirements for the derivation of LGD estimates are outlined in section 5.8.6, (vii). [Basel Framework, CRE 32.19]

Treatment of certain repo-style transactions under the IRB approaches

Institutions that want to recognize the effects of master netting agreements on repo-style transactions for capital purposes must apply the methodology outlined in paragraph 125 for determining E` for use as the EAD in the calculation of counterparty credit risk. For institutions using the advanced approach, own LGD estimates would be permitted for the unsecured equivalent amount (E`) used to calculate counterparty credit risk. In both cases, in addition to counterparty credit risk, institutions must also calculate the capital requirements relating to any credit or market risk to which they remain exposed arising from the underlying securities in the master netting agreement. [Basel Framework, CRE 32.20]

Treatment of guarantees and credit derivatives under the IRB approaches

There are two approaches for recognition of credit risk mitigation (CRM) in the form of guarantees and credit derivatives in the IRB approach: a foundation approach for institutions using supervisory values of LGD, and an advanced approach for those institutions using their own internal estimates of LGD. [Basel Framework, CRE 32.21]

Under either approach, CRM in the form of guarantees and credit derivatives must not reflect the effect of double default (see paragraph 307). As such, to the extent that the CRM is recognized by the institution, the adjusted risk weight will not be less than that of a comparable direct exposure to the protection provider. A comparable, direct exposure to the guarantor is one using the PD of the guarantor and the LGD for an unsecured exposure to the guarantor. In the case where a guarantor pledges additional collateral beyond that of the original borrower, this additional collateral may be reflected in the LGD of a comparable, direct exposure to the guarantor. Consistent with the standardized approach, institutions may choose not to recognize credit protection if doing so would result in a higher capital requirement. [Basel Framework, CRE 32.22]

Treatment of guarantees and credit derivatives: recognition under the foundation approach

For institutions using the foundation approach for LGD, the approach to guarantees and credit derivatives closely follows the treatment under the standardized approach as specified in section 4.3.5. The range of eligible guarantors is the same as under the standardized approach except that companies that are internally rated may also be recognized under the foundation approach. To receive recognition, the requirements outlined in section 4.3.5 must be met. [Basel Framework, CRE 32.23]

Eligible guarantees from eligible guarantors will be recognized as follows:

	For the covered portion of the exposure, a risk weight is derived by taking:

		the risk-weight function appropriate to the type of guarantor, and the PD appropriate to the guarantor's borrower grade.

	The institution may replace the LGD of the underlying transaction with the LGD applicable to the guarantee taking into account seniority and any collateralization of a guaranteed commitment. For example, when an institution has a subordinated claim on the borrower but the guarantee represents a senior claim on the guarantor this may be reflected by using an LGD applicable for senior exposures (see paragraph 88) instead of an LGD applicable for subordinated exposures.

	In case the institution applies the standardized approach to direct exposures to the guarantor it may only recognize the guarantee by applying the standardized approach to the covered portion of the exposure. [Basel Framework, CRE 32.24]

Although the PD component may be adjusted to lie somewhere between those of the guarantor and the obligor if the guarantor's PD is not appropriate, note that LGD may only be substituted and may not be adjusted. Paragraph 105 establishes a floor on the recognition of a guarantee. Therefore, the PD and LGD used for the covered portion of an exposure under the foundation approach must not result in a risk weight that is lower than that of a comparable direct exposure to the guarantor. While substituting both the PD and LGD of the guarantor for those of the borrower will result in a risk weight equal to that of a direct exposure to the guarantor, replacing or adjusting only one of these components could result in a risk weight that is lower. Notwithstanding, institutions are not permitted to combine a risk component of the guarantor with a component of the underlying obligation in the risk weight formula if doing so results in a risk weight lower than that of a comparable direct exposure to the guarantor. For guaranteed undrawn exposures, the CCF of the original borrower should be used. [Basel Framework, CRE 32.25]

The uncovered portion of the exposure is assigned the risk weight associated with the underlying obligor. [Basel Framework, CRE 32.25]

Where partial coverage exists, or where there is a currency mismatch between the underlying obligation and the credit protection, it is necessary to split the exposure into a covered and an uncovered amount. The treatment in the foundation approach follows that outlined in section 4.3.5 (vii) of Chapter 4, and depends upon whether the cover is proportional or tranched.

