Home   Browse contents   View updates   Search  
     Quick search
Go
   

Dubai Financial Services Authority (DFSA): Contents

Dubai Financial Services Authority (DFSA)
Laws
Rulebook Modules
Prudential — Investment, Insurance Intermediation and Banking Module (PIB) [VER33/02-19]
Sourcebook Modules
Consultation Papers
Policy Statements
DFSA Codes of Practice
Amendments to Legislation
Media Releases
Notices
Financial Markets Tribunal
Archive

Whole SectionText only Print Print Manager Link


  Versions
(1 version)
 
Dec 9 2012 onwards

PIB A2.5 Guidance



Whole Section PDF

The definitive version of DFSA handbook text is the PDF version as that is the text of the instrument as made and published by the DFSA.

To view past versions of this module in PDF format, please visit the Archive.

1. This following guidance sets out the DFSA'sG expectations for prudent valuation practices, including adequate systems and controls and valuation methodologies, for the purpose of PIB section 2.4 of PIBG .

Systems and controls

2. Authorised FirmsG should establish and maintain adequate systems and controls sufficient to give management and the DFSAG the confidence that their valuation estimates are prudent and reliable. These systems should be integrated with other risk management systems within the organisation (such as credit analysis). Such systems are expected to include:
a. documented policies and procedures for the process of valuation. This includes clearly defined responsibilities of the various areas involved in the determination of the valuation, sources of market information and review of their appropriateness, guidelines for the use of unobservable inputs reflecting the Authorised Firm'sG assumptions of what market participants would use in pricing the position, frequency of independent valuation, timing of closing prices, procedures for adjusting valuations, end of the month and ad-hoc verification procedures; and
b. clear and independent (i.e. independent of front office) reporting lines for the department accountable for the valuation process. The reporting line should ultimately be to a main board executive director or equivalent.

Valuation methodologies

Marking-to-market

3. Marking-to-market is at least the daily valuation of positions at readily available close out prices in orderly transactions that are sourced independently. Examples of readily available close out prices include exchange prices, screen prices, or quotes from several independent reputable brokers.
4. Authorised FirmsG should mark-to-market as much as possible. The more prudent side of bid/offer should be used unless the institution is a significant market maker in a particular position type and it can close out at mid-market. Authorised FirmsG should maximise the use of relevant observable inputs and minimise the use of unobservable inputs when estimating fair value using a valuation technique. However, observable inputs or transactions may not be relevant, such as in a forced liquidation or distressed sale, or transactions may not be observable, such as when markets are inactive. In such cases, the observable data should be considered, but may not be determinative.

Marking-to-Model

5. Only where marking-to-market is not possible should Authorised FirmsG mark-to-model, but in such cases, the Authorised FirmG should be able to demonstrate to the DFSAG that the approach is prudent. Marking-to-model is defined as any valuation which has to be benchmarked, extrapolated or otherwise calculated from a market input. When marking-to-model, an extra degree of conservatism is appropriate. The DFSAG will consider the following in assessing whether a mark-to-model valuation is prudent:
a. senior management should be aware of the elements of the trading book or of other fair-valued positions which are subject to mark-to-model and should understand the materiality of the uncertainty this creates in the reporting of the risk/performance of the business;
b. market inputs should be sourced, to the extent possible, in line with market prices (as discussed above). The appropriateness of the market inputs for the particular position being valued should be reviewed regularly;
c. where available, generally accepted valuation methodologies for particular products should be used as far as possible;
d. where the model is developed by the Authorised FirmG itself, it should be based on appropriate assumptions, which have been assessed and challenged by suitably qualified parties independent of the development process. The model should be developed or approved independently of the front office. It should be independently tested. This includes validating the mathematics, the assumptions and the software implementation;
e. there should be formal change control procedures in place and a secure copy of the model should be held and periodically used to check valuations;
f. risk management should be aware of the weaknesses of the models used and how best to reflect those in the valuation output;
g. the model should be subject to periodic review to determine the accuracy of its performance (e.g. assessing continued appropriateness of the assumptions, analysis of profit and loss versus risk factors, comparison of actual close out values to model outputs); and
h. valuation adjustments should be made as appropriate, for example, to cover the uncertainty of the model valuation (see also valuation adjustments in GuidanceG notes 6 to 14.)

