CAFIB (RWA) PD 02032017 - N

Capital Adequacy Framework
for Islamic Banks

(Risk-Weighted Assets)
Issued on: 2 March 2017

BNM/RH/PD 029-3 Islamic Banking and Capital Adequacy Framework for Islamic
Takaful Department Banks (Risk-Weighted Assets)
PART A OVERVIEW ................................................................................ 1
A.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................ 1
A.2 APPLICABILITY ........................................................................ 3
A.3 LEGAL PROVISION .................................................................. 3
A.4 LEVEL OF APPLICABILITY ...................................................... 3

PART B CREDIT RISK ............................................................................ 5
B.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 5
B.2 THE STANDARDISED APPROACH FOR CREDIT RISK ......... 7
B.2.1 EXTERNAL CREDIT ASSESSMENTS ...................................... 7
B.2.2 DEFINITION OF EXPOSURES ................................................ 11

Exposures to Sovereigns and Central Banking institutions ...... 11
Exposures to Non-Federal Government Public Sector Entities
(PSEs) ...................................................................................... 13
Exposures to Multilateral Development Banking institutions
(MDBs) ..................................................................................... 14
Exposures to Banking Institutions and Corporates ................... 14
Exposures to Takaful Companies, Securities Firms and Fund
Managers ................................................................................. 18
Exposures Included in the Regulatory Retail Portfolio .............. 18
Financing Secured by Residential Real Estate (RRE) Properties
................................................................................................. 20
Exposures Secured by Commercial Real Estate (CRE) ........... 22
Defaulted Exposures ................................................................ 22
Higher Risk Assets ................................................................... 23
Other Assets ............................................................................. 24
B.2.3 TREATMENT FOR THE COMPUTATION OF CREDIT RISK-

WEIGHTED ASSETS FOR ISLAMIC CONTRACTS ............... 25
MURBAHAH .......................................................................... 26
BAI BITHAMAN AJIL (BBA) AND BAI INAH ........................... 28
IJRAH..................................................................................... 29
SALAM ..................................................................................... 31
ISTISN` .................................................................................. 33
MUSHRAKAH ........................................................................ 35

MUDRABAH .......................................................................... 39
QARDH .................................................................................... 42
SUKK ..................................................................................... 42
B.2.4 OFF-BALANCE SHEET ITEMS ............................................... 43
B.2.5 CREDIT RISK MITIGATION .................................................... 47

Minimum Conditions for the Recognition of Credit Risk Mitigation
Techniques ............................................................................... 48
Credit Risk Mitigation Techniques ............................................ 48
Other Aspects of Credit Risk Mitigation .................................... 67
B.3 THE INTERNAL RATINGS BASED APPROACH ................... 68
B.3.1 ADOPTION OF THE IRB APPROACH .................................... 68

Adoption of IRB Across Asset Classes ..................................... 68
Implementation Timelines and Transition Period ...................... 72
Determination of Capital Requirements under the IRB approach
................................................................................................. 75
B.3.2 CATEGORIES OF EXPOSURES............................................. 77

Definition of Corporate Exposures, including Specialised
Financing .................................................................................. 77
Definition of Bank Exposures ................................................... 81
Definition of Retail Exposures .................................................. 82
Definition of Equity Exposures .................................................. 85
Definition of Purchased Receivables Exposures ...................... 87
B.3.3 RISK COMPONENTS .............................................................. 89

Risk Components for Corporate, Sovereign and Bank
Exposures ................................................................................ 89
Risk Components for Retail Exposures .................................. 100
Risk Components for Equity Exposures ................................. 103
B.3.4 CREDIT RISK MITIGATION (CRM) ....................................... 104

Minimum Conditions for the Recognition of Credit Risk Mitigation
Techniques ............................................................................. 104
Collateralised Transactions .................................................... 105
Guarantees............................................................................. 119
On-Balance Sheet Netting ...................................................... 127
Other Aspects of Credit Risk Mitigation .................................. 128

B.3.5 RISK-WEIGHTED ASSETS ................................................... 130

Risk-Weighted Assets for Corporate, Sovereign and Bank
Exposures .............................................................................. 130
Risk-Weighted Assets for Retail Exposures ........................... 134
Risk-Weighted Assets for Equity Exposures .......................... 136
Risk-Weighted Assets for Purchased Receivables ................. 141
Risk-Weighted Assets for Leasing .......................................... 147
B.3.6 CALCULATION OF MINIMUM CAPITAL REQUIREMENT ... 148

Regulatory Capital .................................................................. 148
Calculation of Expected Losses ............................................. 149
Calculation of Provisions ........................................................ 152
Risk-Weighted Assets ............................................................ 152
Parallel Calculation ................................................................. 153
Prudential Capital Floor .......................................................... 153
B.3.7 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE IRB APPROACH .... 155

Rating System Design ............................................................ 156
Rating System Operation ....................................................... 170
Risk Estimation ....................................................................... 176
Governance, Oversight and Use of Internal Ratings .............. 209
Validation of Rating Systems and Internal Estimates ............. 215
B.3.8 QUALIFICATION ................................................................... 224

Overview of Approval and Review Process ............................ 224
General Qualification Process ................................................ 225
Home-Host Supervisory Issues .............................................. 226
Changes to IRB Implementation and Adoption ....................... 228
PART C OPERATIONAL RISK ............................................................ 230
C.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 230
C.1.1 SOUND PRACTICES FOR OPERATIONAL RISK

MANAGEMENT ..................................................................... 230
C.2 THE BASIC INDICATOR APPROACH (BIA) ........................ 231
C.3 THE STANDARDISED APPROACH AND ALTERNATIVE

STANDARDISED APPROACH.............................................. 234
C.3.1 THE STANDARDISED APPROACH (TSA) ........................... 234

C.3.2 THE ALTERNATIVE STANDARDISED APPROACH (ASA) 239

PART D MARKET RISK....................................................................... 243
D.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 243

Scope of the Capital Charges ................................................. 243
Approaches of Measuring Market Risks ................................. 244
Standardised Approach .......................................................... 244
Internal Models Approach ....................................................... 244
D.1.1 PRUDENT VALUATION GUIDANCE .................................... 245

Systems and Controls ............................................................ 246
Valuation Methodologies ........................................................ 246
Independent Price Verification ................................................ 248
Valuation Adjustments ............................................................ 248
D.1.2 CLASSIFICATION OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ............ 249

Trading Book Policy Statement .............................................. 249
Definition of Trading Book ...................................................... 250
Classification of Specific Financial Instruments ...................... 252
D.1.3 TREATMENT OF MONEY MARKET INSTRUMENTS IN

TRADING BOOK ................................................................... 253
Controls to Prevent Regulatory Capital Arbitrage ................... 254
Treatment of Hedging Positions ............................................. 255
D.1.4 TREATMENT OF COUNTERPARTY CREDIT RISK IN THE

TRADING BOOK ................................................................... 256
D.2 THE STANDARDISED MARKET RISK APPROACH............ 257
D.2.1 BENCHMARK RATE RISKS ................................................. 257

Specific Risk ........................................................................... 258
Specific Risk Capital Charges for Issuer Risk ........................ 258
General Benchmark Rate Risk ............................................... 261
Offsetting of Matched Positions .............................................. 262
Maturity Method ...................................................................... 262
Vertical Disallowance ............................................................. 263
Horizontal Disallowance ......................................................... 264
Duration Method ..................................................................... 266

Treatment of Profit Rate Derivatives, Sell and Buy Back

Agreement (SBBA) and Reverse SBBA Transactions ............ 267
Example 1: Calculation of General Risk (Maturity Method) for
Benchmark Rate Related Financial Instruments .................... 273
D.2.2 EQUITY POSITION RISK ...................................................... 276

Specific and General Risk ...................................................... 276
Specific Risk ........................................................................... 276
General Risk ........................................................................... 277
D.2.3 FOREIGN EXCHANGE RISK (INCLUDING GOLD AND

SILVER POSITIONS) ............................................................. 279
The Treatment of Structural Positions .................................... 279
Measuring the Exposure in a Single Currency ....................... 280
The Treatment of Profit, Other Income and Expenses in Foreign
Currency ................................................................................. 281
Measuring the Foreign Exchange Risk in a Portfolio of Foreign
Currency Positions ................................................................. 282
D.2.4 COMMODITIES RISK ............................................................ 284

Simplified Approach................................................................ 286
Maturity Ladder Approach ...................................................... 286
Models for Measuring Commodities Risk ............................... 290
D.2.5 INVENTORY RISK ................................................................. 294

Murabahah and Murabahah for Purchase Order (MPO) ........ 294
Istisna .................................................................................... 295
Ijarah and Ijarah Muntahia Bittamleek (IMB) .......................... 296
Operating Ijarah ...................................................................... 298
Ijarah Muntahia Bittamleek (IMB) ........................................... 298
D.2.6 TREATMENT OF OPTIONS .................................................. 301

Underlying Position Approach ................................................ 301
Simplified Approach................................................................ 304
Delta-Plus Method .................................................................. 306
Scenario Approach ................................................................. 309
Example 4: Delta-Plus Methods for Options ........................... 310
Example 5: The Scenario Approach for Options .................... 316
D.3 INTERNAL MODELS APPROACH........................................ 321

D.3.1 COMBINATION OF INTERNAL MODELS AND THE

STANDARDISED MARKET RISK MEASUREMENT
APPROACH ........................................................................... 321
D.3.2 QUALITATIVE STANDARDS ................................................ 324
D.3.3 QUANTITATIVE STANDARDS ............................................. 327
D.3.4 SPECIFICATION OF MARKET RISK FACTORS .................. 330
D.3.5 MODELLING OF SPECIFIC RISK ......................................... 333
D.3.6 STRESS TESTING................................................................. 337
D.3.7 MODEL VALIDATION STANDARDS .................................... 340
D.3.8 MODEL REVIEW ................................................................... 342
D.3.9 FRAMEWORK FOR THE USE OF BACK TESTING............. 343

PART E LARGE EXPOSURE RISK REQUIREMENTS ....................... 352
E.1 LERR FOR ISLAMIC BANKING INSTITUTIONS .................. 352

PART F SECURITISATION FRAMEWORK ........................................ 353
F.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 353
F.2 REQUIREMENTS FOR CAPITAL RELIEF ............................... 354
F.3 STANDARDISED APPROACH FOR SECURITISATION

EXPOSURES ......................................................................... 356
F.3.1 REQUIREMENTS OF USE OF EXTERNAL RATINGS ......... 356
F.3.2 TREATMENT OF ON-BALANCE SHEET SECURITISATION

EXPOSURES ......................................................................... 359
F.3.3 TREATMENT OF OFF-BALANCE SHEET SECURITISATION

EXPOSURES ......................................................................... 361
F.3.4 TREATMENT OF OVERLAPPING EXPOSURES ................. 362
F.3.5 TREATMENT OF COUNTERPARTY CREDIT RISK FOR

SECURITISATION EXPOSURES .......................................... 363
F.3.6 TREATMENT OF SECURITISATION OF REVOLVING

UNDERLYING EXPOSURES WITH EARLY AMORTISATION
PROVISIONS ......................................................................... 363
F.3.7 TREATMENT OF CREDIT RISK MITIGATION FOR

SECURITISATION EXPOSURES .......................................... 364

F.3.8 TREATMENT OF CLEAN-UP CALLS ................................... 365
F.3.9 TREATMENT FOR IMPLICIT SUPPORT............................... 366

PART G REQUIREMENTS FOR APPROVED FINANCIAL HOLDING
COMPANIES .......................................................................... 367
G.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS ................................................ 367
G.2 Regulatory approval process for the adoption of an

advanced approach .............................................................. 367
Appendix I Eligibility Criteria for External Credit Assessment Institution

(ECAI) Recognition ................................................................. 370
Appendix II Summary of Risk Weights for Financing Secured by

Residential Real Estate (RRE) Properties .............................. 376
Appendix III Definition of Default ...................................................... 377
Appendix IIIa Diagrammatic Illustration of Re-ageing via Restructuring

381
Appendix IV Illustration on Risk-Weighted asset (RWA) Calculation for

Defaulted Exposures and Exposures Risk-Weighted at 150%
382
Appendix V Minimum Requirements on Supervisory Slotting Criteria

Method ................................................................................... 384
Appendix Va Supervisory Slotting Criteria for Specialised Financing

Exposures .............................................................................. 390
Appendix VI Counterparty Credit Risk and Current Exposure Method

410
Appendix VIa Sample Computation of Risk-Weighted Capital

Requirement and Exposure at Default (EAD) for a Portfolio of
Derivative Contracts ............................................................... 417
Appendix VIb Add-on Factors for Derivatives Contracts ............... 420
Appendix VIc Example for Calculation of Residual Maturity............. 423
Appendix VId Discount Factor and Range of Residual Maturity ....... 424
Appendix VII Capital Treatment for Failed Trades and Non-DvP

Transactions ........................................................................... 425
Appendix VIII List of Recognised Exchanges* ................................. 430

Appendix IX Recognition Criteria for Physical Collateral Used For

Credit Risk Mitigation Purposes of Islamic Banking Exposures
432
Appendix X Summary Table of Gross Income Computation ............ 439
Appendix XI Mapping of Business Lines .......................................... 440
Appendix XII Illustration of the Offsetting Rules Between Negative and

Positive OR Capital Charge in Any Business Lines ................ 441
Appendix XIII Detailed Loss Event Type Classification .................... 442
Appendix XIV Illustration of Computation of Exposures with Credit Risk

Mitigation Effects .................................................................... 445
Appendix XV Information Requirements for Application to Adopt the

Internal Ratings Based Approach for Credit Risk ................... 448
Appendix XVI Information Requirements for Application to Adopt the

Internal Models Approach for Market Risk .............................. 451
Appendix XVII Illustration of Computation of Large Exposure Risk

Requirement ........................................................................... 457
Appendix XVIII Capital Treatment for Sell and Buyback Agreement

(SBBA)/ Reverse SBBA Transactions .................................... 460
Appendix XIX IRB Coverage ............................................................ 463
Appendix XX Assessment of Credit Risk based on Shariah Contracts

466
Appendix XXI Capital treatment for Investment Accounts ................ 480
Appendix XXII Transitional Arrangements and Approval Process .... 483
Appendix XXIII Credit Conversion Factors for Off-Balance Sheet Items

under the IRB Approach ......................................................... 489
Appendix XXIV Illustrative IRB Risk Weights ................................... 491
Appendix XXV Potential Evidence of Likely Compliance with the Use

Test 494
Appendix XXVI Data-Enhancing and Benchmarking Tools .............. 495
Appendix XXVI Illustration on the treatment of underwriting exposures

499
Appendix XXVII Definitions and General Terminologies .................. 501

Appendix XXVIII Legal Requirements and Regulatory Process ....... 504
Appendix XXIX Methods of Legal Transfer ...................................... 509
Appendix XXX Comparison of Asset-based Sukk and Asset-backed

Sukk 511
Appendix XXXI Eligibility Criteria for Off-Balance Sheet Securitisation

Exposures .............................................................................. 512
Appendix XXXII Securitisation with Early Amortisation Provisions ... 514

BNM/RH/PD 029-3 Islamic Banking and Capital Adequacy Framework for Page
Takaful Department Islamic Banks (Risk-Weighted Assets) 1 / 519
PART A OVERVIEW
A.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 The Capital Adequacy Framework for Islamic Banking institutions (Risk-
Weighted Assets) (the Framework) specifies the measurement methodologies
for the purpose of calculating Risk-Weighted Assets (RWA) for credit risk,
market risk and operational risk as follows:
Risk Type Available Approaches

1. Credit Risk Standardised Approach
Internal Rating Based (IRB) Approach*
2. Market Risk Standardised Approach
Internal Models Approach (IMA)*
3. Operational Risk Basic Indicator Approach (BIA)

Standardised Approach (TSA)*
Alternative Standardised Approach (ASA)*
* Subject to explicit approval by Bank Negara Malaysia (the Bank). For IRB
Approach, only applicable for adoption from 1 January 2010.
1.2 The Framework should be read together with the Capital Adequacy
Framework for Islamic Banking institutions (Capital Components) and shall
form the basis for the computation of the capital adequacy ratios.
1.3 The formulation of the Framework is consistent with the Capital Adequacy
Standard for Institutions other than Insurance Institutions offering only Islamic
Financial Services (CAS) issued by the Islamic Financial Services Board
(IFSB) and the Capital Adequacy Framework (Basel II Risk-Weighted
Assets) issued by the Bank for banking institutions licensed under Financial
Services Act 2013 (FSA).
1.4 Some customisations have been effected to the requirements set out in CAS
to ensure suitability of the Framework in the local environment and apply
consistent treatment across banking industry for common risk exposure in
order to prevent any potential regulatory arbitrage.

1.5 While the Bank believes that such customisation could be justified, a
pragmatic approach is adopted for implementation. Higher prudential
requirements and risk management standards would be introduced gradually
taking into consideration industry feedback during the consultation process.
Similarly, prioritisation and timing for the introduction of additional adjustments
or customisation would be determined based on the long-term benefits of
promoting prudent practices within the industry.
1.6 As we gain more reliable data and experience over time, a more thorough
assessment would also be undertaken to consider the introduction of other
adjustments as deemed necessary by the Bank. In view of these potential
future developments, it is important that Islamic banking institutions make well-
informed decisions are made with respect to the adoption of the approaches
specified under the Framework having considered the appropriateness to
cater for the complexity of their current business models, as well as future
business and risk management strategies. It is also important to emphasise
that the Bank may also exercise its discretion under the Supervisory Review
Process, or Pillar 2 to impose higher capital requirements or prudential
standards on individual institutions if the Bank is of the view that the actual risk
profiles of these institutions are significantly underestimated by the Framework
or the internal capital allocation processes are not satisfactory.
1.7 Notwithstanding the requirements under the Framework, a fundamental

supervisory expectation is for all Islamic banking institutions to have in place
comprehensive risk management policies and processes that effectively
identify, measure, monitor and control risks exposures of the institution and is
subjected to appropriate board and senior management oversight. This
supervisory expectation is further detailed in the Risk Management
Guidelines and other relevant risk management standards and requirements
set by the Bank. The assessment on the adherence to the standards and
requirements set by the Bank would be a key component of the overall
supervisory review process in determining appropriate supervisory actions on
Islamic banking institutions.

