Collective Allowances - Sound Credit Risk Assessment and Valuation Practices for Financial Instruments at Amortized Cost

Document Properties

  • Type of Publication: Guideline
  • Category: Accounting
  • Date: October 2001
  • Revised: July 2010
  • No: C-5
  • Audiences: Banks / FBB / T&L

This guideline outlines the regulatory framework for collective allowances and should be considered in conjunction with Guideline C-1, Sound Credit Risk Assessment and Valuation of Impaired Financial Instruments at Amortized Cost. The guideline takes effect for fiscal years commencing on or after January 1, 2011.

The guideline replaces the policy statement General Allowances for Credit Risk issued October 2001 and subsequently revised in November 2007. It confirms the requirement that banks and trust and loan companies maintain adequate collective allowances to recognize credit losses within their portfolios in accordance with the International Accounting Standards Board’s (IASB) International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).

A. Introduction

The OSFI policy on assessing and valuing credit losses has evolved over time. This guideline replaces the policy statement, General Allowances for Credit Risk, issued October 2001 and subsequently revised in November 2007. This updated guidance confirms the principles underlying the establishment of allowances for financial instruments at amortized cost in accordance with IAS 39 of the International Accounting Standard Board’s International Financial Reporting Standards. This guideline additionally provides direction on the methodology for developing allowances and outlines OSFI’s process to assess an institution’s collective allowance policy and associated methodologies.

Objectives

The objectives of this guideline are to promote:

  • sound credit risk assessment and valuation policies and practices for financial instruments at amortized cost;
  • risk management processes that are adequate and appropriate to the business;
  • the adoption by institutions of an active, anticipatory approach to measuring and reporting risk and losses inherent in the portfolio;
  • calculations of collective allowances that clearly and accurately reflect the loss within the portfolio; and
  • adequate disclosure of collective allowances and related accounts.

B. Framework

In accordance with the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision’s (BCBS) Sound Credit Risk Assessment and Valuation for Loans Guideline issued in June 2006, an institution should adopt and document a sound impairment methodology, which addresses credit risk assessment policies, procedures and controls for assessing credit risk, identifying problem debts and determining allowances in a timely manner.

Experience has demonstrated that there is a period of time between when a loss event occurs – that is, an event that results in a borrower’s inability to repay interest and/or principal – and when management is able to identify such an event. Accordingly, collective allowances for credit risk must be established to recognize losses that management estimates to have occurred in the portfolio at the balance-sheet date relating to financial instruments at amortized cost not yet individually identified as impaired.

Collective allowances are not a substitute for individual allowances with respect to individually significant instruments. Accordingly, as individually significant amortized cost financial instruments are identified as impaired, individual allowances are to be established. Individual or collective allowances are to be established for financial instruments that are not individually significant, in accordance with IAS 39.64. OSFI requires that institutions be able to demonstrate that the level of both collective and individual allowances is adequate.

Historical evidence indicates that problem credits often originate in periods of economic growth. Typically, as the business/economic cycle peaks and begins to decline, more amortized cost financial instruments are likely to become impaired. However, many problem credits will not become individually identified as impaired until later when evidence of impairment becomes more explicit.

Although a variety of methodologies may be appropriate for determining an institution’s collective allowance, it is important to recognize these dynamics when establishing the methodology for the collective allowance. The balance of the collective allowance account is expected to increase to reflect portfolio growth as at the balance sheet date and evidence of deterioration in credit quality through the economic cycle. Since collective allowances are influenced by the concurrent level of individual allowances, there could be a counterbalancing impact on the level of the collective allowance as individual allowances are identified. The extent of this impact on the level of the collective allowance will depend on many factors, including the growth in the portfolio, the change in the credit profile of the portfolio, and the magnitude of the individual allowance.

During all points of an economic cycle, an institution must maintain a level of collective allowance commensurate with the risk profile of the institution’s portfolio. As collective and individual allowances are related, it is necessary to review and assess regularly the adequacy of collective allowances in light of developments within the portfolio.

C. Measurement Guidance

Scope

This guideline applies to financial instruments classified at amortized cost under IAS 39. While off balance sheet instruments are not within the scope of this guideline, OSFI expects that an equally robust process would be followed to support provisions for credit losses for off-balance sheet exposures that are not at fair value such as certain guarantees and bankers acceptances, letters of credit, undrawn commitments, and loan substitutes. Provisions for credit losses for off- balance sheet exposures are recorded in accordance with IAS 37 in other liabilitiesFootnote 1.