[Basel Framework, CRE 32.26]

Treatment of guarantees and credit derivatives: recognition under the AIRB approach

Institutions using the advanced approach for estimating LGDs may reflect the risk-mitigating effect of guarantees and credit derivatives through either adjusting PD or LGD estimates. Whether adjustments are done through PD or LGD, they must be done in a consistent manner for a given guarantee or credit derivative type. For unconditional guarantees meeting the requirements for the recognition of guarantees under the foundation approach outlined in paragraphs 106 to 109, (including the operational requirements outlined in section 4.3.5 of Chapter 4) institutions may substitute both the PD and LGD of the obligor for those of the guarantor in cases where they have determined it is warranted. In doing so, institutions must not include the effect of double default in such adjustments. Thus, the adjusted risk weight must not be less than that of a comparable direct exposure to the protection provider. In the case where the institution applies the standardized approach to direct exposures to the guarantor it may only recognize the guarantee by applying the standardized approach to the covered portion of the exposure. In the case where the institution applies the foundation IRB approach to direct exposures to the guarantor it may only recognize the guarantee by determining the risk weight for the comparable direct exposure to the guarantor according to the foundation IRB approach.

[Basel Framework, CRE 32.27]

Under all circumstances the risk weight of a guaranteed exposure cannot be lower than that of a comparable direct claim on the guarantor. This assumes that any claim on the guarantor will be net of any recovery from the collateral pledged by the borrower.

In determining the risk weight for a comparable direct exposure, institutions should take into account both the seniority and the exposure at default of the direct exposure.

When an adjustment is made to PD, the risk weight function used for the guaranteed exposure should be that of the protection provider. However, when an adjustment is made to LGD the risk weight function used must be the one applicable to the original exposure.

An institution relying on own-estimates of LGD has the option to adopt the treatment outlined above for banks under the foundation IRB approach (paragraphs 106 to 109), or to make an adjustment to its LGD estimate of the exposure to reflect the presence of the guarantee or credit derivative. Under this option, there are no limits to the range of eligible guarantors although the set of minimum requirements provided in paragraphs 309 to 311 concerning the type of guarantee must be satisfied. For credit derivatives, the requirements of paragraphs 316 and 317 must be satisfied. Footnote 18 For exposures for which an institution has permission to use its own estimates of LGD, the institution may recognize the risk mitigating effects of first-to-default credit derivatives, but may not recognize the risk mitigating effects of second-to-default or more generally nth-to-default credit derivatives. [Basel Framework, CRE 32.28]

(iii) Exposure at Default (EAD)

The following sections apply to both on and off-balance sheet positions:

	All exposures are measured gross of specific allowances Footnote 19 The EAD on drawn amounts should not be less than the sum of:

		the amount by which an institution's regulatory capital would be reduced if the exposure were written-off fully, and any specific allowances.

	When the difference between the instrument's EAD and the sum of (i) and (ii) is positive, this amount is termed a discount. The calculation of risk-weighted assets is independent of any discounts.

	Under the limited circumstances described in section 5.7.2, discounts may be included in the measurement of total eligible allowances for purposes of the EL-provision calculation set out in section 5.7.

[Basel Framework, CRE 32.29]

Exposure measurement for on-balance sheet items

On-balance sheet netting of loans and deposits will be recognized subject to the same conditions as under the standardized approach (see section 4.3.4). Where currency or maturity mismatched on-balance sheet netting exists, the treatment follows the standardized approach, as set out in sections 4.3.1 (iv) and 4.3.1 (v). [Basel Framework, CRE 32.30]

Exposure measurement for off-balance sheet items (with the exception of derivatives)

For off-balance sheet items there are two approaches for the estimation of EAD: a foundation approach and an advanced approach. When only the drawn balances of revolving facilities have been securitized, institutions must ensure that they continue to hold required capital against the undrawn balances associated with the securitized exposures. [Basel Framework, CRE 32.31]

In the foundation IRB approach, EAD is calculated as the committed but undrawn amount multiplied by a credit conversion factor (CCF). In the advanced approach, EAD for undrawn commitments may be calculated as the committed but undrawn amount multiplied by a CCF or derived from direct estimates of total facility EAD. In both the foundation and advanced IRB approaches, commitments are defined in paragraph 36. [Basel Framework, CRE 32.32]