A.2 APPLICABILITY
1.8 The framework is applicable to;

i. all Islamic banking institutions (excluding international Islamic banks)
licensed under Islamic Financial Services Act 2013;
ii. all banking institutions licensed under the Financial Services Act 2013
(FSA) approved under section 15(1)(a) of the FSA to carry on Islamic
banking business in accordance with the Guidelines on Skim Perbankan
Islam (SPI); and
iii. all financial holding companies (FHCs) approved under the Islamic
Financial Services Act 2013 (IFSA) which are engaged predominantly in
banking activities. The requirements for FHCs are set forth in part G.
For the purpose of this framework, the institutions referred in paragraphs 1.8(i)
and (ii) are hereafter referred to as Islamic banking institutions.
A.3 LEGAL PROVISION
1.9 The Framework is issued pursuant to section 57(2), section 127 and section
155(2) of IFSA.
A.4 LEVEL OF APPLICABILITY
1.10 An Islamic banking institution is required to comply with the Framework at the
following levels:
(i) Entity level1, referring to the global operations of the Islamic banking
institution (i.e. including its overseas branch operations) on a
standalone basis, and including its Labuan banking subsidiary; and
(ii) Consolidated level, which includes entities covered under the entity
level requirement, and the consolidation2 of all subsidiaries3, except
1
Also referred to as the solo or stand-alone level.

takaful subsidiaries which shall be deducted in the calculation of

Common Equity Tier 1 Capital4.
1.11 In addition, a banking institution carrying on SPI shall comply with the
Framework at the level of an SPI, as if the SPI is a stand-alone Islamic
banking institution.
2
In accordance with Malaysian Financial Reporting Standards (MFRS).
3
Financial and non-financial subsidiaries. A financial entity refers to any entity, whether incorporated
in Malaysia or otherwise, engaged substantively in, or acquiring holdings in other entities engaged
substantively in, any of the following activities: banking, provision of credit, securities broking, fund
management, asset management, leasing and factoring and similar activities that are ancillary to
the conduct of these activities.
4
In accordance with paragraph 32 of the Capital Adequacy Framework for Islamic Banks (Capital
Components).

PART B CREDIT RISK
B.1 INTRODUCTION
2.1 This part outlines the two approaches available for the computation of the
capital requirements for credit risk, namely the standardised approach and
the IRB approach.
2.2 The capital requirements under the Standardised Approach for Credit Risk
is determined based on an approach that links predefined sets of
exposures or classes of assets to a predefined risk weights as prescribed
in the Framework. In principle, Islamic banking institutions shall determine
the appropriate risk weight for the exposures based on recognised rating
of an external credit assessment institution (ECAI), preferential risk weight
for the regulatory retail and residential real estate portfolios, or specific
rating prescribed by the Bank for specifically identified exposures. In
addition, the Framework also recognises wider range of credit risk
mitigation techniques.
2.3 Whilst the standardised approach specifies the applicable risk weight for a
particular exposure, as a general rule under Pillar 2, the Bank reserves the
right to exercise its discretion to apply a different risk weight to a particular
Islamic banking institution or group of Islamic banking institutions, (which
may be higher) from that specified under the Framework in certain
circumstances such as in situations where there is enough evidence to
suggest that loss experience in a particular band or asset class had
increased or that overall asset quality of such institutions have been
deteriorating.
2.4 For the IRB approach, the capital requirements are derived using the
Islamic banking institutions internal rating systems. Islamic banking
institutions that wish to adopt the IRB approach are required to obtain
explicit approval from the Bank prior to implementation.

2.5 The IRB approach is based largely on the value-at-risk (VaR) methodology
to measuring credit risk and is therefore more risk-sensitive compared to
the standardised approach. Under this approach, the capital requirement
is determined using certain supervisory parameters and Islamic banking
institutions own estimates that are calibrated to a predetermined risk
weight function.
2.6 The flexibility given to Islamic banking institutions to use own estimates
are premised on employment of sound risk management practices and
strong risk management capabilities and infrastructure. Only Islamic
banking institutions that meet these supervisory requirements and
expectations would be allowed to adopt the IRB approach.
2.7 The IRB approach is developed based on the following principles:
(i) Differentiation between the foundation and advanced approach. The

foundation approach relies on Islamic banking institutions internal
estimates of probabilities of default (PD) and applies supervisory
estimates of loss given default (LGD) and exposure at default (EAD),
while the advanced approach, relies on mostly internal estimates;
(ii) Islamic banking institutions being allowed to adopt a wider range of

credit risk mitigation techniques, subject to requirements set by the
Bank. Under the foundation approach, in addition to the financial
collateral available under the standardised approach, non-financial
collateral including commercial and residential real estate, financial
receivables and other physical collateral are also available as risk
mitigants, subject to meeting specific operational requirements. More
flexibility is allowed under the advanced approach as there is no limit
to the type of collateral recognised;
(iii) The determination of capital requirement is based on the unexpected

losses (UL) approach. The risk weight formulas used to calculate
capital requirement for UL are derived from a specific model

developed by the BCBS. The UL approach is based on the concept

that capital is only required to cover UL which are peak losses that
occur infrequently over a long economic cycle. The expected losses
(EL) are the average anticipated credit losses over time that in most
cases would have been covered by provisions. Based on this
premise, any excess of provisioning over the EL would be recognised
as part of the Islamic banking institutions eligible Tier 2 Capital; and
(iv) Standard capital computation formula being applied for each

exposure class on the premise that Islamic banking institutions have
complementing internal rating systems that meet high standards of
integrity and rigour based on minimum requirements specified by the
Bank. The requirements also necessitate the integration of the IRB
measures into the day-to-day risk management processes, forming
the foundation for a sound credit culture. Islamic banking institutions
adherence to the minimum requirements will be monitored by the
Bank through its supervisory processes.
B.2 THE STANDARDISED APPROACH FOR CREDIT RISK

B.2.1 EXTERNAL CREDIT ASSESSMENTS
2.8 External credit assessments (or external ratings) on the obligor (the issuer)
or specific securities issued by the issuer (the issue) form as a basis for
the determination of risk weights under the Standardised Approach for
exposures to sovereigns, central banking institutions, public sector entities,
banking institutions, corporates as well as certain other specific portfolios.
Nevertheless, the external ratings are not applicable to regulatory retail
portfolios, residential real estate (RRE) financing, non-performing
financing, equity-based exposures under Musharakah and Mudarabah
contracts, high risk exposures, specifically identified obligors as specified
in paragraph 2.51 and any other assets not specified as mentioned in
paragraph 2.52.

2.9 In general, an exposure shall be deemed to have an external rating if a

recognised ECAI5 provides a rating to the issuer or the issue. Otherwise,
the exposure shall be deemed to be unrated and accorded the risk weight
for unrated exposures based on their respective exposure category.
However, there may be instances where an unrated exposure can be risk-
weighted based on the rating of an equivalent exposure to a particular
obligor. The treatment for these unrated exposures is subject to conditions
specified in paragraph 2.13.
General Requirements on the Use of External Ratings

2.10 The use of external ratings provided by recognised ECAIs for capital
adequacy purposes must be applied on a consistent basis6. Islamic
banking institutions must ensure that:
(i) external rating announcement of their obligors are closely monitored,

especially for obligors which are placed under watch by the ECAIs;
(ii) risk weights of their exposures are revised promptly following any
changes in external ratings assessment; and
(iii) all reports on the capital adequacy position under the Framework that
are submitted to the Bank reflect the latest ratings assigned to the
issuers or issues.
The use of external ratings for risk weighting of exposures would also be
subject to the disclosure requirements under Pillar 3, failing which the
external ratings shall not be used for purposes of capital adequacy
computation. In this event, all exposures shall be treated as being unrated.
Level of Application of the Assessment

2.11 External ratings of one entity within a corporate group shall not be used to
assign a risk weight to other entities within the same group.
5
The eligibility criteria for ECAI recognition is provided in Appendix I.
6
Islamic banking institutions shall not cherry pick external ratings for capital adequacy purposes.
For example, Islamic banking institutions should not use external ratings only when the ratings
attached to the exposure provide a favourable risk weight compared to an unrated exposure and
ignore the external ratings in situations where the risk weight is unfavourable.

Single and Multiple Assessments

2.12 Islamic banking institutions are required to capture all available external
ratings of an obligor or issues in the event that the rating assessment is
provided by more than one ECAI. Nevertheless, the rating assessment
that is applicable for the purpose of capital adequacy requirement shall be
subject to the following condition:
(i) Where two recognised external ratings are available, the lower rating
is to be applied; or
(ii) Where three or more recognised external ratings are available, the
lower of the highest two ratings will be used.
Issuer and Issues Assessment

2.13 Islamic banking institutions are expected to assign the appropriate risk
weight that is equivalent to an issue-specific rating of particular Islamic
securities in the event that the Islamic banking institutions have an
exposure on these securities. However, Islamic banking institutions shall
apply the following principles to determine the applicable risk weight to the
investment exposures that do not have an issue-specific rating:
(i) Islamic banking institutions are allowed to utilise the available debt
security rating of counterparty in the event that this counterparty does
not have an issuer rating. This rating shall be applicable for the
purpose of determining the relevant risk weight that is to be applied
on the banks exposure to the same counterparty, irrespective of the
fact that the Islamic banking institutions may not have an investment
in that particular debt security. Nevertheless, this treatment is subject
to the condition that the banks unrated exposure ranks pari passu or
senior in all respects to the debt security and the debt security rating
has not taken into account any effects of collateral/guarantee
arrangements. Otherwise, the unrated exposure will attract the risk
weight for unrated exposures;

(ii) In view that the issuer rating typically reflects the assessment of the
senior unsecured exposures of counterparty, thus, this rating
assessment shall be applicable only to senior exposures of a
particular counterparty. Other exposures will be treated as unrated;
and
(iii) In the event that either the counterparty or a single security has a low
quality rating which maps to a risk weight equal to or higher (e.g.
150% risk weight) than that applicable to unrated exposures (100%
risk weight), thus the low quality rating (instead of the risk weight for
unrated exposures) shall be assigned to the unrated counterparty.
2.14 No supervisory recognition of credit risk mitigation techniques will be taken

into account if credit enhancements have already been reflected in the
rating specific to a particular debt security (to avoid double counting of
credit enhancement factors). For example, if an external rating for a
specific issue has already taken into account the effects of a guarantee
attached to the issuance, the guarantee cannot be subsequently be taken
into consideration for purposes of credit risk mitigation.
Domestic Currency and Foreign Currency Assessments

2.15 The general rule is that the Islamic banking institutions should use foreign
currency ratings to assess the foreign currency exposures and domestic
currency ratings be used to assign risk weight to the exposures that are
denominated in domestic currency.
Unsolicited Ratings
2.16 Islamic banking institutions should use solicited ratings from recognised
ECAIs for purposes of the capital adequacy computation under the
Standardised Approach. This, however, does not preclude Islamic banking
institutions from using unsolicited ratings for other internal risk
management purposes.

B.2.2 DEFINITION OF EXPOSURES
2.17 The following part defines further the various categories of exposures and
the appropriate risk weights for each category under the Standardised
Approach. These categories of exposures shall be applicable to the credit
risk exposures arising from the application of Shariah contracts that are
categorised under the asset based transactions. These exposures are
mainly based on the credit risk of the counterparty or obligor. In the case
of equity base contract, the exposure will be determined based on the
specific structure of the Shariah contracts. The detailed descriptions of
Shariah contracts are provided under Part B.2.3 of this document. These
risk weights are also applicable to all on-balance sheet and off-balance
sheet exposures in the banking book of Islamic banking institutions. The
treatment for exposures in the trading book is stipulated under the market
risk component of the Framework.
2.18 On-balance sheet exposures shall be multiplied by the appropriate risk

weight to determine the risk-weighted asset amount, while off-balance
sheet exposures shall be multiplied by the appropriate credit conversion
factor (under Part B.2.4) before applying the respective risk weights.
2.19 For purpose of capital adequacy computation, exposures are defined as

the assets and contingent assets under the applicable Financial Reporting
Standards, net of specific provisions7.
Exposures to Sovereigns and Central Banking institutions

2.20 Islamic banking institutions are allowed to apply the preferential risk weight
of 0% on exposures to the Federal Government of Malaysia and the Bank8
7
Specific provisions include individual impairment provisions as well as collective impairment
provisions (and regulatory reserves, if any) that are attributable to financing classified as impaired
Individual and collective impairment provisions are as defined under the Malaysian Financial.
Reporting Standards.
8
Including securities issued through special purpose vehicles established by the Bank e.g. Bank
Negara Malaysia Sukuk Ijarah and BNMNi-Murabahah issued through BNM Sukuk Berhad.
However, Islamic banking institutions shall apply the look-through approach as specified under
Appendix XXI for BNM Mudarabah certificate (BMC).

that are denominated and funded9 in Ringgit Malaysia (RM). Exposures in

RM with an explicit guarantee provided by the Federal Government of
Malaysia or the Bank shall also be accorded a 0% risk weight.
2.21 For exposures to another sovereign or central banking institutions, Islamic

banking institutions are allowed to apply the preferential risk weights (i.e.
0% or 20%) of that accorded by the national supervisory authorities. The
exposures to these sovereigns or central banking institutions shall be
denominated and funded in the domestic currency of the respective
jurisdictions. The preferential risk weight can also be applied in the case
where an explicit guarantee has been provided by these sovereigns or
central banking institutions. However, the risk-weight may be assigned
based on the sovereigns external rating in the event that the Bank deems
that it is not appropriate to apply the preferential risk weight to a particular
sovereign.
2.22 Exposures to sovereigns or central banking institutions that do not qualify

for the categories set out in paragraphs 2.20 and 2.2110, shall be risk-
weighted based on the external credit rating of the sovereigns as follows:
Rating Rating of Sovereigns

Agency
Standard & AAA to A+ to A- BBB+ to BB+ to B- CCC+ to D
Poors AA- BBB-
Rating
Services
(S&P)
Moodys Aaa toAa3 A1 to A3 Baa1 to Ba1 to B3 Caa1 to C Unrated
Investors Baa3
Service
(Moodys)
Fitch AAA to A+ to A- BBB+ to BB+ to B- CCC+ to D

Ratings AA- BBB-
(Fitch)
9
This means that the Islamic bank has corresponding liabilities denominated in RM.
10
This includes all sukuks issued by Federal Government of Malaysia which are denominated in
foreign currencies.

Rating and AAA to A+ to A- BBB+ to BB+ to B- CCC+ to C

Investment, AA- BBB-
Inc. (R&I)11
Risk 0% 20% 50% 100% 150% 100%

Weight
Exposures to Non-Federal Government Public Sector Entities (PSEs)

2.23 In line with the recommendation under CAS, the exposures on domestic
PSEs will be accorded a preferential risk weight of 20%. Nevertheless, this
preferential treatment shall only be accorded to PSE that satisfy the
following criteria:
(i) The PSE has been established under its own statutory act;
(ii) The PSE and its subsidiaries are not involved in any commercial
undertakings;
(iii) A declaration of bankruptcy against the PSE is not possible; and
(iv) The source of funding for the PSE is mostly provided by the federal
government and any financing facilities received by this entity are
subject to strict internal rules by the PSE.
2.24 In general, domestic PSEs shall include the administrative bodies of the
federal government as well as state governments, local governments and
administrative bodies of these entities.
2.25 The exposures to PSEs12 that do not fulfil all criteria in paragraph 2.23
shall be risk-weighted based on their external ratings as per corporate
entities.
2.26 The exposures to foreign PSEs shall be eligible for preferential risk weight
provided that the national supervisors of these foreign entities have
accorded the preferential treatment to their domestic PSEs. In this regard,
11
External credit assessment produced by Rating and Investment, Inc. on Islamic debt securities are
not recognised by the Bank in determining the risk weights for exposures in the Framework.
12
This would include quasi-government agencies.

Islamic banking institutions are allowed to apply preferential risk weight on

their exposures that are denominated and funded in domestic currency of
these foreign PSEs. Nevertheless, the eligibility criteria established by the
national supervisor to accord the preferential risk weight to the PSEs shall
be aligned with the criteria specified above for domestic PSEs in Malaysia.
The Bank reserves the right to require exposures to foreign PSE to be risk-
weighted based on its external rating under the circumstances where the
preferential risk weight is deemed to be inappropriate.
Exposures to Multilateral Development Banking institutions (MDBs)

2.27 In general, the exposures on MDBs shall receive similar treatment to
banking institutions. However, highly-rated MDBs13 which meet certain
criteria that have been specified by Basel II will be eligible for a preferential
risk weight of 0%.
Exposures to Banking Institutions and Corporates

2.28 The risk weights for exposures on banking institutions and corporates shall
be accorded based on their external ratings, which can be in the form of
either short-term or long-term ratings. However, any exposure arising from
investment account placements made with Islamic banking institutions
shall be subject to the look-through approach as described in Appendix
XXI. As a general rule, exposures to an unrated banking institution or
corporate shall not be given a risk weight preferential14 to that assigned to
its sovereign of incorporation.
13
MDBs currently eligible for a 0% risk weight are: the World Bank Group which comprises the
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the International Finance
Corporation (IFC), 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), and the Council of Europe Development Bank (CEDB) and the International Finance
Facility for Immunisation (IFFIm). .
14
For example, if the sovereign rating for a particular country was BBB, any exposures to the
sovereign would be accorded a risk weight of 50% and any unrated exposures to corporates
incorporated in that sovereign would be assigned a risk weight of 50% or higher.

Short-term Ratings
2.29 Short-term ratings15 are deemed to be facility-specific, thus can only be
used to determine risk weights for exposures specific to a rated facility. In
addition, short-term ratings cannot be used to the risk weight of an unrated
long-term exposure. In addition, the application of short-term ratings shall
be guided by the following requirements:
(i) Where an Islamic banking institution has multiple short-term

exposures to a particular obligor and only one of these facilities has a
short-term facility rating which attracts a 50% risk weight, hence other
unrated short-term exposures on the obligor cannot be accorded a
risk weight lower than 100%;
(ii) Where an issuer is accorded a risk weight of 150% for one short-term
facility, all unrated exposures of the issuer, include both long term
and short term, shall also be accorded 150% risk weight, unless a
recognised credit risk mitigant is available; and
(iii) Islamic banking institution shall ensure the ECAI that provides the
short-term rating assessment has met all of the eligibility criteria
specified by the Bank in terms of its short-term rating. (i.e. the Bank
has not communicated the withdrawal of such recognition).
All other exposures shall use the long term ratings or be treated as
unrated exposures.
2.30 The treatment for specific short-term facilities, such as a particular

issuance of a commercial paper is provided in the following table:
Rating Agency Short-Term Rating of Banking Institutions and Corporates
S&P A-1 A-2 A-3 Others
Moodys P-1 P-2 P-3 Others
Fitch F1+, F1 F2 F3 B to D
15
In general, short-term ratings assessments refer to ratings for facilities with an original maturity of 1
year or less.