Financial instruments at amortized cost that are not individually identified as impaired should be grouped on the basis of similar credit risk characteristics that are indicative of the debtor’s ability to pay all amounts due according to the contractual terms of the financial instrument. To capture the extent of impairment fully, the collective allowance must reflect amortized cost financial instruments across all credit grades and an institution should have a system in place to reliably classify these financial instruments on the basis of credit risk.

Elements of Collective Impairment

The assessment of impairment on a collective basis should be based on all available and relevant information. An institution’s impairment methodology is influenced by many factors, such as their sophistication, business environment and strategy, portfolio characteristics, administration procedures for financial instruments at amortized cost and management information systems. However there are common elements an institution should incorporate in its impairment methodology.

Collective impairments for groups of financial instruments at amortized cost with similar credit risk characteristics must incorporate:

  • current and reliable data, management’s experienced credit judgements, and all known relevant internal and external factors that may affect collectibilty (such as industry, geographical, economic and political factors);
  • historical loss experience or where institutions have no loss experience of their own or insufficient experience, peer group experience for comparable groups of financial instruments at amortized cost;
  • adjustments to historical loss experiences on the basis of current observable data to reflect the effects of current conditions. Changes in estimates of future cash flows should be directionally consistent with changes in underlying observable data;
  • adjustments to estimation method to reduce differences between estimates of future cash flows and actual cash flows;
  • attributes specific to a defined group of borrowers;
  • other characteristics directly affecting the collectiblity of groups of financial instruments at amortized cost and that are unique to a defined group of borrowers within a credit grade; and
  • reasonable and supportable assumptions and adequate documentation.

An institution should have a realistic view of its lending activities and adequately consider uncertainty and risks inherent in their activities in preparing accounting estimates. Where the appropriate level of collective allowance lies within a range of estimates, the best estimate within that range should be chosen, in accordance with IAS 39.AG86.

Changes to the Collective Allowance

The level of collective allowance is expected to fluctuate in accordance with the nature and composition of the institution’s portfolio, shifts in the economic cycle and the effectiveness of the institution’s own credit risk policies and procedures. Management must closely monitor changing conditions and resulting impairments and reflect such changes through increases or decreases in collective and individual allowances as appropriate. Routine adjustments, which are consistent with the institution’s methodology to establish the allowance, do not require notification to OSFI.

Amounts will flow from collective to individual allowances. In normal circumstances, transfers occur as individual allowances are established to recognize impairment on an individual basis. A transfer from the collective to the individual allowance is appropriate only to the extent that the individual amortized cost financial instrument can be identified with categories/subgroups of risk for which the collective allowance has been established. The level of the residual collective allowance must continue to be supported by the institution’s methodology to establish the allowance.

Increases and/or decreases to collective allowances are to be systematic and rational and should be supported by observable changes/shifts in the identified components of impairment. Changes in the collective allowance should be directionally consistent with changes in the identified components of impairment.

The methodology for establishing the level of collective allowances must be supported by appropriate observable data. This data must be assessed periodically as circumstances change or as new data, that are more relevant and directly representative of losses, becomes available. If changes in circumstances or improvements in the availability of data result in material changes to the methodology for establishing collective allowances, OSFI must be advised.

Where the condition/composition of an underlying portfolio has materially changed, it will be appropriate for the institution to review the components of impairment; this may, in turn, result in a reassessment/recalibration of a portion of the collective allowance. OSFI must be notified prior to a material, one-time adjustment of this type. The institution would be expected to demonstrate that:

  • the circumstances under which an institution had previously established its level of collective allowance have undergone material change; and
  • the adjustment is justified by the institution’s methodology to establish the level of allowance.

There may also be instances when it is appropriate to realign the collective allowance among categories/subgroups in order to reflect specific events and/or to reflect better the underlying distribution of risk. OSFI must be notified prior to a material adjustment of this type. Furthermore, a material adjustment between portfolio segments would trigger a review by the institution of its underlying methodology for establishing the collective allowance.