EAD under the foundation approach

The types of instruments and the CCFs applied to them are the same as those in the standardized approach, as outlined in section 4.1.18. [Basel Framework, CRE 32.33]

The amount to which the CCF is applied is the lower of the value of the unused committed credit line, and the value that reflects any possible constraining availability of the facility, such as the existence of a ceiling on the potential lending amount which is related to a borrower's reported cash flow. If the facility is constrained in this way, the institution must have sufficient line monitoring and management procedures to support this contention. [Basel Framework, CRE 32.34]

Where a commitment is obtained on another off-balance sheet exposure, institutions under the foundation approach are to apply the lower of the applicable CCFs. [Basel Framework, CRE 32.35]

EAD under the advanced approach

Institutions which meet the minimum requirements for use of their own estimates of EAD (see paragraphs 291 to 300) will be allowed (for exposures for which AIRB is permitted, as per paragraph 38) to use their own internal estimates of EAD for undrawn revolving commitments Footnote 20 to extend credit, purchase assets or issue credit substitutes provided the exposure is not subject to a CCF of 100% in the foundation approach (see paragraph 119). Standardized approach CCFs must be used for all other off-balance sheet items (for example, undrawn non-revolving commitments), and must be used where the minimum requirements for own estimates of EAD are not met. [Basel Framework, CRE 32.36]

Estimates of CCF for all non-sovereign exposures may not be lower than 50% of the applicable CCF in the standardized approach. [Basel Framework, CRE 32.36]

Exposures that give rise to counterparty credit risk

For exposures that give rise to counterparty credit risk according to section 7.1.2 (i.e. OTC derivatives, exchange-traded derivatives, long settlement transactions and securities financing transactions) the EAD is to be calculated as per the rules set forth in Chapter 7. [Basel Framework, CRE 32.37]

For securities financing transactions (SFTs), institutions may recognize a reduction in the counterparty credit risk requirement arising from the effect of a master netting agreement providing that it satisfies the criteria set out in section 4.3.3 iii (e). The institution must calculate E`, which is the exposure to be used for the counterparty credit risk requirement taking account of the risk mitigation of collateral received, using the formula set out in section 4.3.3 iii (e). In calculating risk-weighted assets and expected loss (EL) amounts for the counterparty credit risk arising from the set of transactions covered by the master netting agreement, E` must be used as the EAD of the counterparty. [Basel Framework, CRE 32.38]

As an alternative to the use of standard haircuts for the calculation of the counterparty credit risk charge for SFTs set out in paragraph 125, institutions may be permitted to use a value-at-risk (VaR) models approach to reflect price volatility of the exposures and the financial collateral. This approach can take into account the correlation effects between security positions. This approach applies to single SFTs and SFTs covered by netting agreements on a counterparty-by-counterparty basis, both under the condition that the collateral is revalued on a daily basis. This holds for the underlying securities being different and unrelated to securitizations. The master netting agreement must satisfy the criteria set out in section 4.3.3 iii (e). The VaR models approach is available to institutions that have received supervisory recognition for an internal market risk model according to Chapter 9. Institutions which have not received market risk model recognition can separately apply for supervisory recognition to use their internal value-at-risk (VaR) models for the calculation of potential price volatility for SFTs, provided the model meets the requirements of Chapter 9. Although the market risk standards have changed from a 99% VaR to a 97.5% expected shortfall, the VaR models approach to SFTs retains the use of a 99% VaR to calculate the counterparty credit risk for SFTs. The VaR model needs to capture risk sufficient to pass the backtesting and profit and loss attribution tests from Chapter 9. The default risk charge described in Chapter 9 is not required in the VaR model for SFTs. [Basel Framework, CRE 32.39]

The quantitative and qualitative criteria for recognition of internal market risk models for SFTs are in principle the same as in of Chapter 9. The minimum liquidity horizon or the holding period for SFTs is 5 business days for margined repo-style transactions, rather than the 10 business days in Chapter 9. For other transactions eligible for the VaR models approach, the 10 business day holding period will be retained. The minimum holding period should be adjusted upwards for market instruments where such a holding period would be inappropriate given the liquidity of the instrument concerned. [Basel Framework, CRE 32.40]

The calculation of the exposure E` for institutions using their internal model to calculate their counterparty credit risk charge will be as follows, where institutions will use the previous day's VaR number:

  E` = max ⁡ { 0 , [ ( ∑ E − ∑ C ) + VaR output from internal model ] }

[Basel Framework, CRE 32.41]

Subject to supervisory approval, instead of using the VaR approach, institutions may also calculate an effective expected positive exposure for repo-style and other similar SFTs, in accordance with the Internal Models Method set out in the counterparty credit risk standards in Chapter 7. [Basel Framework, CRE 32.42]

As in the standardized approach, for transactions where the conditions in section 4.3.3 ii (c) are met, and the counterparty is a core market participant, the haircuts specified under the comprehensive approach do not apply, and instead a zero H applies. A netting set that contains any transaction that does not meet the requirements in section 4.3.3 ii (c) of the standardized approach is not eligible for this treatment. [Basel Framework, CRE 32.43]

(iv) Effective maturity (M)

Institutions using the FIRB approach for an exposure are required to calculate an explicit M adjustment consistent with the AIRB approach as defined below. [Basel Framework, CRE 32.44]

The exemption described in this paragraph does not apply when lending to borrowers in Canada, but institutions may follow the local treatment for international exposures. Some foreign supervisors may exempt facilities to certain smaller domestic corporate borrowers from the explicit maturity adjustment if the reported sales (i.e. turnover) as well as total assets for the consolidated group of which the firm is a part of are less than $750 million. The consolidated group must be a domestic company based in the foreign country where the exemption is applied to qualify for this exemption. If adopted by a foreign supervisor, all exposures to qualifying smaller domestic firms in that jurisdiction will be assumed to have an average maturity of 2.5 years. [Basel Framework, CRE 32.45]

Except as noted in paragraph 138, the effective maturity (M) is subject to a floor of one year and a cap of five years. [Basel Framework, CRE 32.46]

For an instrument subject to a determined cash flow schedule, effective maturity M is defined as follows, where CFt denotes the cash flows (principal, interest payments and fees) contractually payable by the borrower in period t.

  Effective Maturity ( M ) =    ∑ t  t ×  CF t   /   ∑ t   CF t

[Basel Framework, CRE 32.47]

If an institution is not in a position to calculate the effective maturity of the contracted payments as noted above, it is allowed to use a more conservative measure of M such as that it equals the maximum remaining time (in years) that the borrower is permitted to take to fully discharge its contractual obligation (principal, interest, and fees) under the terms of loan agreement. Normally, this will correspond to the nominal maturity of the instrument. [Basel Framework, CRE 32.48]

For derivatives subject to a master netting agreement, the effective maturity is defined as the weighted average maturity of the transactions within the netting agreement. Further, the notional amount of each transaction should be used for weighting the maturity. [Basel Framework, CRE 32.49]

For revolving exposures, effective maturity must be determined using the maximum contractual termination date of the facility. Institutions must not use the repayment date of the current drawing. [Basel Framework, CRE 32.50]

The one-year floor does not apply to certain short-term exposures, comprising fully or nearly-fully collateralized Footnote 21 capital market-driven transactions (i.e. OTC derivatives transactions and margin lending) and repo-style transactions (i.e. repos/reverse repos and securities lending/borrowing) with an original maturity of less then one year, where the documentation contains daily remargining clauses. For all eligible transactions the documentation must require daily revaluation, and must include provisions that must allow for the prompt liquidation or setoff of the collateral in the event of default or failure to re-margin. The maturity of such transactions must be calculated as the greater of one-day, and the effective maturity (M, consistent with the definition above), except for transactions subject to a master netting agreement, where the floor is determined by the minimum holding period for the transaction type, as required by paragraph 141. [Basel Framework, CRE 32.51]

The one-year floor, set out in paragraph 133, also does not apply to the following exposures:

	Short-term self-liquidating trade transactions. Import and export letters of credit and similar transactions should be accounted for at their actual remaining maturity.

	Issued as well as confirmed letters of credit that are:

		short term (i.e. have a maturity below one year) and self-liquidating.