R&I a-1+, a-1 a-2 a-3 b, c

Rating Agency Malaysia
P-1 P-2 P-3 NP
(RAM)
Malaysia Rating
Corporation Berhad MARC-1 MARC-2 MARC-3 MARC-4
(MARC)
Risk Weight 20% 50% 100% 150%

Long-term Ratings
2.31 The applicable risk weight for long term exposures on banking institutions
and corporates shall be subject to their respective long term rating. In the
case of exposures to banking institutions, the following specific treatment
shall apply:
(i) Claims with original16 maturity of six (6) months or less on both rated
and unrated banking institutions shall apply a risk weight that is one
category more favourable, but subject to a floor of 20% risk weight.
However, banking institutions that is accorded a risk weight of 150%
shall not be eligible for this treatment; and
(ii) Exposures to other banking institutions with original maturity of three
(3) months or less that are denominated and funded in RM shall be
eligible for a risk weight of 20%.
2.32 Summary of applicable risk weights for long-term exposures on banking

institutions is as follows:
Rating Agency Rating of Banking Institutions

S&P AAA to A+ to A- BBB+ to BB+ to B- CCC+ to D
AA- BBB-
Moodys Aaa to A1 to A3 Baa1 to Ba1 to B3 Caa1 to C
Aa3 Baa3
Fitch AAA to A+ to A- BBB+ to BB+ to B- CCC+ to D
AA- BBB- Unrated
R&I AAA to A+ to A- BBB+ to BB+ to B- CCC+ to C
AA- BBB-
RAM AAA to A1 to A3 BBB1 to BB1 to B3 C1 to D
AA3 BBB3
MARC AAA to A+ to A- BBB+ to BB+ to B- C+ to D
AA- BBB-
Risk Weight 20% 50% 50% 100% 150% 50%
Risk weight
(original maturity of
6 months or less)
17 20% 50% 150% 20%
Risk weight
16
Islamic banking institutions must ensure that exposures which are expected to be rolled-over
beyond their original maturity do not qualify for more favourable treatment. This is based on the
view that Islamic banking institutions that rolls-over their facilities would be having difficulty to
source for alternative funding. This shall also be applicable for the automatic 20% risk weight.
17
Short-term exposures on banking institutions are defined as exposures with an original maturity of
six months or less. The preferential treatment is available for exposures to both rated and unrated
banking institutions, but not for banking institutions rated below B-.

(original maturity of
3 months or less)
18 20%
2.33 Exposures on development financial institutions (DFIs)19 shall also be
treated similar to exposures on banking institutions.
2.34 Exposures on corporates shall be assigned the risk weights based on their
external ratings as follows:
Rating Agency Rating of Corporates

S&P AAA to AA- A+ to A- BBB+ to BB- B+ to D
Moodys Aaa to Aa3 A1 to A3 Baa1 to Ba3 B1 to C
Fitch AAA to AA- A+ to A- BBB+ to BB- B+ to D Unrated
R&I AAA to AA- A+ to A- BBB+ to BB- B+ to D
RAM AAA to AA3 A1 to A3 BBB1 to BB3 B1 to D
MARC AAA to AA- A+ to A- BBB+ to BB- B+ to D
Risk Weight 20% 50% 100% 150% 100%
Exposures to Takaful Companies, Securities Firms and Fund Managers

2.35 Exposures to Takaful companies, securities firms, unit trust companies
and other asset management companies shall be treated as exposures on
corporates.
Exposures Included in the Regulatory Retail Portfolio

2.36 Exposures that are qualified as the regulatory retail portfolio (excluding
exposures to qualifying RRE or real estate financing and defaulted
regulatory retail) shall be risk-weighted at 75% provided that the following
criteria are met:
18
This preferential risk weight is accorded to all interbank exposures with an original maturity of three
months or less denominated and funded in RM.
19
DFIs are referred to specialised financial institutions established by the Government as part of an
overall strategy to develop and promote specific strategic sectors, such as agriculture, small and
medium enterprises (SMEs), infrastructure development, shipping and capital-intensive and high-
technology industries for the social and economic development of the country. This is in line with
the definition under Section 3 of Development Financial Institutions Act 2002 (DAFIA).

(i) Orientation criterion
Exposure to individual person/s or small business, which include

sole-proprietorships, partnerships or small and medium-sized
enterprise (SMEs20);
(ii) Product criterion
The exposure includes revolving financing facilities (including credit

cards and cash lines), personal term financing and other term
financing (e.g. instalment financing, vehicle financing, student and
educational financing and personal financing) and financing facilities
to small business. However, investment in debt and equity securities
that are listed or not listed shall be excluded from this portfolio.
Qualifying residential real estate (RRE) exposures shall be subject to
the treatment under paragraphs 2.38 to 2.43;
(iii) Granularity criterion
The aggregate exposure21 to one counterpart22 (excluding qualifying

RRE financing) shall not exceed 0.2% of the overall regulatory retail
portfolio;
(iv) Low value of individual exposures
The aggregate exposure23 to one counterparty (excluding qualifying

RRE financing) cannot exceed RM5 million; and
(v) Applicable Shariah contract
The exposure to regulatory retail may be undertaken based on either

the Murabahah or Ijarah contracts24.
20
Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the agriculture and services sector are defined as
having annual sales of up to RM5 million or 50 full-time employees. For the manufacturing sector,
SMEs have been defined as having annual sales of up to RM25 million or 150 full-time employees.
21
Aggregated exposure means gross amount (excluding defaulted exposures and credit risk
mitigation effects) of all forms of financing exposures (including off-balance sheet exposures) that
individually satisfy the three other criteria.
22
One counterpart shall be defined as per the Guidelines on Single Counterparty Exposure Limit.
23
Aggregated exposure means gross amount (inclusive of defaulted exposures but without taking
into account credit risk mitigation effects) of all forms of financing exposures (including off-balance
sheet exposures) that individually satisfy the other three criteria.

2.37 An exposure shall be treated as exposure to corporates in the event that it

does not fulfil the criteria as specified above. Any term financing for
personal use with an original maturity of more than 5 years approved and
disbursed by Islamic banking institutions on or after 1 February 2011, shall
be risk-weighted at 100%.
Financing Secured by Residential Real Estate (RRE) Properties
2.38 Financing that are fully secured by the underlying RRE or mortgages on
residential property25, which are or will be occupied by the obligor, or is
rented, shall be treated as qualifying RRE and carved-out from the
regulatory retail portfolio provided that the following criteria are met:
(i) The obligor is an individual person;
(ii) The financing is secured by the first legal charge, assignment or

strata title on the property or legal ownership of the RRE belong to
the Islamic banking institutions;
(iii) The Islamic banking institution has in place a sound valuation

methodology to appraise and monitor the valuation of the property;
(iv) The re-computation26 of the financing-to-value ratio (FTV) must be

undertaken at least on an annual basis. Islamic banking institutions
24
Use of the risk weight under the regulatory retail portfolio for exposures based on other Islamic
contracts may be allowed, provided that the credit risk profile of such exposures is similar to
Murabahah or Ijarah contract.
25
Residential property includes property which is zoned for single-family homes, multi-family
apartments, townhouses and condominiums. It excludes shop houses which can be eligible for the
regulatory retail portfolio as per paragraph 2.36.
26
The computation of FTV ratio for regulatory capital purpose shall be subject to the following:
As a general principle, Islamic banking institutions should ensure that the financing amount is
reflective of the Islamic bank's potential or outstanding exposure to the borrower. As such,
where the Islamic bank has also offered to extend the financing facility for other additional costs
to be incurred by the borrower in conjunction with the home financing (e.g. for fire takaful, stamp
duty fees, legal fees, Mortgage Reducing Term Takaful, etc.), these amounts should also be
included in the computation.
At origination, the value of the house will be based on the value stated on the Sales and
Purchase Agreement. Subsequently, to qualify for concessionary risk weight, Islamic banking
institutions have to demonstrate ability to comply with the valuation rules and annual
recomputation of the financing-to-value ratio. Islamic banking institutions should have in place
internal policies and procedures to verify the robustness of the properly values used in the FTV
computation, including where appropriate, requirements for independent valuations to be
carried out to confirm the veracity of values stipulated in the Sales and Purchase Agreement. In
computing the FTV ratio, Islamic banking institutions are not expected to conduct a formal

can also consider credit protection extended by Cagamas SRP

Berhad when computing the financing-to-value ratio, by reducing the
value of the financing by the amount protected. This is however,
subject to Islamic banking institutions fulfilling the operational and
legal certainty requirements for the recognition of credit risk mitigation
set out in Part B.2.5;
(v) Upon default, the property must be valued by a qualified independent

valuer. Defaulted qualifying RRE financing shall be treated differently
from other defaulted financing. The treatment is specified under
paragraph 2.48;
(vi) The property has been completed and Certificate of Fitness has been
issued by relevant authority; and
(vii) The applicable Shariah contracts for the financing of the RRE shall be
based on Murabahah or Ijarah27.
2.39 Qualifying RRE exposures shall be risk-weighted28 based on the following

table:
29
Financing-to-value Ratio (FTV) <80% 80%-90%
Risk Weight 35% 50%
2.40 Residential mortgages which do not meet the criteria in paragraphs 2.38
and 2.39 will be treated as regulatory retail portfolio as per paragraph 2.36.
valuation on each property annually. Islamic banking institutions may use credible secondary
information such as property market reports or house indices.
27
The risk weights of qualifying RRE financing may be applicable to exposures based on other
contracts (including Mushrakah Mutanaqisah undertaken with or without Waad), provided that the
credit risk profile of such exposures is similar to Murbahah or Ijrah contract. Nevertheless, the
Bank expects banking institutions to monitor the risk characteristics of such contracts in comparison
against other similar types of exposures, particularly in relation to the recovery profile.
28
Where the RRE financing is protected by Cagamas SRP Berhad (under Cagamas MGP, Skim
Rumah Pertamaku, and Skim Perumahan Belia), a risk weight of 20% shall apply on the protected
portion while the remaining portion shall be risk-weighted based on the post protection financing-to-
value ratios.
29
The financing-to-value ratios are post-protection where applicable.

2.40(i) Notwithstanding paragraphs 2.38 to 2.40, all residential mortgages with a

financing-to-value ratio of more than 90% approved and disbursed by
Islamic banking institutions on or after 1 February 2011 shall be risk-
weighted at 100%.
2.41 Personal financing facilities that are combined with RRE may be treated as
RRE provided that the personal financing facility is secured with the first
legal charge. Otherwise, the personal financing facility shall be classified
under regulatory retail portfolio.
2.42 For residential mortgage financing extended to the priority sector as per
requirements specified by the Bank, the financing shall be subjected to a
risk weight of 50%, or 35% if the FTV ratio is below 80%30. However, any
financing with an FTV of more than 90% approved and disbursed by
Islamic banking institutions on or after 1 February 2011, shall be risk-
weighted at 75%.
2.43 A summary of the risk weights for all exposures to RRE is provided in
Appendix II.
Exposures Secured by Commercial Real Estate (CRE)
2.44 Exposures to counterparty that are secured by CRE shall be treated based
on the appropriate definition under paragraphs 2.20 to 2.37. The CRE may
be eligible for credit risk mitigant as defined under Part B.2.5.
Defaulted Exposures
2.45 This part specifies the treatment for exposures that are classified as being
in default. The definition of defaulted exposures is attached in Appendix
III.
30
Refer to footnote 28

2.46 Islamic banking institutions are allowed to account for the eligible
collaterals and guarantees to determine the secured portion of defaulted
exposures.
2.47 The risk weight for the unsecured portion31 of defaulted exposures other
than defaulted qualifying RRE financing (refer to paragraph 2.48) and
higher risk assets (refer to paragraphs 2.49 and 2.50), net of specific
provisions32 (including partial write-offs) are as follows:
(i) 150% risk weight where the specific provisions are less than 20% of
the outstanding amount of the exposure;
(ii) 100% risk weight where the specific provisions are at least 20% of
the outstanding amount of the exposure; and
(iii) 50% risk weight where the specific provisions are at least 50% of the
outstanding amount of the exposure.
2.48 Qualifying RRE financing that are in default, net of specific provisions
(including partial write-offs), shall be riskweighted as follows:
(i) 100% where specific provisions are less than 20% of the outstanding
amount of the exposure; and
(ii) 50% where specific provisions are at least 20% of the outstanding
amount of the exposure.
An illustration on the computation of the risk-weighted assets for defaulted

exposures is provided in Appendix IV.
Higher Risk Assets

2.49 The following exposures have been identified as high risk assets and are
accorded specific risk weights as follows:
31
Unsecured portion of defaulted exposure refers to the portion that are not collateralised or
guaranteed by an eligible credit risk mitigant.
32
Specific provisions include individual impairment provisions as well as collective impairment
provisions (and regulatory reserves, if any) that are attributable to financing classified as impaired.
Individual and collective impairment provisions are as defined under Malaysian Financial Reporting
Standards.

(i) Investment in equity financial instruments that are non-publicly traded

(inclusive of investments/financing structured based on Musharakah
and Mudarabah contracts) shall be risk-weighted at 150%;
(ii) The exposures on an abandoned33 housing development or

construction project will be risk-weighted at 150%; and
(iii) venture capital investments will be risk-weighted at 150%.34
2.50 In addition, the treatment for defaulted and non-defaulted exposures of

these higher risk assets shall be the same.
Other Assets
2.51 Specific treatment for other assets that are not covered in the above shall
be as follows:
(i) Cash and gold35 will be risk-weighted at 0%;
(ii) Exposures on the Bank for International Settlements, International

Monetary Fund, European Central Bank and European Community
shall be accorded a 0% risk weight;
(iii) Exposures (excluding equity investment specified in (v)(c) below) to

CGC shall be accorded a 20% risk weight;
(iv) Exposures to local stock exchanges36 and clearing houses shall be

accorded a 20% risk weight;
(v) The following exposures shall be accorded a risk weight of 100%:
(a) Investments in unit trust funds and property trust funds37.
33
For the purpose of the Framework, abandoned project or construction is defined as follows:
(i) A housing development project in which construction has continuously stopped for 6 months or
more within or outside the completion period as per the Sales and Purchase Agreement
(ii) The developer has no ability to proceed and complete the project due to financial insolvency
(iii) The Ministry qualifies that the developer is no longer able to continue its responsibility as the
developer.
34
The Bank may decide to impose more stringent capital treatment including capital deduction.
35
Refers to holding of gold bullion held in own vaults or on an allocated basis to the extent backed by
bullion liabilities.
36
Refers to Bursa Malaysia Securities Berhad and Labuan Financial Exchange.
37
Includes Real Estate Investment Trusts.

(b) Publicly traded equity investments held in the banking book

(inclusive of investments structured based on Musharakah and
Mudarabah contracts).
(c) Equity investments called for by the Federal Government of

Malaysia, Bank Negara Malaysia, Association of Banks in
Malaysia, Association of Islamic Banking Institutions in
38
Malaysia, or the Malaysian Investment Banking Association ;
(vi) Investment in equity of non-financial commercial subsidiaries will be

accorded a 1250% risk weight; and
(vii) Investment in International Islamic Liquidity Management Corporation

(IILM) Sukuk shall be risk-weighted in accordance with paragraph
paragraph 2.30.
2.52 Any other assets not specified shall receive a standard risk weight of
100%.
B.2.3 TREATMENT FOR THE COMPUTATION OF CREDIT RISK-WEIGHTED

ASSETS FOR ISLAMIC CONTRACTS
2.53 This part sets out the following:
(i) Specificities of the Shariah contracts;
(ii) Identification of the credit risk exposures; and
(iii) Appropriate treatment in terms of risk measurement of credit risk-

weighted assets associated with Islamic financial products or
transactions that are undertaken based on specific Shariah contracts.
2.54 Islamic financial transactions can generally be classified into four main
categories as follows:
38
Such as Cagamas Berhad and Credit Guarantee Corporation Malaysia Berhad.

(i) Asset-based transactions, which comprise of Murbahah, Salam and

Istisn` contracts, that are mainly structured or created based on the
purchase or sale of assets;
(ii) Lease-based transactions, which comprise of Ijrah contracts;
(iii) Equity-based transactions, which comprise of Mushrakah and

Mudrabah contracts, that are undertaken mainly based on equity
participation in a joint venture or business enterprise; and
(iv) Loan-based transactions, which are primarily undertaken through the

Qardh contract.
2.55 The innovation in Islamic banking products and financial instruments has
resulted in the development of varied product structures which are
differentiated by a unique product name. For example, some products are
structured using a combination of Shariah permissible terms. For capital
adequacy computation purposes, the capital treatments on these financial
instruments shall be assessed based on the analysis of the risk profile
embedded within these transactions rather than the product name, unless
specifically required by the Bank.
MURBAHAH
Murbahah
2.56 A Murbahah contract refers to an agreement whereby an Islamic banking
institution sells to an obligor an asset that it has acquired at an agreed
selling price between both parties. The agreed selling price is based on
the acquisition cost (purchase price plus other direct costs) of the asset
incurred by the Islamic banking institution and a profit margin agreed
between the Islamic banking institution and its obligor. The Murbahah
contract shall include the agreed repayment terms where the obligor is
obliged to pay the selling price after taking delivery of the asset.
2.57 Islamic banking institutions are exposed to credit risk in the event that the
obligor fails to pay the agreed selling price in accordance with the agreed
repayment terms under the Murbahah contract. Hence, Islamic banking

institutions shall be subject to the capital charge for credit risk exposure
once the asset is sold and payment is due to the Islamic banking
institution.
Murbahah for Purchase Orderer (MPO)

2.58 A Murbahah for Purchase Orderer (MPO) contract refers to an
agreement whereby an Islamic banking institution sells to an obligor at an
agreed selling price, a specified type of asset that has been acquired by
the Islamic banking institution based on an agreement to purchase (AP) by
the obligor which can be binding or non-binding. The relevant legal
recourse provided under the AP that requires the obligor to perform their
obligation to purchase the underlying asset from the Islamic banking
institution shall be a key determinant for the AP to be recognised as
binding or non-binding. Thus, it is pertinent for Islamic banking institutions
to ensure the adequacy and enforceability of the legal documentation
under the MPO contract. The MPO contract shall include the agreed
repayment terms where the obligor is obliged to pay the selling price after
taking delivery of the asset.
2.59 The difference between a Murbahah transaction and an MPO transaction

is that under a Murbahah contract, the Islamic banking institution sells an
asset which is already in its possession, whilst in an MPO, the Islamic
banking institution acquires an asset in anticipation that the asset will be
purchased by the obligor.
2.60 Islamic banking institutions are exposed to credit risk in the event that the
obligor fails to pay the agreed selling price in accordance with the agreed
repayment terms under the MPO contracts. Hence, Islamic banking
institutions shall be subject to the capital charge for credit risk exposure
once the asset is sold and payment is due to the Islamic banking
institution.