In addition, OSFI expects that institutions establish and maintain a materiality definition with respect to modifications to the following: its methodology for establishing collective allowances and the level of collective allowance. In arriving at a suitable assessment of materiality, the institution should consider a combination of factors including impact to systems, data, and processes, amongst other considerations. An institution’s definition of materiality, and changes thereof, should be approved by its Board of Directors. OSFI will review these materiality definitions as part of its ongoing supervisory examination process and may impose alternative definitions where the institution’s internal policy is found to be deficient

Level of Collective Allowances

In accordance with the BCBS' Sound Credit Risk Assessment and Valuation for Loans (SCRAVL) guideline, an institution’s aggregate amount of individual and collectively assessed allowances should be adequate to absorb estimated credit losses in the portfolio. OSFI expects that impairment practices are robust and incorporate sound management judgement. To these ends, the methodology for establishing collective allowances should include establishing a level of collective allowances that is reflective of the credit losses inherent in an institution’s risk portfolio. An institution's use of experienced credit judgement and reasonable estimates are an essential part of the recognition and measurement of credit losses.

Historical loss experience may be limited or not fully relevant to current circumstances; therefore management may be required to use its experienced credit judgement to estimate the amount of any credit loss. For groups of financial instruments at amortized cost that are collectively assessed for impairment, estimated credit losses should reflect consideration of the institution’s historical net charge-off rate adjusted upward or downward for changes in trends, conditions and other relevant factors that affect prepayment of the amortized cost financial instrument in these groups as of the evaluation date.

Documentation

As part of its credit risk assessment process, an institution should develop and implement comprehensive procedures and information systems to monitor the quality of its portfolios. These should include criteria that identify and report problem amortized cost financial instruments to reasonably assure that they are appropriately monitored as well as administered and provided for. OSFI will require that institutions retain on file sufficient documentation of their data and management judgements to support their collective allowances.

D. Disclosure

Learnings from the financial crisis have shown that greater transparency is necessary to instil market confidence. OSFI supports the concept of market discipline and the role that quality disclosure plays in it. IFRS 7 and other sections of the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) contain a number of meaningful disclosure requirements on collective allowances, impairments and related accounts.

In particular, IFRS 7.16 requires that where an allowance account is used to record individual or collective impairments, a reconciliation is provided of changes in that account during the period. While, IFRS may not specifically require separate disclosure of individual and collective allowances, OSFI believes that this is useful information for users of financial statements and should help to ensure a stronger Pillar 3 (market discipline) influence on institutions.

Accordingly, OSFI requires that institutions provide separate disclosure of individual and collective allowances by providing a reconciliation of changes to each of these accounts during the period.

E. The Board and Senior Management

An institution’s board and senior management are responsible for ensuring that the institution has appropriate credit risk assessment processes and effective internal controls to consistently determine impairments in accordance with the institution’s stated policies and procedures, the applicable accounting framework and supervisory guidance. This includes understanding and determining the nature and level of risk being taken by the institution and how these risks relate to the level of collective and individual allowances. They are also responsible for ensuring that the level of formalization and sophistication of the risk management processes are appropriate in light of the institution’s risk profile and business plan.

The board of directors has responsibility for setting the institution’s tolerance for risk. It should also ensure that management establishes a measurement system for assessing risk, develops a system to relate risk to the institution’s allowance levels, and establishes a method of monitoring compliance with internal policies.

Management’s responsibilities for managing risk in the context of collective allowances include, among other things:

  • monitoring and managing the quality of the risk portfolio;
  • ensuring that the risk portfolio is soundly and appropriately valued, uncollectible credits written off, and expected or probable losses adequately provided for;
  • exercising appropriate credit judgement to recognize the imprecision in valuation estimates;
  • maintaining effective systems and controls for identifying, measuring, monitoring, and addressing asset quality problems in a timely manner;
  • establishing documented policies and procedures for the determining and maintaining of collective allowances;
  • providing appropriate disclosure; and
  • documenting its process for vetting both quantitative and qualitative methods used in determining its collective allowance.

F. Capital Treatment

The Capital Adequacy Requirements (CAR) guidelines for federally regulated deposit-taking institutions are based on the requirements set out in the June 2006 Basel II Framework. The inclusion of collective allowances in tier 2A capital, subject to the specified limits was based on the concept that such “reserves” were freely available to meet losses not currently identified. Within this framework, OSFI is prepared to permit collective allowances to be included in tier 2A capital subject to the following specifications:

  1. Qualifying collective allowances included in tier 2A capital may not exceed 1.25 per cent of risk weighted assets for institutions using the Standardized Approach.