	[Basel Framework, CRE 32.52]

In addition to the transactions considered in paragraph 138, other short-term exposures with an original maturity of less than one year that are not part of an institution's ongoing financing of an obligor may be eligible for exemption from the one-year floor. The types of short-term exposures that are eligible for this treatment include transactions such as:

	Repo-style transactions, interbank loans and deposits and other economically equivalent products with a maturity of under one-year that might not fall within the scope of paragraph 138.  
	Some short-term self-liquidating trade transactions that do not fall within the scope of paragraph 139. Import and export letters of credit and similar transactions could be accounted for at their actual remaining maturity; Some exposures arising from settling securities purchases and sales. This also includes overdrafts arising from failed securities settlements provided that such overdrafts do not continue more than a short, fixed number of business days; Some exposures arising from cash settlements by wire transfer, including overdrafts arising from failed transfers provided that such overdrafts do not continue more than a short, fixed number of business days; and Some exposures to banks arising from foreign exchange settlements; and Some short-term loans and deposits.

[Basel Framework, CRE 32.53]

For transactions falling within the scope of paragraph 138 subject to a master netting agreement, the effective maturity is defined as the weighted average maturity of the transactions. A floor equal to the minimum holding period for the transaction type set out in section 4.3.3 iii (d) will apply to the average. Where more than one transaction type is contained in the master netting agreement a floor equal to the highest holding period will apply to the average. Further, the notional amount of each transaction should be used for weighting maturity. [Basel Framework, CRE 32.54]

Where there is no explicit adjustment, the effective maturity (M) assigned to all exposures is set at 2.5 years unless otherwise specified in paragraph 131. In addition, all non-regulatory retail exposures will be assigned a maturity of 2.5 years. [Basel Framework, CRE 32.55]

Treatment of maturity mismatches

The treatment of maturity mismatches under IRB is identical to that in the standardized approach (see section 4.3.1 (iv)). [Basel Framework, CRE 32.56]

5.4.2 Risk Components for retail exposures
This section sets out the calculation of the risk components for retail exposures. In the case of an exposure that is guaranteed by a sovereign, the floors that apply to the risk components do not apply to that part of the exposure covered by the sovereign guarantee (i.e. any part of the exposure that is not covered by the guarantee is subject to the relevant floors). [Basel Framework, CRE 32.57]

(i) Probability of default (PD) and loss given default (LGD)

For each identified pool of retail exposures, institutions are expected to provide an estimate of the PD and LGD associated with the pool, subject to the minimum requirements as set out in section 5.8. Additionally, the PD for retail exposures is the greater of:

	the one-year PD associated with the internal borrower grade to which the pool of retail exposures is assigned; and

	0.10% for revolver QRRE exposures (see paragraph 28 for the definition of revolvers) and 0.05% for all other exposures.

The LGD for each exposure that is used as input into the risk weight formula and the calculation of expected loss must not be less than the parameter floors indicated in the table below:

	LGD Parameter Floors

			Retail classes  
			LGD

			Unsecured  
			Secured

			QRRE (incl. transactors and revolvers)  
			50%  
			N/ANot applicable

			Residential mortgages  
			N/ANot applicable  
			10%

			All other regulatory retail  
			30%  
			Varying by collateral type:

				0% financial  
				10% receivables  
				10% commercial or residential real estate 15% other physical

[Basel Framework, CRE 32.58]

Regarding the LGD parameter floors set out in the table above, the LGD floors for partially secured exposures in the "all other regulatory retail" category should be calculated according to the formula set out in paragraph 100. The LGD floor for residential mortgages is fixed at 10% irrespective of the level of collateral provided by the property. [Basel Framework, CRE 32.59]

The 10% floor on LGD for residential mortgages does not apply to any portion of a residential mortgage that is guaranteed or otherwise insured by the Government of Canada.

To reflect the effect of the Government of Canada backstop guarantee on a privately insured mortgage exposure, institutions may separate the full amount of the privately insured mortgage exposure into a deductible portion and a backstop portion:

	the deductible portion is calculated as 10% of the original loan amount (i.e. the deductible portion grows as a percentage of the full amount of the total exposure as the mortgage amortizes), and is to be risk weighted according to paragraph 148(1); the backstop portion is the amount covered by the government guarantee (i.e. the total outstanding amount less the deductible portion), and is to be treated as a sovereign exposure.

For residential mortgages insured by a private mortgage insurer having a Government of Canada backstop guarantee, the loan should be risk weighted in one of the following three ways:

	A loan to the private mortgage insurer with a Government of Canada backstop. In this case, the deductible exposure defined in paragraph 147 is treated as a guaranteed exposure. It can be risk weighted using either i) the PD of the private mortgage insurer (using the risk weight function described in paragraphs 66 to 68) or ii) the PD of the original mortgage borrower (and the risk weight function for residential mortgages in paragraph 79). In both cases, a LGD of 100% must be used. The backstop exposure is treated as an exposure to the Government of Canada.