2.61 For MPO with binding AP, Islamic banking institutions are exposed to
credit risk in the event that the obligor (purchase orderer) defaults on its
binding obligation to purchase the assets under the contract. In view of the
adequate legal recourse that requires the obligor to purchase the asset at
an agreed price, the credit risk exposure commences once the Islamic
banking institution acquires the underlying asset. For non-binding MPO,
the effect is similar to a Murbahah transaction.
2.62 The following table summarises the treatment for the determination of risk
weights of Murbahah and MPO contracts:
Applicable Stage of the Contract

Determination of
Contract (When Islamic banking institutions start
Risk Weight
providing for capital)
Murbahah and When sale of asset is completed and Based on type of
MPO with non- payment is due from the obligor exposure as per Part
binding AP Note: Exposure is based on outstanding B.2.2 Definition of
amount Exposures.
MPO with binding When asset is acquired by Islamic banking

AP institution and available for sale (asset on
balance sheet)39
Note: Exposure is equivalent to the asset
acquisition cost.
BAI BITHAMAN AJIL (BBA) AND BAI INAH

2.63 For the purpose of the Framework, the Bai` Bithaman Ajil (BBA) and Bai`
Inah contracts are deemed to have similar transaction characteristics and
financing effect as the Murbahah and MPO contract. The BBA involves the
selling of an asset with deferred payment terms while Bai Inah involves a sell
and buy back agreement. An example of Bai Inah is where an obligor sells to
the Islamic banking institution an asset at a selling price that will be repaid on
cash basis for the first leg of the agreement. On the second leg, the Islamic
banking institution sells back the asset to the obligor on deferred payment
terms to enable the financing transaction.
39
Includes assets which are in possession due to cancellation of AP by customers.

IJRAH
Ijrah
2.64 Ijrah contracts refer to a lease agreement whereby the lessor transfers the
right to use (or usufruct) of the leased asset to the lessee, for an agreed
period and at an agreed consideration, in the form of lease rental. The lessor
maintains ownership of the leased asset during the lease period under these
contracts.
2.65 As the owner of the leased asset, Islamic banking institutions therefore
assume all liabilities and risks pertaining to the leased asset including the
obligation to restore any impairment and damage to the leased asset arising
from wear and tear, as well as natural causes which are not due to the
lessees misconduct or negligence.
2.66 As a lessor, Islamic banking institutions may acquire the asset to be leased
based on the lessees specifications as stipulated under the agreement to
lease (AL), prior to entering into the Ijrah contract with the lessee. The AL
can be binding or non-binding on the lessee depending on the legal recourse
in the AL, which states the obligation for the lessee to lease the specified
asset from the lessor.
2.67 Islamic banking institutions as the lessor under the Ijrah contracts are
exposed to the credit risk of the lessee in the event that the lessee fails to
pay the rental amount as per the agreed terms.
2.68 In addition, under a binding AL, Islamic banking institutions are exposed to
credit risk in the event that the lessee (lease orderer) defaulting on its binding
obligation to execute the Ijrah contract. In this situation, the Islamic banking
institution may lease or dispose off the asset to another party. However, the
Islamic banking institution is also exposed to the credit risk of the lessee if

the lessee is not able to compensate for the losses incurred arising from the
disposal of the asset.
2.69 Under a non-binding AL, the Islamic banking institution is not exposed to the
risk of non-performance by the lease orderer given that the Islamic banking
institution does not have legal recourse to the lease orderer. In this regard,
credit risk exposure arises upon the commencement of rental agreement.
Ijrah Muntahia Bittamleek

2.70 Ijrah Muntahia Bittamleek (IMB) contract refers to a lease agreement similar
to Ijrah contracts. However, in addition to paragraphs 2.64 to 2.69, the
lessor has an option to transfer ownership of the leased asset to the lessee
in the form of a gift or a sale transaction at the end of IMB.

Al-Ijrah Thumma Al-Bai`

2.71 Al-Ijrah Thumma Al-Bai` (AITAB) contract is a type of IMB contract that
ends with a transfer of ownership to the lessee by way of a sale transaction
and shall be treated similarly to the IMB contract for purposes of capital
adequacy requirements. In line with the applicable accounting treatment,
where Islamic financial products apply the AITAB contract for the purpose of
creating financing facilities, the outstanding rental amount refers to the total
outstanding principal amount plus accrued profit due from obligor.
weights of Ijrah/IMB contracts for the lessee:

(When Islamic banking institutions start
providing capital)
Determination of
Type of AL Upon signing an AL Upon signing an LC
Risk Weight
and asset is in and the lease rental
balance sheet payments are due
available for lease from the lessee
Binding Exposure to credit risk Exposure to credit risk Risk weight is
Note: Exposure is Note: Exposure is based on obligors
equivalent to asset based on outstanding (prospective
acquisition cost rental amount lessees) external
rating
Non-binding / No credit risk Exposure to credit risk Risk weight is
Without AL Note: Exposure is based on lessees
based on outstanding external rating
rental amount
SALAM
2.73 A Salam contract refers to an agreement whereby an Islamic banking
institution purchases from an obligor a specified type of commodity, at a
predetermined price, which is to be delivered on a specified future date in a
specified quantity and quality. Islamic banking institution as the purchaser of
the commodity makes full payment of the purchase price upon execution of
the Salam contract. Islamic banking institutions are exposed to credit risk in

the event that the obligor (commodity seller) fails to deliver40 the paid
commodity as per the agreed terms.
2.74 In addition, an Islamic banking institution may also enter into a parallel Salam
contract, which is a back-to-back contract to sell the commodity purchased
under the initial Salam contract to another counterparty. This arrangement
enables the Islamic banking institution to mitigate the risk of holding the
commodity.
2.75 Islamic banking institutions undertaking the parallel Salam transaction are
exposed to credit risk in the event that the purchaser fails to pay for the
commodity it had agreed to purchase from the Islamic banking institution.
Nevertheless, in the event of non-delivery of the commodity by the seller
under the initial Salam contract, the Islamic banking institution is not
discharged of its obligation to deliver the commodity to the purchaser under
the parallel Salam contract.
2.76 For the purpose of computing the credit risk-weighted asset, the purchase
price paid by Islamic banking institution to the seller of commodity in a Salam
contract shall be assigned a risk weight based on the sellers external rating.
2.77 The following table summarises the treatment for the determination of credit
risk weights of Salam contracts:

Determination of Risk
Weight
providing capital)
Salam Islamic banking institution is expecting Based on type of exposure
delivery of the commodity after as per Part B.2.2
purchase price has been paid to seller Definition of Exposures.
Note: Exposure amount is equivalent
to the payment made by Islamic
banking institution
40
Delivery risk in a Salam contract is measured based on the commodity sellers credit risk.


Determination of Risk
Weight
providing capital)
Salam with Similar to the above Based on type of exposure
Parallel Salam (The Parallel Salam does not as per Part B.2.2
extinguish requirement for capital from Definition of Exposures.
the first Salam contract)
ISTISN`
2.78 An Istisn` contract refers to an agreement to sell to or buy from an obligor
an asset which has yet to be manufactured or constructed. The completed
asset shall be delivered according to the buyers specifications on a specified
future date and at an agreed selling price as per the agreed terms.
2.79 As a seller of the under the Istisn` contract, the Islamic banking institution is
exposed to credit risk in the event that the obligor fails to pay the agreed
selling price, either during the manufacturing or construction stage, or upon
full completion of the asset.
2.80 As a seller, the Islamic banking institution has the option to manufacture or
construct the asset on its own or to enter into a parallel Istisn` contract to
procure the asset from another party or, to engage the services of another
party to manufacture or construct the asset. Under the parallel Istisn`
contract, as the purchaser of the asset, the Islamic banking institution is
exposed to credit risk in the event that the seller fails to deliver the specified
asset at the agreed time and in accordance with the initial Istisn` ultimate
buyers specifications. The failure of delivery of completed asset by the
parallel Istisn` seller does not discharge the Islamic banking institution from
its obligations to deliver the asset ordered by the obligor under the initial
Istisn` contract. Thus, the Islamic banking institution is additionally exposed
to the potential loss of making good the shortcomings or acquiring the
specified assets elsewhere.
2.81 The following table specifies the treatment for the determination of risk
weights of Istisn` contracts:

Applicable Stage of the

Contract Determination of Risk
Contract
(When Islamic banking Weight
institutions start providing capital)
Istisn`and Unbilled and unpaid billed work- Based on type of exposure as
Parallel Istisn in-progress per Part B.2.2 Definition of
Exposures; or
Supervisory slotting criteria

method subject to fulfilling
minimum requirements as per
Appendix V.

MUSHRAKAH
2.82 A Mushrakah contract is an agreement between an Islamic banking
institution and its obligor to contribute an agreed proportion of capital funds to
an enterprise or to acquire ownership of an asset/real estate. The proportion
of the capital investment may be on a permanent basis or, on a diminishing
basis where the obligor progressively buys out the share of the Islamic
banking institution (thus, this contract is named Diminishing Mushrakah,
which is categorized under Mushrakah contract for the purpose of the
Framework). Profits generated by the enterprise or an asset/real estate are
shared in accordance to the terms of the Mushrakah agreement, while
losses are shared based on the capital contribution proportion.
2.83 In general, Mushrakah contracts can broadly be classified into two

categories as follows:
(i) Equity participation in a private commercial enterprise to undertake
business ventures or financing of specific projects; and
(ii) Joint ownership in an asset or real estate
I. EQUITY PARTICIPATION IN A PRIVATE COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE

TO UNDERTAKE BUSINESS VENTURES OR FINANCING OF SPECIFIC
PROJECTS
2.84 An Islamic banking institution may enter into a Mushrakah contract with
their obligor to provide an agreed amount of capital for the purpose of
participating in the equity ownership of an enterprise. In this arrangement,
the Islamic banking institution is exposed to capital impairment risk in the
event that the business activities undertaken by the enterprise incur losses.
The Mushrakah agreement may provide an agreed exit mechanism which
allows partners to divest their interest in the enterprise at a specified tenor or
at the completion of the specified project. In this regard, the Islamic banking
institution must ensure that the contract clearly stipulates the exit mechanism
for partners to redeem their investment in this entity.

2.85 Islamic banking institutions that enter into this type of Mushrakah contract
are exposed to the risk similar to an equity holder or a joint venture
arrangement where the losses arising from the business venture are to be
borne by the partners. As an equity investor, the Islamic banking institution
serves as the first loss absorber and its rights and entitlements are
subordinated to the claims of creditors. In terms of risk measurement, the
risk exposure to an enterprise may be assessed based on the performance
of the specific business activities undertaken by the joint venture as
stipulated under the agreement.
II. JOINT OWNERSHIP IN AN ASSET OR REAL ESTATE
2.86 Mushrakah contracts that are undertaken for the purpose of joint ownership
in an asset or real estate may generally be classified into the two categories
as follows:
i) Mushrakah contract with an Ijrah sub-contract
Partners that jointly own an asset or real estate may undertake to

lease the asset to third parties or to one of the partners under an
Ijrah contract and therefore generate rental income to the
partnership. In this case, the risk profile of the Mushrakah
arrangement is essentially determined by the underlying Ijrah
contract. Islamic banking institutions are exposed to credit risk in the
event that the lessee fails to service the lease rentals.
ii) Mushrakah contract with a Murbahah sub-contract
As a joint owner of the underlying asset, Islamic banking institutions

are entitled to a share of the revenue generated from the sale of
asset to a third party under a Murbahah contract. Islamic banking
institutions are exposed to credit risk in the event the buyer or
counterparty fails to pay for the asset sold under the Murbahah
contract.

iii) Diminishing Mushrakah
(a) An Islamic banking institution may enter into a Diminishing

Mushrakah contract with an obligor for the purpose of providing
financing based on a joint ownership of an asset, with the final
objective of transferring the ownership of the asset to the obligor
in the contract.
(b) The contract allows the obligor to gradually purchase the Islamic
banking institutions share of ownership in an asset/real estate
or equity in an enterprise over the life of the contract under an
agreed repayment terms and conditions which reflect the
purchase consideration payable by the obligor to acquire the
Islamic banking institutions share of ownership.
(c) As part of the mechanism to allow the obligor to acquire the

Islamic banking institutions share of ownership, the Islamic
banking institution and obligor may agree to lease the asset/real
estate to the obligor. The agreed amount of rental payable can
be structured to reflect the progressive acquisition of the Islamic
banking institutions share of ownership by the obligor.
Eventually, the full ownership of the asset will be transferred to
the obligor as it continues to service the rental payment. In this
regard, the Islamic banking institution is exposed to credit risk
similar to an exposure under the Mushrakah with Ijrah
contract.
(d) However, if the exposure under the Diminishing Mushrakah

contract consists of share equity in an enterprise, the Islamic
banking institution shall measure its risk exposure using the
treatment for equity risk.


2.87 The following table specifies the treatment for the determination of credit risk
weights of Mushrakah contracts:
Applicable Stage of the
Contract Determination of Risk
Contract
(When Islamic banking Weight
institutions start providing capital)
Mushrakah for equity Holding of equity 100% risk weight for
holding in banking publicly traded equity and
book 150% risk weight for non-
publicly traded equity; or
Supervisory slotting
criteria method subject to
fulfilling minimum
requirements as per
Appendix V.
Mushrakah for Funds advanced to joint venture 150% risk weight41; or
project financing
Supervisory slotting
criteria method subject to
fulfilling minimum
requirements as per
Appendix V.
Mushrakah with sub- Exposure to credit risk As set out under the sub-
contract contract.
MUDRABAH
2.88 A Mudrabah contract is an agreement between an Islamic banking
institution and an obligor whereby the Islamic banking institution contributes
a specified amount of capital funds to an enterprise or business activity that
is to be managed by the obligor as the entrepreneur (Mudrib). As the capital
provider, the Islamic banking institution is at risk of losing its capital
investment (capital impairment risk) disbursed to the Mudrib. Profits
generated by the enterprise or business activity are shared in accordance
with the terms of the Mudrabah agreement whilst losses are borne solely by
the Islamic banking institution (capital provider)42. However, losses due to
41
The Bank reserves the right to increase the risk weight if the risk profile of the exposure is deemed
higher.
42
Losses borne by the capital provider would be limited to the amount of capital invested.

misconduct, negligence or breach of contracted terms43 by the entrepreneur,

shall be borne solely by the Mudrib. In this regard, the amount of capital
invested by the Islamic banking institution under the Mudrabah contract
shall be treated similar to an equity exposure.
2.89 Mudrabah transactions can be carried out:

(i) on a restricted basis, where the capital provider authorises the
Mudrib to make investments based on a specified criteria or
restrictions such as types of instrument, sector or country exposures;
or
(ii) on an unrestricted basis, where the capital provider authorises the
Mudrib to exercise its discretion in business matters to invest funds
and undertake business activities based on the latters skills and
expertise.
2.90 In addition, transactions involving Mudrabah contracts may generally be

sub-divided into two categories as follows.
I. EQUITY PARTICIPATION IN AN ENTITY TO UNDERTAKE BUSINESS

VENTURES
2.91 This type of Mudrabah contract exposes the Islamic banking institution to
risks akin to an equity investment, which is similar to the risk assumed by an
equity holder in a venture capital or a joint-venture investment. As an equity
investor, the Islamic banking institution assumes the first loss position and its
rights and entitlements are subordinated to the claims of creditors.
II. INVESTMENT IN PROJECT FINANCE
2.92 The Islamic banking institutions investment in the Mudrabah contract with a
Mudrib is for the purpose of providing bridging finance to a specific project.
43
Banking institutions are encouraged to establish and adopt stringent criteria for definition of
misconduct, negligence or breach of contracted terms.

This type of contract exposes the Islamic banking institution to capital

impairment risk in the event that the project suffers losses. Under this
arrangement, the Islamic banking institution as an investor provides the
funds to the construction company or Mudrib that manages the construction
project and is entitled to share the profit of the project in accordance to the
agreed terms of the contract and must bear the full losses (if any) arising
from the project.
2.93 There may be situations where the risk profile of money market instruments
based on Mudrabah contracts may not be similar to an equity exposure
given the market structure and regulatory infrastructure governing the
conduct of the market. In particular, Mudrabah interbank investments in the
domestic Islamic money market would attract the credit risk of the Islamic
banking institution instead of equity risk despite having similarities in the
contractual structure.
weights for Mudrabah contracts:
Contract (When Islamic banking institutions Determination of Risk weight
start providing capital)
Mudrabah Holding of equity 100% risk weight for publicly
for equity traded equity and 150% risk weight
holding in for non-publicly traded equity; or
banking book
Appendix V.
Mudrabah Amount receivable from Mudrib If a binding agreement exists for
for project in respect of progress payments ultimate obligors to pay directly to
financing due from ultimate obligors Islamic banking institution:
Based on external rating of
ultimate obligor
(Type of obligor as per Part B.2.2
Definition of Exposures)
Remaining balance of funds 150% risk weight44; or
44
The Bank reserves the right to increase the risk weight if the risk profile of the exposure is deemed
higher.


Contract (When Islamic banking institutions Determination of Risk weight
start providing capital)
advanced to the Mudrib.
Appendix V.
QARDH
2.95 Qardh is a loan given by an Islamic banking institution for a fixed period,
where the borrower is contractually obliged to repay only the principal
amount borrowed. In this contract, the borrower is not obligated to pay an
extra amount (in addition to the principal amount borrowed) at his absolute
discretion as a token of appreciation to the Islamic banking institution. Islamic
banking institutions are exposed to credit risk in the event that the borrower
fails to repay the principal loan amount in accordance to the agreed
repayment terms. Hence, the credit risk exposure commences upon the
execution of the Qardh contract between the Islamic banking institution and
the borrower. The following table summarises the treatment for the
determination of credit risk weight for Qardh contract:
Applicable Stage of the Contract Determination of Risk Weight
Upon execution of the contract Based on type of exposure as per

Part B.2.2 Definition of Exposure
SUKK
2.96 Regulatory capital treatment must be applied based on the economic
substance or actual risk profile of a particular Sukk45 exposure rather than
its legal form to ensure that capital provided commensurates with the
underlying risk borne by Islamic banking institutions. For purposes of this
Framework, Sukk can be broadly categorised into:
(i) asset-based Sukk, where risk and reward are dependent on the obligor
that originates/issues the instrument. The economic substance or actual
45
Sukk are certificates that represent the holders proportionate ownership in an undivided part of an
underlying asset where the holder assumes all rights and obligations to such assets

risk profile of such Sukk resembles that of the originator/issuer46 and is

therefore subject to the requirements in Part B.2.2 Definition of
Exposures of CAFIB; and
(ii) asset-backed Sukk, where risk and reward are dependent on the
underlying asset and is therefore subject to the requirements in Part F of
this Framework.
2.97 Islamic banking institutions are required to assess characteristics of Sukk,

including the Shariah contract used and transaction structure in order to
differentiate between asset-based and asset-backed Sukk and to determine
the application of appropriate regulatory capital requirements. These may
include assessment of the actual source of cash flow, the ability for investors
to have recourse to the originator as well as the existence of repurchase
terms. Examples of asset-based Sukk include sukk with legally binding
repurchase undertaking by originators or sukk with recourse to originators.
Examples of asset-based and asset-backed Sukk transactions are
illustrated in Appendix XXX.
2.98 Islamic banking institutions are required to consult the Bank when there are
doubts about the appropriate regulatory capital treatment of a particular
exposure.
B.2.4 OFF-BALANCE SHEET ITEMS
2.99 Off-balance sheet items shall be treated similar to the existing capital
framework that is based on the Risk-Weighted Capital Adequacy Framework
(Basel 1) as an addition to CAS issued by the IFSB. In this regard, the
inherent credit risk exposure under off-balance sheet item is translated into
an on-balance sheet exposure by multiplying the nominal principal amount
46
Although Sukk represent the holders proportionate ownership in an underlying asset which
enables the generation of cash flow, there are clauses within the terms and conditions of the Sukk
that causes the risk and rewards to ultimately depend on the originator

with a credit conversion factor (CCF). The converted exposure is then being
risk-weighted according to the risk weight of the counterparty.
2.100 In addition, counterparty risk weights for over-the-counter (OTC) derivative

transactions will be determined based on the external rating of the
counterparty and will not be subject to any specific ceiling.
2.101 The CCFs for the various types of off-balance sheet instruments are as
follows:
Instrument CCF
a. Direct credit substitutes, such as general

guarantees of receivables including standby
letters of credit serving as financial guarantees for
financing and Islamic securities and acceptances
(including endorsements with the character of
acceptances).
b. Assets47 sold with recourse, where the credit risk 100%

remains with the selling institution
c. Forward asset purchases, and partly-paid shares

and securities, which represent commitments with
certain drawdown.
d. Commitment to buy back Islamic securities under

Sell and Buy Back agreement transactions
e. Certain transaction-related contingent items, such

as performance bonds, bid bonds, warranties and
standby letters of credit related to particular
transactions.
50%
f. Obligations under an on-going underwriting
agreement (including underwriting of shares/
securities issue) and revolving underwriting
47
Item (b), which includes house financing sold to Cagamas Bhd, and (c), should be weighted based
on the type of asset (house financing) instead of counterparty (i.e. Cagamas) with whom the
transaction has been entered into.

facilities
g. Other commitments, such as formal standby

facilities and credit lines, with an original maturity
of over one year.
h. Short-term self-liquidating trade-related

contingencies, such as documentary credits
collateralised by the underlying shipments. The
credit conversion factor shall be applied to both the
issuing and confirming Islamic banking institution. 20%
i. Other commitments, such as formal standby

facilities and credit lines, with an original maturity
of up to one year.
j. Unutilised credit cards48 lines
k. Any commitments that are unconditionally 0%

cancelled at any time by the Islamic banking Refer to paragraph 2.101(i)
institution without prior notice or that effectively
provide for automatic cancellation due to
deterioration in an obligors creditworthiness.
l. Derivatives contracts. Credit equivalent to

be derived using
current exposure
method49 as given in
Appendix VI.
2.101(i) Any commitments that are unconditionally and immediately cancellable

and revocable by the Islamic banking institutions or that effectively provide
for automatic cancellation due to deterioration in an obligors
creditworthiness (for example, corporate overdrafts and other facilities), at
any time without prior notice, will be subject to 0% CCF. To utilise the 0%
48
Charge cards with similar risk profile to credit card will be subject to a common CCF.
49
Credit equivalent exposure is based on the sum of positive mark-to-market replacement cost of the
contract and potential future exposure.