  2. Institutions approved to use the Internal Ratings Based (IRB) approach are required to calculate an allowance excess or shortfall. Excess allowances can be included in tier 2A capital up to a limit of the lower of 0.6 per cent of IRB credit risk-weighted assets or the amount of collective allowances. Refer to section 2.2.2.2 of the CAR A-1 Guideline.

  3. As a temporary measure, institutions using IRB approaches may use the proportional split method to allocate collective allowances between portfolios carried on the Standardized Approach and portfolios carried on an IRB approach. Refer to section 2.2.2.3 of the CAR A-1 Guideline.

The inclusion of collective allowances in capital is subject to the prior written approval of OSFI. Approval is conditional on an institution submitting a completed self-assessment of their methodology against the criteria in Appendix I and being assessed as complying with this guideline. This approval will be reviewed periodically as part of OSFI’s ongoing supervisory process.

G. OSFI’s Assessment Process

OSFI will assess an institution’s compliance with this guideline by evaluating an institution’s collective allowance policy and associated methodologies and outcomes against the assessment criteria described below.

Assessment of Collective Allowance Policy and Associated Methodologies

As part of OSFI’s ongoing supervisory processes, supervisors will review each institution’s collective allowance policy and methodology against the principles outlined in this guideline to ensure that it has in place appropriate criteria for measuring credit risk commensurate with the complexity, size and diversity of its credit risk portfolios.

Annex 1 provides the criteria that OSFI will use to assess the adequacy of the process used to establish the collective allowance. These criteria have been designed to address the following main principles:

  • adequacy of corporate governance over the collective allowance process;
  • adequacy of methodology for establishing the estimate of credit losses captured by the collective allowance including the integrity of the data used in the estimate and the testing/verification of the output;
  • the relevance of the methodology and its calibration to the institution’s historical loss experience, the nature and composition of its current portfolio of credit risk, as well as the projected rate of growth of the portfolio; and
  • integrity of the institution’s risk assessment and measurement processes generally.

Conformity with the guideline implies being assessed as “Acceptable” on the majority of the criteria. Even where the majority of criteria are assessed as “Acceptable”, an overall assessment of “Not Acceptable” may be given in circumstances where a weakness in an individual criterion is deemed sufficiently serious to outweigh any “Acceptable” ratings.

As noted in Section F above, an institution must submit a self-assessment of their methodology against the criteria in Appendix I where inclusion of the collective allowance in capital is sought. Nevertheless, OSFI expects that institutions will maintain an up-to-date self assessment for their internal processes. As such, OSFI’s assessment process may include reviewing an institutions completed self-assessment of their methodology.

Implications of Assessment

Institutions having a collective allowance methodology that is assessed as “Not Acceptable” will be required to submit an action plan and timeline for compliance with the guideline. Until such time as the institution achieves an “Acceptable” or better rating, the institution may be subject to enhanced monitoring of its risk management processes. Approval to include collective allowances in tier 2A capital may be reduced below the levels specified in section F of this Guideline or may be denied.

H. Application

This guideline applies to all federally regulated deposit-taking institutions, including those institutions that have not applied for capital treatment of their collective allowance. It is, however, recognized that there may be a limited number of federally regulated trust companies with little exposure to credit risk and for which a collective allowance may not be appropriate.

Foreign Bank Branches

Foreign bank branches are not separate legal entities but rather operating units of authorized foreign banks, often large international banks. In recognition of these unique characteristics, OSFI does not require authorized foreign banks to maintain collective allowances for credit risk on the books of their Canadian branch, although they may do so voluntarily or where the Branch is seeking an audit opinion under IFRS.

Authorized foreign banks must, however, be able to demonstrate effective risk management including:

  1. a risk review system and control policies in conformity with OSFI’s current framework on collective allowances for credit risk; and
  2. adequate procedures for identifying latent losses believed to exist in the branch’s risk portfolio but that cannot yet be ascribed to individual risk assets.

OSFI’s supervisory approach for foreign bank branches is, in large measure, predicated on regular communication with, and assessment of, the home country supervisor and the foreign bank’s head office. As part of this process, OSFI will have to satisfy itself, not only at the time of application to establish a foreign bank branch, but also on an ongoing basis after establishment, that collective allowances in the Canadian branch are being maintained on a consolidated basis and that the methodology supporting the collective allowances produces a reasonable and prudent measurement, on a timely basis, in accordance with appropriate policies and procedures. OSFI will expect the home bank to demonstrate and disclose to OSFI the proportion of its collective allowance that is allocated for the benefit of the Canadian branch. In addition, authorized foreign banks will be required to maintain, locally, sufficient evidence to support their assessment and management of risk associated with business booked in Canada.