Independent price verification

6. Independent price verification is distinct from daily mark-to-market. It is the process by which market prices or model inputs are regularly verified for accuracy. While daily marking-to-market may be performed by dealers, verification of market prices or model inputs should be performed by a unit independent of the dealing room, at least monthly (or, depending on the nature of the market/trading activity, more frequently). It need not be performed as frequently as daily mark-to-market, since the objective, i.e. independent, marking of positions should reveal any error or bias in pricing, which should result in the elimination of inaccurate daily marks.
7. Independent price verification entails a higher standard of accuracy in that the market prices or model inputs are used to determine profit and loss figures, whereas daily marks are used primarily for management reporting in between reporting dates. For independent price verification, where pricing sources are more subjective, e.g. only one available broker quote, prudent measures such as valuation adjustments may be appropriate.

Valuation adjustments

8. As part of their procedures for marking-to-market, Authorised FirmsG should establish and maintain procedures for considering valuation adjustments. The DFSAG expects Authorised FirmsG using third-party valuations to consider whether valuation adjustments are necessary. Such considerations are also necessary when marking-to-model.
9. The DFSAG expects the following valuation adjustments to be formally considered at a minimum: unearned credit spreads, close-out costs, Operational RisksG , early termination, investing and funding costs, and future administrative costs and, where appropriate, model risk.

Adjustment to the current valuation of less liquid positions for regulatory capital purposes

10. Authorised FirmsG should establish and maintain procedures for judging the necessity of and calculating an adjustment to the current valuation of less liquid positions for regulatory capital purposes. This adjustment may be in addition to any changes to the value of the position required for financial reporting purposes and should be designed to reflect the illiquidity of the position. The DFSAG expects Authorised FirmsG to consider the need for an adjustment to a position's valuation to reflect current illiquidity whether the position is marked-to-market using market prices or observable inputs, third-party valuations or marked-to-model.
11. Bearing in mind that the assumptions made in relation to calculating VaR may not be consistent with the Authorised Firm'sG ability to sell or hedge out less liquid positions, where appropriate, Authorised FirmsG should take an adjustment to the current valuation of these positions, and review their continued appropriateness on an on-going basis. Reduced liquidity may have arisen from market events. Additionally, close-out prices for concentrated positions and/or stale positions should be considered in establishing the adjustment.
12. Authorised FirmsG should consider all relevant factors when determining the appropriateness of the adjustment for less liquid positions. These factors may include, but are not limited to, the amount of time it would take to hedge out the position/risks within the position, the average volatility of bid/offer spreads, the availability of independent market quotes (number and identity of market makers), the average and volatility of trading volumes (including trading volumes during periods of market stress), market concentrations, the aging of positions, the extent to which valuation relies on marking-to-model, and the impact of other model risks not included in GuidanceG note 10.
13. For complex products including, but not limited to, securitisation ExposuresG and n-th-to-default Credit DerivativesG , Authorised FirmsG who are approved to use models to calculate Market RiskG should explicitly assess the need for valuation adjustments to reflect two forms of model risk: the model risk associated with using a possibly incorrect valuation methodology; and the risk associated with using unobservable (and possibly incorrect) calibration parameters in the valuation model.
14. The adjustment to the current valuation of less liquid positions made under GuidanceG note 11 is likely to impact minimum Capital RequirementsG and may exceed those valuation adjustments made under the International Financial Reporting StandardsG and GuidanceG notes 8 and 9.
Derived from RM111/2012 (Made 15th October 2012). [VER20/12-12]