CCF, the Islamic banking institution must demonstrate that legally, it has
the ability to cancel these facilities and that its internal control systems and
monitoring practices are adequate to support timely cancellations which
the Islamic banking institution does effect in practice upon evidence of
deterioration in an obligors creditworthiness. Islamic banking institutions
should also be able to demonstrate that such cancellations have not
exposed the Islamic banking institution to legal actions, or where such
actions have been taken, the courts have decided in favour of the Islamic
2.102 Islamic banking institutions are allowed to apply the lower of the two
applicable credit conversion factors in the event where there is an
undertaking to provide a commitment on an off-balance sheet item50.
2.103 In addition to the computation under item (l) above, counterparty credit risk
may arise from unsettled securities, commodities, and foreign exchange
transactions from the trade date, irrespective of the booking or accounting
transaction. Islamic banking institutions are encouraged to develop,
implement and improve systems for tracking and monitoring the credit risk
exposures arising from unsettled transactions to enable appropriate action
to be undertaken on a timely basis. These transactions are subject to a
capital charge as calculated in Appendix VII if it is not processed via a
delivery-versus-payment system (DvP) or a payment-versus-payment
(PvP) mechanism.
2.104 Islamic banking institutions must closely monitor failed transactions with
respect to securities, commodities, and foreign exchange transactions and
calculate capital requirements on this transactions based on Appendix
VII.
50
Such as commitments to provide letters of credit or guarantees for trade purposes. For example, if
an Islamic banking institution provides the customer a committed limit on the amount of letters of
credit they can issue over a one-year period, with the customer drawing on this committed limit over
time.

B.2.5 CREDIT RISK MITIGATION
2.105 This section outlines general requirements for the use of credit risk
mitigation and eligibility criteria, detailed methodologies and specific
requirements with respect to the following CRM techniques:
(i) Collateralised transactions;
(ii) On-balance sheet netting; and
(iii) Guarantee and credit derivatives.
2.106 CRM will not be recognised for capital adequacy purposes in the event
where the rating assessment of particular Islamic securities has taken into
consideration the effect of the CRM (to avoid double counting of credit
enhancement factors). For example, if an external rating for a specific
issue has taken into account the effects of a guarantee attached to the
issuance, this guarantee shall not be eligible for the purposes of CRM.
2.107 While the use of CRM techniques reduces or transfers credit risk, it may
introduce or increase other risks such as legal, operational, liquidity and
market risk. Therefore, it is imperative that Islamic banking institutions
control these risks by employing robust policies, procedures and
processes including strategies to manage these risks, valuation, systems,
monitoring and internal controls. Islamic banking institutions must able to
demonstrate to the Bank that it has adequate risk management policies
and procedures in place to control these risks arising from the use of CRM
techniques. In any case, the Bank reserves the right to take supervisory
action under Pillar 2 should the Islamic banking institutions risk
management in relation to the application of CRM techniques be
insufficient. In addition, Islamic banking institutions will also be expected to
observe Pillar 3 requirements51 in order to obtain capital relief in respect of
any CRM techniques.
51
Please refer Capital Adequacy Framework for Islamic Banks (CAFIB) Disclosure Requirements
(Pillar 3).

Minimum Conditions for the Recognition of Credit Risk Mitigation Techniques

2.108 Islamic banking institutions must satisfy the minimum conditions for use of
any CRM technique to obtain capital relief as follows:
(i) The collateral used under the CRM techniques must comply with
Shariah requirements;
(ii) All documentation for CRM must be binding on all parties and legally
enforceable in all relevant jurisdictions;
(iii) Sufficient assurance from legal counsel has been obtained with
respect to the legal enforceability of the documentation; and
(iv) Islamic banking institutions are expected to undertake periodic review

to confirm the ongoing enforceability of the documentation.
2.109 In general, only collateral and/or guarantees that are actually posted
and/or provided under a legally enforceable agreement are eligible for
CRM purposes. However, RRE exposures that meet the qualifying criteria
in paragraphs 2.38 to 2.43 shall not be eligible as CRM. A commitment to
provide collateral or a guarantee is not recognised as an eligible CRM
technique for capital adequacy purposes until the commitment to do so is
actually fulfilled.
Credit Risk Mitigation Techniques

Collateralised Transactions
2.110 A collateralised transaction is one in which:
(i) Islamic banking institutions have credit exposures or potential credit

exposure; and
(ii) That credit exposures are hedged in whole or in part by eligible

collateral provided by a counterparty or by a third party on behalf of
the counterparty.

2.111 Islamic banking institutions may apply either the simple approach
(paragraphs 2.122 to 2.126) or the comprehensive approach (paragraphs
2.129 to 2.138) for the purpose of calculating the capital requirement
arising from the collateralised transactions. The comprehensive approach
shall also be applied to calculate counterparty risk charges for over-the-
counter (OTC) derivatives in the trading book.
2.112 Under the simple approach, the collateralised portion of the credit risk
exposure to counterparty is substituted with the risk weight of the eligible
collateral under the collateralised transaction. In the case of
comprehensive approach, Islamic banking institutions are allowed to apply
the value ascribed from the collateral to offset or effectively reduce the
credit risk exposure to counterparty. Partial collateralisation is recognised
in both approaches.
2.113 Islamic banking institutions shall adopt any of the two approaches to
calculate capital requirement for credit risk exposures in the banking book
and its application must be applied consistently within the banking book.
Nevertheless, Islamic banking institutions are expected to apply the
comprehensive approach for physical asset that is accepted as collateral
irrespective of the approach adopted for exposures collateralised by non-
physical assets. Only the comprehensive approach is allowed for the
trading book. Mismatches in the maturity of the underlying exposure and
the collateral are allowed only under the comprehensive approach.
2.114 Islamic banking institutions are required to inform the Bank on the
approach that it intends to adopt for CRM purposes. Any subsequent
migration to a different approach shall also be communicated to the Bank.
Minimum Requirements for Collateralised Transactions

2.115 In addition to the general requirements specified under paragraphs 2.108
and 2.109, the legal mechanism by which collateral is pledged or
transferred must ensure that the Islamic banking institution has the right to

liquidate or take legal possession of the collateral in a timely manner in the

event of default, insolvency or bankruptcy of the counterparty.
Furthermore, Islamic banking institutions must take all steps necessary to
fulfill those requirements under the law to protect their interest in the
collateral.
2.116 For collateral to provide effective cover, the credit quality of the
counterparty and the value of collateral must not have a material positive
correlation. For example, securities issued by the counterparty or a related
counterparty52 as a form of collateral against a financing would generally
be materially correlated, thus providing little cover and therefore would not
be recognised as eligible collateral.
2.117 Islamic banking institutions must have clear and robust procedures for
timely liquidation of collateral. Hence, Islamic banking institutions must
ensure that legal requirements in declaring the default of the counterparty
are observed and therefore facilitate prompt liquidation of the collateral.
2.118 For the purpose of recognising physical collateral as eligible CRM, Islamic
banking institutions are required to:
(i) Fulfil the scope of application whereby only assets that are completed
for their intended use and fulfil the following conditions may be
recognised as physical collateral:
(a) Assets are legally owned by the Islamic banking institution. For
Ijarah contracts, these are restricted to operating Ijarah only,
where related costs of asset ownership are borne by the Islamic
banking institution 53; or
52
As defined under the policy document on Single Counterparty Exposure Limit (SCEL).
53
Shariah requires that the lessor/ owner bears the costs related to the ownership of or any other
costs as agreed between the lessor and the lessee. In this regard, CRM would not be applicable if
the lessee agrees to absorb material costs related to asset ownership or in an arrangement where
ownership costs would be transferred to the lessee.

(b) The physical assets attract capital charges other than credit risk
prior to/and throughout the financing period (e.g. operating
Ijarah and inventories54 under Murabahah).
(ii) Conduct an independent review55 to ascertain compliance with

minimum and operational requirements prior to using physical
collateral as CRM, and subsequently perform an annual independent
assessment to validate fulfilment of all criteria and operational
requirements specified in the Framework;
(iii) Obtain approval from the Board or relevant board committees on the
recognition;
(iv) Provide 2 months prior notification to the Bank on the recognition;

and
(v) Have at least 2 years empirical evidence on data such as recovery

rate and value of physical collateral prior to the recognition of physical
collateral as CRM for Regulatory Retail Portfolio.
2.119 Islamic banking institutions must take reasonable measures to ensure that
the collateral is in good custody in the event that the collateral is held by a
custodian, and also ensure that the custodian segregates the collateral
from its own assets.
2.120 Securities under Sell and Buy Back Agreement (SBBA) are not
collateralised transaction given that it is undertaken based on outright
purchase and sale transaction. Positions held under SBBA as well as
reverse SBBA shall be subject to capital requirement according to the risk
profile incurred by the parties involved as given in Appendix XVIII.
54
This excludes inventories which are merely used as a pass-through mechanism such as in
Commodity Murabahah transactions or if the inventories carry no risk due to the existence of
binding agreements with the obligor for them to purchase the inventory.
55
Validation must be performed by a unit that is independent from risk taking/business units and must
not contain individuals who would benefit directly from lower risk weight derived from the recognition
of physical collateral as CRM.

Eligible Collateral
2.121 The following collateral instruments are eligible for recognition under the
simple and comprehensive approach for the purpose of calculating capital
adequacy requirements provided that the above minimum conditions are
being met:

Type of Approach Collateral Recognised
Simple Approach (i) Hamish jiddiyyah (security deposit held as collateral);
(ii) Urbun (or earnest money held after a contract is established as

collateral to guarantee contract performance);
(iii) Investment account or deposit56 (including Islamic negotiable

instrument of deposits or comparable instruments) with Islamic
banking institution which is incurring the exposure;
(iv) Gold;
(v) Islamic securities/Sukk rated by ECAIs where the risk weight
attached to the debt securities is lower than that of the obligor;
(vi) Islamic securities/Sukk that is unrated by a recognised ECAI but

fulfil the following conditions:
(a) Issued by a banking institution;
(b) Listed on recognised exchange;
(c) Classified as senior debt;
(d) All rated issue of the same seniority by the issuing bank that
are rated at least BBB- or A-3/P-3 or any equivalent rating;
and
(e) The Bank is sufficiently confident about the market liquidity of
the debt security/Sukk.
(vii) Equities (including convertible bonds/Sukk) that are included in

the main index (refer to Appendix VIII);
(viii) Funds (e.g. collective investment schemes, unit trust funds,

mutual funds, etc) where:
(a) A price for the units is publicly quoted daily; and
(b) The investment portfolio is limited to investing in the
instruments listed in this table. (The use or potential use by a
fund of derivative instruments solely to hedge investments
listed in this table shall not prevent units in that fund from
being a collateral.)
56
Structured deposits and Restricted Investment Account would not qualify as eligible financial
collateral.

Comprehensive (i) All of the above;

Approach
(ii) Physical assets (either underlying assets or any other assets
owned by the counterparty or by third party on behalf of
counterparty which are pledged or leased assets) that fulfil the
minimum requirement specified under the comprehensive
approach as well as additional criteria57 specified in Appendix IX;
(iii) Equities (including convertible Islamic securities/Sukk) which are

not included in a main index that is Composite Index of Bursa
Malaysia but are listed on a recognised exchange (refer to
Appendix 9); and
(iv) Funds (e.g. collective investment schemes, unit trust funds,

mutual funds, etc) which include equities that are not included in a
main index i.e. Composite Index of Bursa Malaysia but which are
listed on a recognised exchange (refer to Appendix VIII)
Simple Approach
2.122 Under this approach, where an exposure on counterparty is secured
against eligible collateral, the secured portion of the exposure must be
weighted according to the risk weight appropriate to the collateral. The
unsecured portion of the exposure must be weighted according to the risk
weight applicable to the original counterparty.
2.123 Collateral used under the simple approach must be pledged for at least the
entire life of the exposure and collateral revaluation shall be based on
marked-to-market methodology at a minimum frequency of 6 months. The
portion of exposures collateralised by the market value of the recognised
collateral shall receive the risk weight applicable to the collateral
instrument. The risk weight on the collateralised portion shall be subject to
a floor of 20% except under the conditions specified in paragraphs 2.125
and 2.126. The original risk weight accorded to the counterparty shall be
assigned to the residual risk exposure.
57
The minimum criteria for recognition of additional collateral as credit risk mitigation under the
comprehensive approach have been adopted from the Basel II minimum requirements for Internal
Rating Based (IRB) approach.

2.124 Islamic banking institutions shall refer to risk weight tables specified under
Part B.2.2 for the purpose of determining the appropriate risk weight to be
assigned on collateral pledged by the counterparty. Collateral that is
denominated in local currency or foreign currency shall be subject to the
risk weight linked to domestic currency ratings or foreign currency ratings
respectively.
Exceptions to the 20% Risk Weight Floor

2.125 A 0% risk weight may be accorded to the collateralised transaction in the
event where the exposure and the collateral are denominated in the same
currency, and the type of collateral is either:
(i) hamish jiddiyyah, urbun, investment account or deposit as defined in
paragraph 2.121; or
(ii) Islamic securities that are eligible for a 0% risk weight and its market
value have been discounted by 20%.
2.126 OTC derivative transactions that are subject to daily mark-to-market

revaluation and do not have any currency mismatch shall be accorded the
following risk weight:
(i) 0% risk weight where it is collateralised by cash; or
(ii) 10% risk weight where it is collateralised by Islamic securities issued

by sovereign or PSE that eligible for a 0% risk weight.
In addition, the calculation of counterparty credit risk under the OTC

derivative transactions is specified under Appendix VI.

Collateralised OTC Derivatives Transactions58

2.127 As specified in Appendix VI, the calculation of the counterparty credit risk
charge for an individual contract will be as follows:
Counterparty Charge = [(RC + add-on) CA] x r x 8%
Where:
RC = The replacement cost
add-on = the amount for potential future exposure calculated according to
Appendix VI.
CA = The volatility adjusted collateral amount under the
comprehensive approach
R = The risk weight of the counterparty
2.128 When effective bilateral netting contracts are in place, RC will be the net
replacement cost and the add-on will be ANet59 as calculated according to
Appendix VI. The haircut for currency risk (Hfx) should be applied when
there is a mismatch between the collateral currency and the settlement
currency. Even in the case where there are more than two currencies
involved in the exposure, collateral and settlement currency, a single
haircut assuming a 10-business day holding period scaled up as
necessary depending on the frequency of mark-to-market will be applied.
Comprehensive Approach
2.129 Under the comprehensive approach, when taking collateral, Islamic
banking institutions must calculate an adjusted exposure amount to a
counterparty after risk mitigation, E*. This is done by applying volatility
adjustments to both the collateral and the exposure60 , taking into account
possible future price fluctuations. Unless either side of the transaction is
cash, the volatility adjusted amount for the exposure shall be higher than
the actual exposure and lower than the collateral.
58
For example, collateralised interest rate swap transactions.
59
Add-on for netted transactions.
60
Exposure amounts may vary where, for example, securities are being lent.

2.130 The adjusted exposure amount after risk mitigation shall be accorded the
risk weight of the counterparty for the purpose of calculating the risk-
weighted asset for the collateralised transaction.
2.131 When the exposure and collateral are held in different currencies, an
additional downward adjustment must be made to the volatility adjusted
collateral to take account of possible future fluctuations in exchange rates.
Calculation of Capital Requirement

2.132 Under the comprehensive approach, the adjusted exposure amount after
risk mitigation for collateralised transactions is calculated as follows:
E* max0,E 1 HE C 1 HC HFX
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
Standard Supervisory Haircuts

2.133 For purposes of applying the comprehensive approach for collateralised
transactions, the standard supervisory haircuts61 (H), expressed as
percentage, are as follows:
61
Assuming daily mark-to-market, daily remargining and 10-business day holding period, except for
physical assets that are subjected to minimum annual revaluation as per Appendix IX.