OSFI maintains the discretion to require the establishment of collective allowances on the books of the Canadian branch where recommended as part of the supervisory process in an attempt to address specific concerns or issues. Collective allowances, including those established voluntarily, should be reported as a segregation of a portion of its “due to related depository institutions” accounts.

I. Implementation

OSFI will begin assessing institutions against this guideline commencing with the 2012 examination cycle for FREs adopting IFRS on January 1, 2011 and with the 2013 examination cycle for FREs adopting IFRS on November 1, 2011. Assessments will be carried out, over time, within the context of the normal supervisory process.

Annex 1 - Criteria and Guidelines for Assessment of Collective Allowances Methodology

Corporate Governance

Criteria Assessment Guidelines
1. Board oversight Evidence that the board of directors:
  • has ensured that appropriate credit risk assessment processes and internal controls are in place to consistently determine impairments;
  • has set the institution’s tolerance for credit risk;
  • regularly reviews appropriate information about the credit quality of the institution’s portfolios on a timely basis;
  • regularly reviews portfolio quality reports and takes action as warranted;
  • reviews and approves the balance of the allowance for impairment; and
  • approves any material divergences between established policies as documented and actual practice.
2. An approved Collective Allowance Policy The policy should incorporate:
  • procedures for the credit risk systems and controls inherent in the methodology, including roles and responsibilities of the institution’s board of directors and senior management;
  • provides an explicit definition of the collective allowance;
  • clearly outlines the concepts underpinning the collective allowance, including the manner in which the allowance is expected to operate;
  • a well-defined review process that is independent from the lending function;
  • a clear description of the process/criteria used to determine materiality of changes to collective allowance methodology and level; and
  • is regularly reviewed and approved by the board of directors.
3. Periodic, independent reviews of the credit risk management processes and the collective allowance methodology Areas that should be reviewed include:
  • the appropriateness of the credit risk assessment processes as they relate to the collective allowance and given the nature, scope and complexity of the institution’s operations;
  • the reasonableness, accuracy and completeness of data inputs and parameters into the assessment processes;
  • the reasonableness of the collective allowance methodology;
  • the reasonableness of data outputs;
  • the adequacy of stress tests; and
  • the adequacy of supporting documentation.

Findings are documented.

Amortized cost financial instruments to which credit risk grades are assigned receive a periodic formal review to reasonably assure that those grades are accurate and up to date.

Areas of weakness are identified and addressed on a timely basis.

Design and Operation (Inputs/Methodology/Outputs)

Criteria Assessment Guidelines
1. The completeness and integrity of the data and parameters underlying the collective allowance methodology can be supported/empirically verified.

The institution considers all relevant and available data in its methodology and in estimating key parameters and factors. Institutions may have primary sources of information and use others as points of comparison or potential adjustment.

A comprehensive process to vet data inputs, including an assessment of accuracy, completeness and suitability. Where the methodology relies on historic data, the data should capture a full business cycle.

Where external data are employed as inputs into the collective allowance methodology, the extent to which the data links reasonable to the institution’s experience and the appropriateness of any adjustments to the data.

Consistency of data over time supporting the collective allowance methodology and the nature, degree and appropriateness of any adjustments designed to compensate for data deficiencies.

2. Recognition and resolution of structural data issues (for example, the lag effect of historical measures, unstable transition matrices, and the introduction of new products or inclusion of new markets).

Documentation of data issues including an analysis/assessment of the impact on the accuracy/integrity of the collective allowance estimate.

Documentation of data exceptionality excluded from inputs to calculations, and review of these exclusions in the vetting of collective allowances.

Prudent use of expert credit judgement where there are doubts about mapping to data sets or the uncertainty in estimates is high.

Plans, where appropriate, to address identified data issues.

3. The methodology used to calculate the collective allowance is conceptually sound. This includes such factors as:
  • the methodology provides for meaningful differentiation of risk in the context of the institution’s portfolios and experience;
  • there is an explicit definition of “default” and “loss”; and
  • the methodology is based on management’s best estimate of losses in the current portfolio and considers the maturity profile of the portfolio.
An institution’s aggregate amount of individual and collectively assessed allowances should be adequate to absorb estimated credit losses in the portfolio.
4. Credit exposure across all groups of financial instruments at amortized cost is captured in the calculation of the collective allowance. An institution must be able to demonstrate that an appropriate component of the collective allowance corresponds to every net amortized cost financial instrument.
5. The methodology provides that changes in risk will result in appropriate changes in the collective allowance.