	An uninsured residential mortgage using the original borrower's PD and LGD.

	A loan to the private mortgage insurer (without a Government of Canada backstop) using either i) the PD of the original borrower and an LGD adjusted to incorporate the effect of the guarantee or ii) the PD of the private mortgage insurer and the LGD of the original borrower. In both cases, the resulting RWA cannot be less than that of a comparable direct exposure to the private mortgage insurer (which is the risk weight determined using the private mortgage insurer's PD and the LGD used for an unsecured facility to the private mortgage insurer).

Consistent with the standardized approach, institutions may choose not to recognize the mortgage insurance and/or Government of Canada backstop guarantee if doing so would result in a higher capital requirement.

(ii) Recognition of guarantees and credit derivatives

Institutions may reflect the risk-reducing effects of guarantees and credit derivatives, either in support of an individual obligation or a pool of exposures, through an adjustment of either the PD or LGD estimate, subject to the minimum requirements in paragraphs 302 to 317. Whether adjustments are done through PD or LGD, they must be done in a consistent manner for a given guarantee or credit derivative type. In case the institution applies the standardized approach to direct exposures to the guarantor it may only recognize the guarantee by applying the standardized approach risk weight to the covered portion of the exposure. [Basel Framework, CRE 32.60]

Consistent with the requirements outlined above for corporate, sovereign, PSE, and bank exposures, institutions must not include the effect of double default in such adjustments. The adjusted risk weight must not be less than that of a comparable direct exposure to the protection provider. Consistent with the standardized approach, institutions may choose not to recognize credit protection if doing so would result in a higher capital requirement. [Basel Framework, CRE 32.61]

(iii) Exposure at default (EAD)

Both on and off-balance sheet retail exposures are measured gross of specific allowances.

Footnote 22
The EAD on drawn amounts should not be less than the sum of (i) the amount by which an institution's regulatory capital would be reduced if the exposure were written-off fully, and (ii) any specific allowances. When the difference between the instrument's EAD and the sum of (i) and (ii) is positive, this amount is termed a discount. The calculation of risk-weighted assets is independent of any discounts. Under the limited circumstances described in paragraph 187, discounts may be included in the measurement of total eligible allowances for purposes of the EL-provision calculation set out in section 5.7. [Basel Framework, CRE 32.62]

On-balance sheet netting of loans and deposits of an institution to or from a retail customer will be permitted subject to the same conditions outlined in section 4.3.4. Institutions must use their own estimates of CCFs for undrawn revolving commitments not subject to a CCF of 100% in the standardized approach (see section 4.1.18) and the minimum requirements in paragraphs 291 to 299 and 301 are satisfied. Foundation approach CCFs must be used for all other off-balance sheet items (for example, for all undrawn non-revolving commitments), and must be used where the minimum requirements for own estimates of EAD are not met. [Basel Framework, CRE 32.63]

Regarding own estimates of EAD, the EAD for each exposure that is used as input into the risk weight formula and the calculation of expected loss is subject to a floor that is the sum of:

	the on balance sheet amount; and  
	50% of the off balance sheet exposure using the applicable CCF in the standardized approach.

[Basel Framework, CRE 32.64]

For retail exposures with uncertain future drawdown such as credit cards, institutions must take into account their history and/or expectation of additional drawings prior to default in their overall calibration of loss estimates. In particular, where an institution does not reflect conversion factors for undrawn lines in its EAD estimates, it must reflect in its LGD estimates the likelihood of additional drawings prior to default. Conversely, if the institution does not incorporate the possibility of additional drawings in its LGD estimates, it must do so in its EAD estimates. [Basel Framework, CRE 32.65]

When only the drawn balances of revolving retail facilities have been securitized, institutions must ensure that they continue to hold required capital against the undrawn balances associated with the securitized exposures using the IRB approach to credit risk for commitments. This means that for such facilities, institutions must reflect the impact of CCFs in their EAD estimates rather than in the LGD estimates. [Basel Framework, CRE 32.66]