Types of collateral Haircuts (%)

Issue rating for debt Residual maturity Sovereign Other issues
securities/Sukk
AAA to AA-/A-1 1 year 0.5 1
> 1 year, 5 sra y 2 4
> 5 years 4 8
A+ to BBB-/A-2 to A- 1 year 1 2
3/P-3 and unrated > 1 year, 5 sra y 3 6
bank securities/Sukk
> 5 years 6 12
BB+ to BB- All 15
Main index equities (including convertible
15
bonds/Sukk) and Gold
Other equities (including convertible bonds/
25
Sukk) listed on a recognised exchange
Funds (e.g. collective investment schemes, Highest haircut applicable to any security in
unit trust funds and mutual funds) which the fund can invest at any one time.
Cash in the same currency 0
62
CRE/RRE/Other physical collaterals (subject
30
to minimum criteria specified in Appendix IX)
Currency mismatch 8
2.134 For transactions in which an Islamic banking institution finances non-

eligible instruments (e.g. non-investment grade corporate debt
securities/sukk), the haircut to be applied on the exposure should be the
same as that for other equities, i.e. 25%.
Adjustment to standard supervisory haircuts for different holding periods and

non-daily mark-to-market or re-margining
2.135 For some transactions, depending on the nature and frequency of

revaluation and re-margining provisions, different holding periods are
62
Whilst the Bank has provided a minimum 30% haircut on other types of physical collateral, Islamic
banking institutions should exercise conservatism in applying haircuts on the value of physical
assets used as CRM for capital requirement purposes. In this regard, Islamic banking institutions
are expected to use a more stringent haircut should their internal historical data on the disposal of
physical assets reveal loss amounts which reflect a haircut of higher than 30%.

appropriate. In this regard, the framework for collateral haircuts

distinguishes between capital market transactions other than sell and buy
back agreement transactions (OTC derivatives transaction and margin
financing) and secured financing.
2.136 The minimum holding period for the various products is summarised in the
following table:
Transaction type Minimum holding period Condition
Capital market transaction Ten business days Daily re-margining
(other than sell and buy back
transactions)
Secured financing Twenty business days Daily revaluation
2.137 When the frequency of re-margining or revaluation is longer than the

minimum holding period, the minimum haircut numbers will be scaled up
depending on the actual number of business days between re-margining
or on the revaluation using the square root of time formula below:
NR TM 1
H HM
TM
Where:
H = Haircut
HM = Haircut under the minimum holding period
TM = Minimum holding period for the type of transaction
NR = Actual number of business days between re-margining for capital

market transactions or revaluations for secured transactions
When an Islamic banking institution calculates the volatility on a TN day

holding period which is different from the specified minimum holding period
TM, the HM will be calculated using the square root of time formula:
TM
HM HN
TN
Where:

TN = Holding period used by the Islamic banking institution for deriving

HN
HN = Haircut based on the holding period T N

2.138 For Islamic banking institutions using the standard supervisory haircuts,
the 10-business day haircuts provided in paragraph 2.133 will be the basis
and this haircut will be scaled up or down depending on the type of
transactions and the frequency of re-margining or revaluation using the
formula below:
NR TM 1
H H10
10
Where:
H = Haircut
H10 = 10-business day standard supervisory haircut for instrument
NR = Actual number of business days between re-margining for capital

market transactions or revaluation for secured transactions
TM = Minimum holding period for the type of transaction
Floor for Exposures Collateralised by Physical Assets

2.139 Exposures collateralised by physical assets shall be accorded the risk-
weighted assets (RWA) which is the higher of:
(i) RWA calculated using the CRM method; or
(ii) 50% risk weight applied on gross exposure amount (i.e. before
deducting the value of collateral)
On-Balance Sheet Netting
2.140 Islamic banking institutions are allowed to compute credit exposures on a

net basis for capital requirements where Islamic banking institutions have
legally enforceable netting arrangements for financing and deposits63.
63
Structured deposits and Restricted Investment Account would not be recognised for on-balance
sheet netting.

2.141 Prior to applying the on-balance sheet netting on any of its exposure, an
Islamic banking institution must:
(i) ensure that it has a strong legal basis for concluding that the netting
or off-setting agreement is enforceable in each relevant jurisdiction
regardless of whether the counterparty is in default, insolvent or
bankrupt;
(ii) be able to determine at any time all assets and liabilities with the
same counterparty that are subject to netting agreement;
(iii) be able to monitor and control its roll-off risks64; and
(iv) be able to monitor and control the relevant exposure on a net basis.
2.142 The computation of the net exposure to counterparty for capital adequacy
computation purposes is similar to that specified for collateralised
transactions under paragraph 2.132 where assets (financing) will be
treated as exposures and liabilities (deposits) will be treated as collateral.
For on-balance sheet netting, the haircut will be zero except where there is
a currency mismatch. A 10-business day holding period shall apply when
daily mark-to-market is conducted and all the requirements contained in
paragraphs 2.133, 2.138, and 2.153 to 2.156 shall apply.
2.143 The net exposure amount will be multiplied by the risk weight of the
counterparty to calculate the risk-weighted assets of the exposure
following the on-balance sheet netting.
Guarantees
2.144 For a guarantee to be eligible for CRM, the following conditions must be
satisfied:
(i) The guarantee must represent a direct claim on the guarantor and
must be explicitly referenced to specific exposures or a pool of
64
Roll-off risks relate to the sudden increases in exposure which may happen when short dated
obligations (for example deposit) which are used to net long dated claims (for example financing)
mature.

exposures, so that the extent of the cover is clearly defined and

cannot be disputed;
(ii) The guarantee must be irrevocable. The guarantor must not have the
right to unilaterally cancel the guarantee or increase the effective cost
of cover as a result of deteriorating credit quality in the hedged
exposure;
(iii) The contract must not have any clause or provision outside the direct
control of the Islamic banking institution that prevents the guarantor
from being obliged to pay out in a timely manner in the event that the
original counterparty fails to make the payment(s) due; and
(iv) In addition to the requirements on legal certainty of the guarantee

specified in paragraphs 2.108 and 2.109, recognition of guarantee
shall be subject to the following conditions:
(a) On the default/non-payment of the counterparty, the Islamic

banking institution may in a timely manner pursue the guarantor
for any monies outstanding under the documentation governing
the transaction. The guarantor may pay at once all monies
under such documentation to the Islamic banking institution, or
the guarantor may assume the future payment obligations of the
counterparty covered by the guarantee;
(b) The guarantee undertaking is explicitly documented; and
(c) The guarantee covers all types of payments that is expected

from the underlying obligor under the documentation governing
the transaction, such as principal amount, profit payments etc.;
and
(v) Except as noted in the following sentence, the guarantee covers all
types of payments the obligor is expected to make under the
documentation governing the transaction, such as notional amount,
margin payments etc. Where a guarantee covers payment of principal
only, profits and other uncovered payments should be treated as an

unsecured amounts in line with the treatment for proportionally

covered exposures under paragraph 2.149.
2.145 The substitution approach will be applied in determining capital relief for
exposures protected by guarantees. Where an exposure on a counterparty
is secured by a guarantee from an eligible guarantor, the portion of the
exposure that is supported by the guarantee is to be weighted according to
the risk weight appropriate to the guarantor (unless the risk weight
appropriate to the original counterparty is lower). The unsecured portion of
the exposure must be weighted according to the risk weight applicable to
the original obligor.
Range of Eligible Guarantors

2.146 Guarantee given by the following entities will be recognised:
(i) sovereign entities65, PSEs, banking institutions and securities firms

with a lower risk weight than the counterparty; and
(ii) other entities rated BBB- or better. This shall include guarantee
provided by parent, subsidiary and affiliate companies when they
have a lower risk weight than the obligor.
Risk Weights
2.147 The guaranteed portion is assigned the risk weight of the protection
provider. The uncovered portion of the exposure is assigned the risk
weight associated with the obligor.
2.148 Any amount for which the Islamic banking institution will not be
compensated for in the event of loss, shall be recognised as first loss
positions and risk-weighted at 1250% by the Islamic banking institution
purchasing the credit protection.
65
This includes the Bank for International Settlement, the International Monetary Fund, the European
Central Bank and the European Community, as well as those MDBs referred to in footnote 13.

Proportional and Tranched Cover

2.149 Where partial coverage exists, or where there is a currency mismatch
between the underlying obligation and the credit protection, the exposure
must be split into covered and uncovered amount. The treatment is
outlined below:
Proportional Cover
Where the amount guaranteed is less than the amount of the exposure,
and the secured and unsecured portions are equal in seniority, i.e. the
Islamic banking institution and guarantor share losses on a pro-rata basis,
capital relief will be accorded on a proportional basis with the remainder
being treated as unsecured.
Tranched Cover
Where:
(i) An Islamic banking institution transfers a portion of the risk of an

exposure in one or more tranches to a protection seller(s) and retains
some level of risk of the exposure; and
(ii) the portion of risk transferred and retained are of different seniority,
the Islamic banking institution 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 the
securitisation component of the Framework will apply.
Currency Mismatches
2.150 Where the guarantee is denominated in a currency different from that in
which the exposure is denominated, the guaranteed amount (GA) of the
exposure will be reduced by the application of a haircut arising from a
currency mismatch, as follows:
GA G 1 HFX

where:
G = Nominal amount of the credit protection

HFX = Haircut appropriate for currency mismatch between the credit
protection and underlying obligation.
2.151 The supervisory haircut will be 8%. The haircut must be scaled up using
the square root of time formula, depending on the frequency of revaluation
of the guarantee as described in paragraph 2.137.
Sovereign Guarantees and Counter-Guarantees
2.152 As specified in paragraph 2.20, a lower risk weight may be accorded to

exposures on sovereign or central banking institution where the bank is
incorporated and where the exposure is denominated in domestic currency
and funded in that currency. This treatment is also extended to the
portions of exposures guaranteed by the sovereign or central banking
institution, where the guarantee is denominated in the domestic currency
and the exposure is funded in that currency. An exposure may be covered
by a guarantee that is indirectly counter-guaranteed by a sovereign. Such
an exposure may be treated as covered by a sovereign guarantee
provided that:
(i) the sovereign counter-guarantee covers all credit risk elements of the
exposure;
(ii) both 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
(iii) the Bank 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.

Maturity Mismatches
2.153 For the purposes of calculating risk-weighted assets, a maturity mismatch
occurs when the residual maturity of a hedge is less than that of the
underlying exposure.
(i) Definition of Maturity

2.154 The maturity of the underlying exposure and the maturity of the hedge
should both be defined conservatively. The effective maturity of the
underlying should be gauged as the longest possible remaining time
before the counterparty is scheduled to fulfil its obligation, after taking into
account any applicable grace period. For the hedge, embedded options
which may reduce the term of the hedge should be taken into account so
that the shortest possible effective maturity is used. Where a call is at the
discretion of the protection provider, the maturity will always be at the first
call date. If the call is at the discretion of the protection buying Islamic
banking institution but the terms of the arrangement at origination of the
hedge contain a positive incentive for the Islamic banking institution to call
the transaction before contractual maturity, the remaining time to the first
call date will be deemed to be the effective maturity. For example, where
there is a step-up in cost in conjunction with a call feature or where the
effective cost of cover increases over time even if credit quality remains
the same or increases, the effective maturity will be the remaining time to
the first call.
(ii) Risk weights for Maturity Mismatches

2.155 Hedges with maturity mismatches are only recognised when their original
maturities are greater than or equal to one year. As a result, the maturity of
hedges for exposure with original maturities of less than one year must be
matched to be recognised. In all cases, hedges with maturity mismatches
will no longer be recognised in the event that the residual maturity of three
months or less.

2.156 When there is a maturity mismatch with recognised credit risk mitigants
(collateral, on-balance sheet netting, guarantees and credit derivatives)
the following adjustment will be applied:
Pa P
t 0.25
T 0.25
where:
Pa = Value of the credit protection adjusted for maturity mismatch
P = Credit protection (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 (5, residual maturity of the exposure) expressed in years
Other Aspects of Credit Risk Mitigation
Treatment of Pools of Credit Risk Mitigation Techniques
2.157 When multiple credit risk mitigation techniques are used to cover a single
exposure, the exposure should be divided into portions which are covered
by each type of credit risk mitigation technique. The risk-weighted assets
of each portion must be calculated separately. Where credit protection
provided by a single guarantor with a different maturities, must be divided
into separate portions.
2.158 In addition, where a single transaction is attached to multiple forms of

credit risk mitigants, Islamic banking institutions are able to obtain the
largest capital relief possible from the risk mitigants.

B.3 THE INTERNAL RATINGS BASED APPROACH
B.3.1 ADOPTION OF THE IRB APPROACH
Adoption of IRB Across Asset Classes
3.1 Once an Islamic banking institution within a banking group adopts the IRB
approach, the entire banking group would be expected to adopt a similar
approach, except for those permanently exempted asset classes in paragraph
3.4. This is to avoid cherry-picking of assets to be put under the IRB approach.
A phased rollout of the IRB approach across the banking group is allowed
based on the following:
(i) Adoption of IRB approach across individual asset class66/sub-classes67

within the same business unit;
(ii) Adoption of IRB approach across business units in the same banking
group; and
(iii) Move from the foundation IRB approach to advanced IRB approach for
certain risk components.
However, when an Islamic banking institution adopts the IRB approach for an
asset class within a particular business unit (or in the case of retail exposures
across an individual sub-class), it must apply the IRB approach to all exposures
within that asset class (or sub-class) in that particular unit.
3.2 Islamic banking institutions should produce an implementation plan, specifying

the intended roll out of the IRB approaches across significant asset classes (or
sub-classes in the case of retail) and business units within the group over time.
The plan should be exacting yet realistic, and must be agreed with the Bank. It
should be driven by the practicality of operations and the feasibility of moving
towards adopting the more advanced approaches, and should not be dictated
by the desire to minimise any capital charges. In this respect, during the roll-out
66
Generally, at entity level, conventional and Islamic assets can be combined as one asset class for
IRB purposes.
67
For example, RRE financing is a sub-class of retail asset class.

period, no capital relief shall be allowed for any intra-group transactions that are
designed to reduce banking groups aggregate capital charges by transferring
credit risks among entities on either the standardised, foundation or advanced
IRB approaches. This includes, but is not limited to, asset sales or cross
guarantees
3.3 In general, the Bank would expect that all exposure classes or portfolios that
represent material parts of an Islamic banking institutions businesses in terms
of size or in terms of risk are covered by the IRB approach.
3.4 Permanent exemptions from the requirements set under paragraphs 3.1 to 3.3
may be granted at both entity and group level for the following exposures:
(i) Exposures68 to sovereigns, central banking institutions, Islamic banking

institutions and public sector entities (PSE)69;
(ii) Equity holdings in entities whose debt qualifies for 0% risk weight under
the standardised approach;
(iii) Equity investments called for by the Federal Government of Malaysia,

Bank Negara Malaysia, Association of Banks in Malaysia, Association of
Islamic Banking Institutions in Malaysia, or Malaysian Investment Banking
Association70, subject to a limit of 10% of the Islamic banking institutions
Total Capital;
(iv) Immaterial71 equity holdings, as determined on a case-by-case basis; and
(v) Entities and asset classes (or sub-classes in the case of retail) that are
immaterial in terms of size and perceived risk profile. These exposures
would be deemed immaterial if the aggregate credit RWA (computed using
68
Exemption may be applied where the number of material counterparties is limited and it would be
unduly burdensome for the Islamic banking institution to implement a rating system for these
counterparties.
69
Refer to Part B.2.2 for the definition of PSEs.
70
Such as Cagamas Berhad and Credit Guarantee Corporation Malaysia Berhad .
71
Deemed material if the aggregate value, excluding those identified under paragraph 3.4(iii),
exceeds on average over the prior year, 10% of Islamic banking institutions Total Capital. This
threshold is lowered to 5% if the equity portfolio consists of less than 10 individual holdings.

the standardised approach) of these exposures cumulatively account for

less than or equal to 15% of total credit RWA of the Islamic banking
institution at the group and entity level (not at asset class level). The RWA
shall be determined net of credit risk mitigation.
3.5 Capital requirements for assets under permanent exemption will be determined
according to the standardised approach. These exposures may attract
additional capital under Pillar 2 if the Bank perceives that the regulatory capital
calculated using the standardised approach is deemed insufficient vis--vis the
level of risk. The Bank may also require Islamic banking institutions to adopt the
IRB approach for these exposures if the approach is considered to be more
appropriate to capture the risk levels72.
3.6 Refer to the diagrammatic illustration and formulae to compute permanent and
temporary exposures in Appendix XIX. For avoidance of doubt, investment in
equities of non-financial commercial subsidiaries which are accorded a 1250%
risk weight will not be included in the IRB coverage ratio computation.
3.7 For equity exposures, the Bank may require Islamic banking institutions to
employ the PD/LGD or the internal models approach instead of the simple risk
weight approach if a particular Islamic banking institutions equity exposures are
a significant part of its business. These approaches are described in detail in
Part B.3.5.
3.8 Once an Islamic banking institution has adopted the IRB approach for corporate
exposures, it will be required to adopt the IRB approach for the Specialised
Financing (SF) sub-classes within the corporate exposure class. However, a
phased roll-out for SF sub-classes is allowed provided that the Islamic banking
72
For example, a small portfolio of exposures to high risk obligors.

institution can prove that the SF exposures do not represent a

disproportionately high level of credit risk73.
3.9 Given the data limitations associated with SF exposures, Islamic banking
institutions may remain on the supervisory slotting criteria (SSC) approach for
one or more of the SF sub-classes and move to the foundation or advanced
approach for other sub-classes within the corporate asset class. However, an
Islamic banking institution can only move the high volatility commercial real
estate sub-class to the advanced approach only if it has done so for material
income-producing real estate exposures. The approaches for SF exposures are
described in detail in Part B.3.5.
3.10 The IRB principles and methodologies outlined in the Framework are applicable
to Islamic banking assets subject to adherence to Shariah rules and principles.
However, in determining the capital requirement for Islamic banking assets, it is
important for Islamic banking institutions to understand the specificities of the
products and the related risk profile based on the different Shariah contracts as
described in Appendix XX. This includes the risk profile arising from the
application of the look-through approach for investment account placements
made with Islamic banking institutions. The look-through approach is described
in Appendix XXI.
3.11 Islamic banking institutions that apply an IRB model for conventional banking
assets on Islamic banking assets (within an entity or banking group) shall
ensure that the models or approach adopted are representative of the risk
profile of the Islamic banking assets. In this regard, Islamic banking institutions
are required to:
73
This can be demonstrated by providing sufficient representative evidence that the SF exposures are
generally of strong to satisfactory rating, based on the SSC in the Framework.