To achieve sensitivity to risk, the collective allowance methodology will use data and parameters relevant to the differentiation of risk; for example, segmentation by line of business, method of distribution, rating class, etc.

Among others, the following changes in an institution’s strategy or approach would be expected to result in an increase in the estimate of the collective allowance:

  • relaxation in the underwriting standards;
  • increasing sales of higher risk products or products with less collateral or less robust risk mitigation; and
  • new distribution methods, or increased distribution through channels that result in higher losses.
Period-over-period changes in the collective allowance are consistent with changes in portfolio risk.
6. The methodology provides for frequent and appropriate updates of the collective allowance. The collective allowance is calculated at least quarterly. A change control process exists to ensure that:
  • the collective allowance is calculated in a consistent fashion from period to period.
  • changes are not made to the methodology except to achieve an estimate that is better related to risk; and
  • the effects of changes to the methodology are effectively disclosed.
Procedures used by an institution to establish impairments should be prudent and take into account criteria such as cash flow predictions based on current assessments of economic conditions.
7. The institution regularly compares assumptions/parameters used to develop the collective allowance against experience. Testing/verification includes:
  • comparison of actual to expected losses for major categories of amortized cost financial instruments;
  • verification that segmentation and risk factors used in risk management, particularly the calculation of collective allowances, are supported by experience;
  • comparison over an economic cycle;
  • analysis of recent experience that considers recent economic conditions; and
  • consistent review over portfolios and time. When new methods are introduced, the rationale should be documented and results on both the new and old methodology compiled over several years.
Adjustments are made to the risk management processes and the calculation of collective allowances as indicated by review against experience.
8. Regular stress/sensitivity tests of the collective allowance estimate.

Stress/sensitivity tests appropriate to the institution’s methodology are conducted at regular intervals.

Stress/sensitivity tests incorporate both:

  • normal and extreme conditions; and
  • immediate and longer term horizons.

The results of stress/sensitivity tests are appropriately documented and reported to senior management, and appropriate action is taken if results exceed agreed tolerances.

Policies exist that require remedial actions to be taken when tolerance levels are exceeded.

9. Variability Consideration is given to uncertainty in the estimate of the collective allowance.

Risk Measurement and Assessment

Criteria Assessment Guidelines
1. The collective allowances methodology should be firmly grounded in the institution’s process for meaningful differentiation of risk.

The parameters used in the estimate of the collective allowance provide for a meaningful differentiation of risk.

Evidence exists that management is ensuring, on an ongoing basis, that the risk rating system is operating properly.

The extent to which the institution has a credible track record in the use/application of internal ratings information. OSFI will consider internal and external audit results, risk management reviews and the results of OSFI’s supervision program in making this assessment.

2. The analysis of credit risk should adequately identify any weaknesses at the portfolio level, including any concentrations of risk. Evidence of:
  • appropriate portfolio segmentation based on underlying risk characteristics;
  • portfolio analysis/aggregation; and
  • identification, monitoring and management of large exposures and risk concentrations.
Recognition, within the estimate of the collective allowance, of the impact of concentrations and borrower interdependence.
3. Appropriate change control processes A change control processes that stipulates the procedures to be followed:
  • before changing the collective allowance methodology;
  • in response to review against experience; and
  • as new products are sold, underwriting or distribution methods are adopted, or other changes occur that are likely to affect the institution’s risk profile.

Changes to methodology (including data sources) are appropriately documented.

Credit risk ratings are reviewed and updated whenever relevant new information is received.

4. The risk assessment processes used to arrive at an estimate for the collective allowance must be integrated with other credit risk measurement and management processes employed by the institution. Data and assumptions used in the context of collective allowances should be consistent with those used in processes such as:
  • customer or portfolio profitability analysis; and
  • risk adjusted return on capital.
The same information is used by senior management to monitor the condition of the portfolio and in the institution’s methodology for determining allowances for credit risk assessment, accounting and capital adequacy purposes.

Footnotes

Footnote 1

Note that this update to Guideline C-5 does not change OSFI policy but is intended to better reflect accounting practices for off-balance sheet exposures and fair value financial instruments.

Return to footnote 1 referrer