To the extent that foreign exchange and interest rate commitments exist within an institution's retail portfolio for IRB purposes, institutions are not permitted to provide their internal assessments of credit equivalent amounts. Instead, the rules for the standardized approach continue to apply. [Basel Framework, CRE 32.67]

5.5. Supervisory slotting approach for specialized lending
This section sets out the calculation of risk-weighted assets and expected losses for specialized lending (SL) exposures subject to the supervisory slotting approach. The method for determining the difference between expected losses and provisions is set out in section 5.7. [Basel Framework, CRE 33.1]
5.5.1 Risk weights for specialized lending (PF, OF, CF and IPRE)
For project finance (PF), object finance (OF), commodities finance (CF) and income producing real estate (IPRE) exposures, institutions that do not meet the requirements for the estimation of PD under the corporate IRB approach will be required to map their internal grades to five supervisory categories, each of which is associated with a specific risk weight. The slotting criteria on which this mapping must be based are provided in Appendix 5-2. The risk weights for unexpected losses (UL) associated with each supervisory category are:

	Supervisory categories and unexpected loss (UL) risk weights for other SL exposures

			Strong  
			Good  
			Satisfactory  
			Weak  
			Default

			70%  
			90%  
			115%  
			250%  
			0%

[Basel Framework, CRE 33.2]

Although institutions are expected to map their internal ratings to the supervisory categories for specialized lending using the slotting criteria provided in Appendix 5-2, each supervisory category broadly corresponds to a range of external credit assessments as outlined below.

	Broad Mapping between Supervisory Categories and External Ratings

			Strong  
			Good  
			Satisfactory  
			Weak  
			Default

			BBB- or better  
			BB+ or BB  
			BB- or B+  
			B to C-  
			Not applicable

[Basel Framework, CRE 33.3]

OSFI may allow institutions to assign preferential risk weights of 50% to "strong" exposures, and 70% to "good" exposures, provided they have a remaining maturity of less than 2.5 years or OSFI determines that institutions' underwriting and other risk characteristics are substantially stronger than specified in the slotting criteria for the relevant supervisory risk category. [Basel Framework, CRE 33.4]

5.5.2 Risk weights for specialized lending (HVCRE)
The HVCRE risk weights in paragraphs 163 and 76 apply to Canadian institution foreign operations' loans on properties in jurisdictions where the national supervisor has designated specific property types as HVCRE and to Canadian properties where the source of repayment at origination of the exposure is substantially uncertain, and the borrower does not have substantial equity at risk.

For HVCRE exposures, institutions that do not meet the requirements for estimation of PD, must map their internal grades to five supervisory categories, each of which is associated with a specific risk weight. The slotting criteria on which this mapping must be based are the same as those for IPRE, as provided in Appendix 5-2. The risk weights associated with each category are:

	Supervisory categories and UL risk weights for high-volatility commercial real estate

			Strong  
			Good  
			Satisfactory  
			Weak  
			Default

			95%  
			120%  
			140%  
			250%  
			0%

[Basel Framework, CRE 33.5]

As indicated in paragraph 160, each supervisory category broadly corresponds to a range of external credit assessments. [Basel Framework, CRE 33.6]

Following the direction of the host supervisor, institutions may assign preferential risk weights of 70% to "strong" exposures, and 95% to "good" exposures, provided they have a remaining maturity of less than 2.5 years or the supervisor determines that institutions' underwriting and other risk characteristics are substantially stronger than specified in the slotting criteria for the relevant supervisory risk category. [Basel Framework, CRE 33.7]

5.5.3 Expected loss (EL) for SL exposures subject to the supervisory slotting criteria
For SL exposures subject to the supervisory slotting criteria, the EL amount is determined by multiplying 8% by the risk-weighted assets produced from the appropriate risk weights, as specified below, multiplied by EAD. [Basel Framework, CRE 33.8]

The risk weights for SL, other than HVCRE, are as follows:

			Strong  
			Good  
			Satisfactory  
			Weak  
			Default

			5%  
			10%  
			35%  
			100%  
			625%

[Basel Framework, CRE 33.9]

Where, at national discretion, a host supervisor allows institutions to assign preferential risk weights to other SL exposures falling into the "strong" and "good" supervisory categories as outlined in paragraph 161, the corresponding EL risk weight is 0% for "strong" exposures, and 5% for "good" exposures. [Basel Framework, CRE 33.10]