(i) Provide empirical analysis to support the case for using the conventional
IRB model and its parameters for the Islamic banking assets prior to
obtaining the Banks approval for IRB migration;
(ii) Perform periodic back-testing using Islamic banking asset data; and
(iii) Collect data on Islamic banking assets by each Shariah contract for the
purpose of future modelling requirements.
3.12 The possibility of Islamic banking institutions leveraging on readily available IRB
infrastructure at the group level does not absolve the Islamic banking
institutions from the requirement to implement effective oversight arrangements
at the entity level. Islamic banking institutions shall have in place an internal
process in the bank and a formal avenue at the group level to ensure that any
outcome or decisions made at the group level is suitable and relevant for
application at the entity level.
Implementation Timelines and Transition Period

3.13 Islamic banking institutions may adopt the IRB framework from 1 January 2010.
The transition period will be applicable to certain Islamic banking institutions
depending on the implementation timeline for migration to the IRB approach as
described in Appendix XXII. Islamic banking institutions are required to obtain
prior written approval from the Bank before adopting the IRB framework.
3.14 During the transition period, in relation to the permanent exemption under
paragraph 3.4(v), Islamic banking institutions may deem exposures to be
immaterial if the aggregate credit RWA (computed using the standardised
approach) of these exposures cumulatively account for less than or equal to
25% of total credit RWA of the Islamic banking institutions at the group and
entity level (not at asset class level). The RWA shall be determined net of credit
risk mitigation. Islamic banking institutions are required to revert to the threshold
specified in paragraph 3.4(v) by the end of the transition period. Refer to the

diagrammatic illustration and formulae for the computation of temporary

exemption in Appendix XIX.
3.15 As most Islamic banking institutions intending to adopt the IRB approach are
still in the process of strengthening their overall risk management capabilities
involving data quality and risk measurement system enhancements and
embedding the use of ratings into the day-to-day business processes in order to
comply with the requirements set under the Framework, full and immediate
adherence to certain minimum requirements may not be possible at the time of
implementation of the Framework. As such, the Bank will allow certain flexibility
during the transition period for certain minimum requirements relating to
historical data observation period for risk estimation and use test:
Risk Estimation
(i) At the start of the transition period, the minimum length of the underlying
historical data observation period is two years for at least one data source.
This flexibility applies to:
(a) PD estimation under foundation IRB for corporate, sovereign, and

bank exposures;
(b) estimating loss characteristics (EAD, and either EL or PD and LGD)

for retail exposures; and
(c) PD/LGD approach for equity.
This requirement will increase by one year for each of the three years of
transition in a manner that the required minimum historical data of five
years is achieved by the end of the transition period.
(ii) Despite the flexibility allowed on the requirement of historical data, Islamic
banking institutions are expected to use additional information which are
relevant and of longer history74 to reflect the following requirements:
(a) PD estimates must be representative of long-term average;
74
Examples of such information include historical write-offs, historical provisions, historical NPF/
impairment classifications, published bankruptcy rates, published default studies.

(b) LGD estimates for retail exposures must reflect downturn conditions;
and
(c) EAD estimates for volatile retail exposures must also reflect downturn
conditions
Governance, Oversight and Use of Internal Ratings
(iii) Islamic banking institutions are only required to demonstrate that the rating
systems that have been used, are broadly in line with the minimum
requirements for at least one year prior to the start of the transition period
for corporate, sovereign, bank, and retail exposures. A credible track
record is required in all areas except for capital management and strategy
which will only be required at the end of the transition period. By its very
nature, the use of internal ratings is likely to improve as more experience
and knowledge are gained by Islamic banking institutions. Therefore,
Islamic banking institutions should utilise the transition period as an
opportunity to continually enhance the use of internal ratings.
3.16 Despite the flexibility given during the transition period, Islamic banking
institutions would be required to demonstrate steady progress towards
compliance with the full set of minimum requirements by the end of the
transition period.
3.17 Islamic banking institutions with shorter than three-year transition period should
be mindful that full compliance with data and use test requirements must be
achieved by the end of the transition period.
3.18 No transitional arrangement will be made available for Islamic banking

institutions adopting the advanced IRB approach, other than for retail
exposures. Adherence to all applicable minimum requirements from the outset
is necessary given the increased reliance on Islamic banking institutions

internal assessments and the greater risk sensitivity of the advanced IRB
approach.
Determination of Capital Requirements under the IRB approach
3.19 The determination of capital requirement under the IRB approach involves six
critical segments as follows:
(i) Categories of exposures categorisation of assets into six classes;
(ii) Risk components estimates of risk drivers or parameters namely PD,

LGD, EAD and effective maturity (M);
(iii) Credit risk mitigation;
(iv) Risk-weight functions the means by which the risk components are
transformed into RWA to compute capital requirements for UL;
(v) The treatment of EL; and
(vi) Minimum requirements the specific minimum standards for the use of the
IRB approach for a given asset class.

3.20 There are six asset classes under the IRB approach. For many of the asset
classes, there are two broad approaches - a foundation and an advanced
approach as outlined below:
Asset
Available Approaches Estimates
Class
Corporate Foundation Own PD, supervisory LGD, EAD and M

(including Advanced Own PD, LGD, EAD and M
SF)
SSC (for SF, where requirements Supervisory risk weights
Sovereign
for estimation of PD, LGD and
Bank EAD are not met)
Retail Advanced only Own PD, LGD, EAD and M
Equity in Market based - simple risk weight Supervisory risk weights
the
Market based - internal models Own value-at-risk measure
banking
book PD/LGD Own PD and supervisory LGD
Foundation (not available for Own PD, supervisory LGD, EAD and M
Purchased retail receivables)
receivables
Advanced Own PD, LGD, EAD and M
3.21 Under the foundation approach, Islamic banking institutions provide internal
estimates of PD and rely on supervisory estimates for other risk components.
Under the advanced approach, Islamic banking institutions provide internal
estimates of PD, LGD, EAD, and M.
3.22 For both the foundation and advanced approaches, Islamic banking institutions
are expected to use risk weight functions provided under the Framework for the
purpose of deriving capital requirements. In the event that there is no specified
IRB treatment for a particular exposure (and this exposure is not accorded 0%
risk weight under the standardised approach), that exposure should be subject
to 100% risk weight. The resulting RWA for such exposure is assumed to
represent UL only75.
75
Islamic banking institutions will not be required to compute EL for these exposures as elaborated
under paragraph 3.205.

B.3.2 CATEGORIES OF EXPOSURES
3.23 Under the IRB approach, Islamic banking institutions must categorise banking
book exposures into broad classes of assets with different underlying risk
characteristics, consistent with the definitions set out below.
Definition of Corporate Exposures, including Specialised Financing

3.24 In general, a corporate exposure is defined as a debt obligation of a
corporation, partnership, or proprietorship. Islamic banking institutions may
distinguish separately exposures to small and medium-sized corporates76 from
those to large corporates.
3.25 Exposures to securities firms, Takaful companies, unit trust and asset
management companies shall also be treated as exposures to corporates.
3.26 Within the corporate asset class, five sub-classes of SF are identified. Such
financing would possess all of the following characteristics, either in legal form
or economic substance:
(i) The exposure is typically to a special purpose vehicle (SPV) created

specifically to finance and/or operate physical assets;
(ii) 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 from the asset(s) being financed;
(iii) The terms of the obligation give the Islamic banking institution a
substantial degree of control over the asset(s) and the income that it
generates; and
76
Defined as corporate exposures where the reported sales for the consolidated group of which the
firm is a part is less than RM250 million.

(iv) Due to the factors in (i) to (iii) above, 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.
3.27 The five sub-classes of SF are project finance, object finance, commodities
finance, income-producing real estate, and high-volatility commercial real
estate. Each of these sub-classes is defined below.
Project Finance
(i) Project finance (PF) is a method of funding in which the Islamic banking
institution looks primarily to the revenues generated by a single project,
both as the source of repayment and security for the exposure. This type
of financing is usually for large, complex and expensive installations that
might include power plants, chemical processing plants, mines,
transportation infrastructure, environment, and telecommunications
infrastructure (mainly immovable assets). Project finance may also take
the form of financing for the construction of a new capital installation, or
refinancing of an existing installation, with or without improvements.
(ii) In such transactions, Islamic banking institutions are normally paid solely
or almost exclusively from the proceeds generated by the project being
financed, such as electricity sold by a power plant. The obligor is usually
an SPV that is not permitted to perform any function other than
developing, owning, and operating the installation. In contrast, if
repayment of the exposure depends primarily on a well established,
diversified, credit-worthy, contractually obligated corporate end user for
repayment, it is considered a collateralised claim on the corporate.
Object Finance
(i) Object finance (OF) refers to a method of funding the acquisition of

physical assets (not of the manufacturing of such physical assets type,

which should be deemed as normal corporate or PF if it qualifies) that

might include ships, aircraft, satellites, railcars, fleet of cars and trucks
(mainly movable assets), 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 Islamic banking institution.
A primary source of these cash flows might be rental or lease contracts
with one or several third parties (hence a ring-fencing requirement). In
contrast, if the exposure is to an obligor 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
collateralised corporate exposure.
Commodities Finance
(i) Commodities finance (CF) refers to structured short-term financing 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 obligor has
no independent capacity to repay the exposure. The structured nature of
the financing is also designed to compensate for potential concerns
relating to credit quality of the obligor. The exposures rating reflects its
self-liquidating nature and the Islamic banking institutions skill in
structuring the transaction rather than the credit quality of the obligor.
(ii) The Bank expects for CF to be distinguished from exposures financing the
reserves, inventories, or receivables of other more diversified corporate
obligors. Islamic banking institutions should rate the credit quality of the
latter type of obligors 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.

Income-Producing Real Estate
(i) Income-producing real estate (IPRE) refers to a method of providing

funding to real estate such as office buildings for rental, retail space,
residential houses, multifamily residential buildings, industrial or
warehouse space, and hotels, where the prospects for repayment and
recovery (in the event of default) depend primarily on the cash flows
generated by the asset/property. The primary source of these cash flows
would generally be lease or rental payments or the sale of the asset. The
obligor may be an SPV, 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 collateralised 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.
High-Volatility Commercial Real Estate
(i) High-volatility commercial real estate (HVCRE) financing refers to

financing of commercial real estate that exhibits higher loss rate volatility
(i.e. higher asset correlation) compared to other types of SF. HVCRE
includes:
(a) Financing funding any of the land acquisition, development and

construction (ADC) phases for such properties (excluding residential-
related development); and
(b) Financing funding ADC for any other properties where, unless the
obligor has substantial equity at risk, the source of repayment at
origination of the exposure is either:
i. the future uncertain sale of the property; or

ii. cash flows whose source of repayment is substantially uncertain

(e.g. the property has not yet been leased up to the occupancy
rate normally prevailing in that geographic market for that type of
commercial real estate77).
Commercial ADC financing exempted from treatment as HVCRE

financing on the basis of certainty of repayment of obligor equity are,
however, ineligible for the preferential risk weights for SF exposures
described in paragraph 3.152.
(c) Commercial real estate exposures secured by other properties that

are specifically categorised by the Bank from time to time as sharing
higher volatilities in portfolio default rates.
Definition of Sovereign Exposures
3.28 This asset class covers exposures to sovereigns and central banking
institutions. It also includes exposures to Multilateral Development Banking
institutions (MDBs) that meet the criteria for a 0% risk weight 78 under the
standardised approach, the Bank for International Settlements, the International
Monetary Fund, the European Central Bank and the European Community.
Definition of Bank Exposures

3.29 This asset class mainly covers exposures to other Islamic banking institutions. It
also includes the following:
(i) Claims on domestic non-federal government PSEs that are eligible for
20% risk weight under the standardised approach; and
(ii) Claims on MDBs that do not meet the criteria for 0% risk weight under the
standardised approach.
77
Where only booking fee has been obtained, instead of the signing of sales and purchase agreement
or rental/lease agreement, which would cause this exposure to be classified as IPRE.
78
Refer to Part B.2.2 for the definition of MDBs.

Definition of Retail Exposures

3.30 Retail exposures are exposures that meet all the following criteria 79:
(i) Exposures to individuals80; or
(ii) Financing extended to small businesses and managed as retail exposures,

provided that the total exposure of the banking group to the small business
obligor (on a consolidated basis, where applicable) is less than RM5.0
million. Small business financing extended through or guaranteed by an
individual are subject to the same exposure threshold. Small businesses
may include sole proprietorships, partnerships or small and medium-sized
enterprises (SMEs)81; and
(iii) The specific exposure must be part of a large group of exposures, which
are managed by the Islamic banking institution on a pooled basis.
3.31 Small business exposures below RM5 million may be treated as retail
exposures if the Islamic banking institution treats such exposures in its internal
risk management systems consistently over time and in the same manner as
other retail exposures. This requires for such exposures to be originated in a
similar manner to other 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 quantification82.
79
The retail exposures shall be based on contracts that create a similar credit risk profile to those
commonly structured using the Murbahah or Ijrah/Ijrah Muntahia Bittamleek contracts. The
specificities of these Shariah contracts are elaborated in Appendix XX.
80
Includes RRE financing, revolving credits and lines of credit (e.g. credit cards, overdrafts and retail
facilities secured by financial instruments) as well as personal term financing and leases (e.g.
instalment financing, auto financing and leases, student and educational financing, personal
financing) and other exposures with similar characteristics.
81
SMEs in the agriculture and services sector are defined as having annual sales of up to RM5 million
or 50 full-time employees. For the manufacturing sector, SMEs have been defined as having annual
sales of up to RM25 million or 150 full-time employees.
82
The fact that an exposure is rated individually does not by itself deny its eligibility as a retail
exposure.

3.32 Notwithstanding paragraphs 3.30 and 3.31, Islamic banking institutions

implementing the IRB approach are required to have in place and effectively
implement policies and procedures which outline triggers for closer monitoring
with corresponding actions (e.g. re-rating using a different scorecard) that
should be taken in respect of larger exposures. This applies to both exposures
to individuals as well as exposures to small businesses below the prescribed
regulatory threshold.
3.33 Within the retail asset class, Islamic banking institutions are required to identify
separately three sub-classes of exposures:
(i) exposures secured by residential properties;
(ii) qualifying revolving retail exposures; and
(iii) all other retail exposures.
I. Exposures Secured by RRE Properties
3.34 Exposures are defined as secured by the underlying RRE or mortgages on

residential properties83 if the following criteria are met84:
(i) the obligor is an individual person/s;
(ii) the residential properties are or will be occupied by the obligor, or is

rented;
(iii) the financing is secured by first and subsequent legal charges, deeds of
assignment or strata titles on the property or legal ownership of the RRE
belong to the Islamic banking institutions; and
(iv) the property has been completed and a certificate of fitness has been
issued by the relevant authority.
83
Residential property means property which is zoned for single-family homes, multi-family
apartments, townhouses and condominiums. It excludes shophouses which is categorised under
other retail exposures.
84
Also applicable to financing structured under the Diminishing Mushrakah contracts where the
exposures are secured by residential properties.

Such exposures include term financing and revolving home equity lines of
credit.
Qualifying Revolving Retail Exposures
3.35 Qualifying revolving retail exposures (QRRE) generally include revolving credits
and lines of credit such as credit cards and overdrafts. All the following criteria
must be satisfied for a sub-portfolio to qualify as QRRE. These criteria must be
applied at the sub-portfolio level, consistent with the Islamic banking institutions
retail segmentation approach:
(i) The exposures are revolving85, unsecured, and uncommitted (both

contractually and in practice);
(ii) The exposures are to individuals;
(iii) The maximum exposure to a single individual in the sub-portfolio is

RM500,000 or less;
(iv) Given the asset correlation assumptions for the QRRE risk weight function
are markedly below those for the other retail risk weight function at low PD
values, the Islamic banking institution must demonstrate that exposures
identified as QRRE correspond to portfolios with low volatility of loss rates,
relative to the average volatility of loss rates of portfolios within the low PD
bands;
(v) Data on loss rates or the sub-portfolio must be retained in order to allow
analysis of the volatility of loss rates; and
(vi) The treatment as a qualifying revolving retail exposure is consistent with

the underlying risk characteristics of the sub-portfolio.
II. Other Retail Exposures
85
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 Islamic

3.36 Exposures that do not meet the criteria under paragraphs 3.34 or 3.35 will be
categorised as other retail exposures.
Definition of Equity Exposures

3.37 In general, equity exposures are defined on the basis of the economic
substance of the instrument. It would include both direct and indirect ownership
interests86, whether voting or non-voting, in an entity that is not consolidated or
deducted pursuant to the Capital Adequacy Framework for Islamic Banking
institutions (Capital Components)87. An instrument is considered to be an equity
exposure if it meets all of the following requirements:
(i) it is irredeemable in the sense that the return of invested funds can be
achieved only by the sale of the investment or the sale of the rights to the
investment or by the liquidation of the issuer;
(ii) it is not an obligation of the issuer; and
(iii) it conveys a residual claim on the assets or income of the issuer.
3.38 Additionally, any of the following instruments should be categorised as an equity

exposure:
(i) an instrument with features similar to those which qualify as Tier 1 Capital
for Islamic banking institutions; or
(ii) an instrument that is an obligation on the part of the issuer and meets any
of the following conditions:
(a) the issuer may defer the settlement of the obligation indefinitely;
86
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.
87
Where other countries retain their existing treatment as an exception to the deduction approach,
such equity investments by IRB banks are to be considered eligible for inclusion in their IRB equity
portfolios.

(b) the obligation requires (or permits at the issuers discretion)

settlement by issuance of a fixed number of the issuers equity
shares;
(c) the obligation requires (or permits at the issuers discretion)

settlement by issuance of a variable number of the issuers equity
shares and where changes in the value of the obligation is
attributable and comparable to the change in the value of a fixed
number of the issuers equity shares88; or
(d) the holder has the option to require settlement in equity shares,
unless the Islamic banking institution is able to demonstrate to the
Bank that the instrument merits to be treated as a debt89. In such
cases, the Islamic banking institution may decompose the risks for
regulatory purposes, with the consent of the Bank.
3.39 Debt obligations and other securities, partnerships, investments in funds90 (e.g.
collective investment schemes and unit trusts), derivatives or other vehicles
structured with the intent of conveying the economic substance of equity
ownership are considered an equity holding91. This includes liabilities from
which the return is linked to that of equities92. Conversely, instruments that are
structured with the intent of conveying the economic substance of debt holdings
(e.g. investments in funds which solely contain non-equity type of instruments)
or securitisation exposures would not be considered an equity holding.
88
For certain obligations that require or permit settlement by issuance of a variable number of the
issuers equity shares, the change in the 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 this
condition 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.
89
For example, where the instrument trades more like a debt of the issuer than its equity.
90
Investments in funds will normally be treated as equity exposures subject to paragraphs 3.90 and
3.91.
91
Equities that arise from a debt/equity swap made as part of the orderly realisation or restructuring of
the debt are included in the definition of equity holdings.
92
The Bank 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.

3.40 The Bank reserves the right to re-categorise debt holdings as equities for
regulatory purposes to ensure consistent and appropriate treatment of holdings.
Definition of Purchased Receivables Exposures

3.41 Purchased receivables refers to exposures from refinancing, factoring or
discounting facilities granted by an Islamic banking institution based on the
security of the debt agreements assigned from the original financier/seller. The
facilities may or may not be with recourse to the seller. Transactions for
financing originated by one Islamic banking institution and subsequently bought
by another to hold on its books are excluded from this definition. Eligible
purchased receivables are divided into retail and corporate receivables as
defined below.
I. Retail Receivables
3.42 Purchased retail receivables, provided the purchasing Islamic banking

institution complies with the IRB rules for retail exposures, are eligible for the
top-down approach as permitted for retail exposures under paragraphs 3.81 to
3.87. Under the top-down approach, the risk weight for the receivables pool is
based on pool-level estimates of PD, LGD, or EL. The Islamic banking
institution must also apply the minimum requirements as set forth in paragraphs
3.330 to 3.332.
II. Corporate Receivables
3.43 In general, for purchased corporate receivables, Islamic banking institutions are
expected to assess the default risk of individual receivables obligors as
specified in Part B.3.5 consistent with the treatment of other corporate
exposures. For purchased corporate receivables, this will be referred to as the
bottom-up approach. However, the top-down approach may be permitted by the
Bank, provided that the purchasing Islamic banking institutions programme for
corporate receivables complies with both the criteria for eligible receivables and

the minimum requirements of the top-down approach. The use of the top-down
purchased receivables treatment is limited to situations where it would be an
undue burden to apply the minimum requirements under the IRB approach that
would otherwise apply to corporate exposures. Primarily, it is intended for
receivables that are purchased for inclusion in asset-backed securities, but
Islamic banking institutions may use this approach, with the Banks approval, for
appropriate on-balance sheet exposures that share the same features.
3.44 To be eligible for the top-down treatment, purchased corporate receivables

must satisfy the following conditions:
(i) The receivables are purchased from unrelated, third party sellers, and the
Islamic banking institution has not originated the receivables either directly
or indirectly;
(ii) The receivables must be generated on an arms-length basis between the

seller and the receivables obligor. (Consequently, inter-company accounts
receivable and receivables that are subjected to contra-accounts93
between firms are excluded);
(iii) The purchasing Islamic banking institution has a claim on all proceeds
from the pool of receivables or on a pro-rata interest in the proceeds94; and
(iv) The receivables do not exceed any of the following concentration limits:
(a) The size of the purchased corporate receivables pool do not exceed
10% of the Islamic banking institutions Total Capital;
(b) The size of one individual exposure relative to the total pool does not
exceed 0.2%.
93
Contra-accounts involve a customer buying from and selling to the same firm. The risk is that debts
may be settled through payments in kind rather than cash. Invoices between the companies may be
offset against each other instead of being paid. This practice can defeat a security interest when
challenged in court.
94
Claims on tranches of the proceeds (first loss position, second loss position, etc.) would fall under
the securitisation treatment.

If the concentration limits are exceeded, capital charges must be

calculated using the minimum requirements for the bottom-up approach for
corporate exposures.
3.45 The existence of full or partial recourse to the seller does not automatically
disqualify Islamic banking institution from adopting this top-down approach
provided the cash flows from the purchased corporate receivables are the
primary protection against default risk, as determined by the rules in paragraphs
3.184 to 3.187. In addition, the Islamic banking institution must fulfil the eligibility
criteria and minimum requirements.
B.3.3 RISK COMPONENTS
Risk Components for Corporate, Sovereign and Bank Exposures

3.46 There are two approaches that could be used under the IRB approaches for
corporate, sovereign and bank exposures, namely the foundation and advanced
approaches. For SF exposures, where Islamic banking institutions do not meet
the minimum requirements for the estimation of PD, the Islamic banking
institution must apply the SSC approach (outlined in paragraphs 3.150 to
3.153).

Risk Components under the Foundation IRB Approach
I. Probability of Default (PD)
3.47 PD for corporate, sovereign and bank exposures is defined as a one-year PD

associated with the internal obligor grade to which that exposure is assigned to,
subject to a floor of 0.03% in the case of corporate and bank exposures. The
PD assigned to a default grade is 100%. The minimum requirements for the
derivation of the PD estimates are outlined in paragraphs 3.299 to 3.301.
II. Loss Given Default (LGD)
3.48 An estimate of LGD must be applied for each corporate, sovereign and bank
exposure. Under the foundation approach, LGD estimates are determined by
the Bank separately for:
(i) unsecured exposures;
(ii) exposures secured by eligible financial and non-financial collateral

(including specified commercial and residential real estate (CRE/RRE),
financial receivables and other physical collateral subject to the
requirements in paragraphs 3.116 to 3.119); and
(iii) exposures secured by guarantees.
The eligible collateral, detailed methodology and minimum requirements for the
use of supervisory LGD estimates for (ii) and (iii) are detailed in Part B.3.4 as
well as in paragraphs 3.322 to 3.329.

Treatment of Unsecured Claims
3.49 Under the foundation approach, unsecured senior claims on corporates,

sovereigns, banking institutions and those not secured by a recognised
collateral will be assigned LGD of 45%.
3.50 All subordinated claims on corporates, sovereigns and banking institutions will
be assigned LGD of 75%. A subordinated claim is a facility that is expressly
subordinated (having a lower priority or claim against the obligor) to another
facility.
3.51 Islamic banking assets structured using Mushrakah or Mudrabah contracts

are required to apply LGD of 90%95.
Treatment of Claims Secured by Eligible Financial and Non-Financial Collateral
3.52 Islamic banking institutions that adopt the foundation approach are allowed to
recognise eligible financial and non-financial collateral as prescribed under
paragraphs 3.96 to 3.101, subject to compliance with specific requirements
under paragraphs 3.111 to 3.119.
3.53 There are two methodologies for incorporating the effects of eligible collateral in
calculating the LGD:
(i) For eligible financial collateral, the effective LGD will be calculated by
weighting down the LGD with the percentage of exposure after risk
mitigation (E*/E), where E* will be based on the comprehensive approach;
and
95
This refers to Mushrakah and Mudrabah exposures that have characteristics similar to a debt.
Mushrakah and Mudrabah exposures with characteristics similar to equities will be subject to the
requirements under paragraphs 3.162 to 3.180. However, for Mudrabah interbank transactions,
the treatment in paragraphs 3.49 or 3.50 shall apply.

(ii) For eligible non-financial collateral, the effective LGD will be determined
based on the level of over-collateralisation of the exposure.
These methodologies are explained further in paragraphs 3.102 to 3.110.
Treatment of Claims Secured by Guarantees
3.54 Islamic banking institutions adopting the foundation approach are only allowed
to recognise eligible guarantors as prescribed in paragraph 3.120, subject to
meeting specific requirements under paragraphs 3.130 to 3.133.
3.55 There are two methodologies for treating guarantees:
(i) The substitution method, closely similar to that adopted under the
standardised approach; and
(ii) The double default method, for exposures hedged by certain instruments.
The methodologies are explained further in paragraphs 3.121 to 3.129.
III. Exposure at Default (EAD)
3.56 All exposures are measured gross of specific provisions96 or partial write-offs.
The EAD on drawn amounts should not be less than the sum of:
(i) the amount by which an Islamic banking institutions regulatory capital

would be reduced if the exposure were written-off fully; and
(ii) any specific provisions and partial write-offs.
3.57 The calculation of RWA is independent of any discount which is defined as the
instruments EAD that exceeds the sum of (i) and (ii). Under the limited
circumstances described in paragraph 3.211, discounts may be included in the
96
Specific provisions include individual impairment provisions, as well as collective impairment
provisions (and regulatory reserves, if any) that are attributable to loans classified as impaired.
Individual and collective impairment provisions are as defined under Malaysian Financial Reporting
Standards..

measurement of total eligible provisions for purposes of the EL-provision

calculation set out in Part B.3.6.
Exposure Measurement for On-Balance Sheet Items
3.58 On-balance sheet netting of financing and deposits will be recognised subject to
the requirements under paragraphs 3.134 to 3.136. Where currency or maturity
mismatched on-balance sheet netting exists, the treatment is set out in
paragraphs 3.125 and 3.139 to 3.142.
Exposure Measurement for Off-Balance Sheet Items (with the exception of FX, Profit-
Rate, Equity, and Commodity-Related Derivatives)
3.59 For off-balance sheet items, exposure is calculated as the committed but
undrawn amount multiplied by a credit conversion factor (CCF). For the
foundation approach, the CCF is determined by the Bank and would be the
basis for calculating the off-balance sheet exposure.
3.60 The types of instruments and the applicable CCFs are outlined in Appendix
XXIII. The CCFs are essentially the same as those under the standardised
approach, with the exception of commitments, Note Issuance Facilities (NIFs)
and Revolving Underwriting Facilities (RUFs).
3.61 A CCF of 75% will be applied to commitments, NIFs and RUFs regardless of
the maturity of the underlying facility, except in cases where paragraph 3.62
applies.
3.62 Any commitments that are unconditionally and immediately cancellable and
revocable by the Islamic banking institution or that effectively provide for
automatic cancellation due to deterioration in a obligors creditworthiness (for
example, corporate overdrafts and other facilities), at any time without prior

notice, will be subject to 0% CCF. To utilise the 0% CCF, the Islamic banking
institution must demonstrate that legally, it has the ability to cancel these
facilities and that its internal control systems and monitoring practices are
adequate to support timely cancellations which the Islamic banking institution
does effect in practice upon evidence of a deterioration in an obligors
creditworthiness. Islamic banking institutions should also be able to
demonstrate that such cancellations have not exposed the Islamic banking
institution to legal actions, or where such actions have been taken, the courts
have decided in favour of the Islamic banking institution.
3.63 The amount to which the CCF is applied is the lower of:
(i) the value of the unused committed credit line; and
(ii) the value corresponding to possible constraints on the availability of the

facility, such as a ceiling imposed on the potential financing amount which
is related to an obligors reported cash flow.
For such facilities, Islamic banking institutions must have adequate credit line
monitoring and management procedures in place to administer the constraints
in a consistent, timely and effective manner. Islamic banking institutions must
be able to demonstrate that breaches of internal controls or exceptions granted
for such facilities in the past, if any, are rare and appropriately justified.
3.64 Where a commitment is obtained on another off-balance sheet exposure97,

Islamic banking institutions are to apply the lower of the applicable CCFs.
Exposure Measurement for Transactions with Counterparty Credit Risk Exposures
97
Such as commitments to provide letters of credit or guarantees for trade purposes. An example is
where an Islamic banking institutions provides the customer with a committed limit on the amount of
letters of credit they can issue over a one-year period, with the customer drawing on this committed
limit over time.

3.65 Measures of counterparty credit risk exposure arising from over-the-counter

(OTC) derivative positions and Sell and Buy Back Agreements (SBBA) under
the IRB approach are based on the rules set forth in Part B.3.4, Appendix XXIII
and Appendix XVIII.
IV. Effective Maturity (M)
3.66 Under the foundation approach, an Islamic banking institution-
(a) must adopt a fixed M of 2.5 years; or
(b) upon notifying the Bank, may internally estimate the M based on the
requirements under paragraph 3.74,
except for SBBA transactions where the M will be 6 months. However, if in the
opinion of the Bank there is significant risk of underestimation of capital using
this fixed M, the Bank may require institutions to adopt the internal estimate of
M as defined in paragraph 3.74.

Risk Components under the Advanced IRB Approach
I. Probability of Default (PD)
3.67 Treatment of PD under the advanced approach is similar to the foundation

approach as specified in paragraph 3.47.
II. Loss Given Default (LGD)
3.68 Under the advanced approach, Islamic banking institutions are allowed to use
internal estimates of LGD for corporate, sovereign and bank exposures. The
methodology used in arriving at the LGD estimates is subject to additional
minimum requirements specified in paragraphs 3.306 to 3.310 and 3.314. LGD
must be measured as a percentage of the EAD.
3.69 When the claims are secured by collateral, Islamic banking institutions must
also establish internal requirements for collateral that are generally consistent
with the general requirements for recognition of credit risk mitigation and the
specific requirements for transactions secured by eligible financial collateral,
eligible CRE/RRE, financial receivables and other physical collateral (set out in
Part B.3.4).
Treatment of Claims Secured by Guarantees
3.70 The risk mitigating effect of guarantees may be reflected through the following:
(i) by adopting the substitution method or the double default method specified
under the foundation IRB approach; or
(ii) 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 type. In doing so, Islamic banking 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.

3.71 Except as specified in the double default method, there are no limits to the
range of eligible guarantors although the minimum requirements for guarantees
must be satisfied as set out in paragraphs 3.322 to 3.329.
III. Exposure at Default (EAD)
3.72 Under the advanced approach, the general definition and the treatment for on-
balance sheet items are similar to the foundation approach as specified in
paragraphs 3.56 to 3.58.
3.73 For off-balance sheet items, Islamic banking institutions are allowed to use
internal estimates of EAD across different product types, provided that the
minimum requirements for own estimates of EAD from paragraphs 3.316 to
3.320 are met and the exposure is not subject to a CCF of 100% in the
foundation approach as specified in Appendix XXIII. For transactions that
expose Islamic banking institutions to counterparty credit risk, the requirement
stipulated in paragraph 3.65 applies.
IV. Effective Maturity (M)
3.74 Under the advanced IRB approach, M is measured for each facility as defined
below (except as noted in paragraph 3.75):
(i) For an instrument subject to a determined cash flow schedule, remaining

M is defined as:
t CF t
M t
CF t
t
where CFt denotes the cash flows (principal, profit payments and fees)
contractually payable by the obligor in period t;

(ii) The estimated M must be performed on a pooled basis for exposures that
are sufficiently homogenous.
(iii) If an Islamic banking institution is unable to calculate the M of the

contracted payments using the formula above, the nominal maturity of the
instrument under the terms of the financing agreement may be used98.
(iv) For derivatives subject to a master netting agreement, the weighted

average maturity of the transactions should be used when applying the
explicit maturity adjustment. Further, the notional amount of each
transaction should be used for weighting the maturity.
(v) For revolving exposures, M must be determined using the maximum

contractual termination date of the facility. Islamic banking institution must
not use the repayment date of the current drawing.
(vi) Notwithstanding paragraph 3.74(v), an Islamic banking institution must

build in a sufficient level of conservatism in the computation of M for
facilities which are rolled over beyond the maximum contractual tenure.
(vii) In all cases, M will be greater than one year but no greater than five years.
3.75 The one-year floor does not apply to certain short-term exposures, comprising
fully or nearly-fully collateralised99 capital market-driven transactions (i.e. OTC
derivatives transactions and margin financing) with an original maturity of less
than one year, where the documentation contains daily remargining clauses and
SBBA transactions with an original maturity of less than one year. 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
underlying asset or 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 M.
98
Normally, this would equate to the maximum remaining time (in years) that the obligor is permitted
to take to fully discharge its contractual obligation (principal, profit, and fees) under the terms of
financing agreement.
99
The intention is to include both parties of a transaction meeting these conditions where neither of
the parties is systematically under-collateralised.

3.76 In addition to the transactions considered in paragraph 3.75 above, other short-
term exposures with an original maturity of less than three months that are not
part of an Islamic banking institutions ongoing financing of an obligor may be
eligible for exemption from the one-year floor. The types of short-term
exposures that might be considered eligible for this treatment include
transactions such as:
(i) Some capital market-driven transactions and SBBA transactions that might
not fall within the scope of paragraph 3.75;
(ii) Some short-term self-liquidating trade transactions. Import and export

letters of credit and similar transactions could be accounted for at the
actual remaining maturity;
(iii) Some exposures arising from settling securities purchases and sales. This
could also include overdrafts arising from failed securities settlements
provided that such overdrafts do not continue for more than a short, fixed
number of business days;
(iv) Some exposures arising from cash settlements by wire transfer, including
overdrafts arising from failed transfers provided that such overdrafts do not
continue for more than a short, fixed number of business days;
(v) Some exposures to banking institutions arising from foreign exchange

settlements; and
(vi) Some short-term financing and deposits.
3.77 For transactions within the scope of paragraph 3.75 subject to a master netting
agreement, the weighted average maturity of the transactions should be used
when applying the explicit maturity adjustment. A floor equal to the minimum
holding period for the transaction type set out in paragraph 2.136 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.
3.78 Where there is no explicit adjustment, the M assigned to all exposures will be
similar to the foundation approach as specified in paragraph 3.66 except for
SBBA transactions where the M will be 6 months.
3.79 Notwithstanding the flexibility given to Islamic banking institutions, the Bank
reserves the right to require institutions that adopt the foundation approach to
measure M using the definition contained in paragraph 3.74.
Treatment of Maturity Mismatches
3.80 The treatment for maturity mismatches under IRB is provided in paragraphs
3.139 to 3.142.
Risk Components for Retail Exposures

I. Probability of Default (PD) and Loss Given Default (LGD)
3.81 For each identified pool of retail exposures, Islamic banking institutions must
provide an estimate of the PD and LGD associated with the pool, subject to the
minimum requirements as set out in Part B.3.7. Additionally, the PD for retail
exposures is the greater of the one year PD associated with the internal obligor
grade to which the pool of retail exposures is assigned or 0.03%.
Recognition of Guarantees
3.82 Islamic banking institutions may reflect the risk-mitigating effects of guarantees
in support of an individual exposure or a pool of exposures, through an
adjustment to either the PD or LGD estimate, subject to the minimum
requirements in paragraphs 3.322 to 3.329. Whether adjustments are done

through PD or LGD, it must be done in a consistent manner for a given

guarantee type.
3.83 Islamic banking institutions must not include the effect of double default in such
adjustments100. The adjusted risk weight must not be less than a comparable
direct exposure to the protection provider.
II. Exposure at Default (EAD)
3.84 For the purpose of measuring EAD, both on and off-balance sheet retail
exposures are measured gross of specific provisions or partial write-offs. The
EAD on drawn amounts should not be less than the sum of:
(i) the amount by which an Islamic banking institutions regulatory capital

would be reduced if the exposure were fully written-off; and
(ii) any specific provisions and partial write-offs.
When the difference between the instruments EAD and the sum of (i) and (ii) is
positive, this amount is termed a discount. The calculation of RWA is
independent of any discounts. Under the limited circumstances described in
paragraph 3.211 discounts may be included in the measurement of total eligible
provisions for purposes of the EL-provision calculation set out in Part B.3.6.
3.85 On-balance sheet netting of financing and deposits of an Islamic banking

institution to or from a retail obligor is permitted subject to the same conditions
in paragraphs 3.134 to 3.136. For retail off-balance sheet items, Islamic banking
100
The recognition of double default implies that the risk of both the obligor and the
guarantor/protection provider defaulting on the same obligation may be substantially lower than the
risk of only one of the parties defaulting. In the substitution approach, the maximum capital benefit
that may be obtained is only up to the reduction in the capital requirement through replacing the
exposure to the obligor with one to the protection provider. This assumes perfect correlation
between the obligors with the protection provider and will not fully reflect the lower risk that both the
obligor and guarantor must default for a loss to be incurred.

institutions could use internal CCF estimates provided the relevant minimum
requirements in paragraphs 3.316 to 3.319 and 3.321 are met.
3.86 For retail exposures with uncertain future drawdown such as credit cards,
Islamic banking institutions must take into account credit history and/or
expectation of additional drawings prior to default in the overall calibration of
loss estimates. In particular, where conversion factors for undrawn lines are not
reflected in EAD estimates, the likelihood of additional drawings prior to default
must be reflected in the LGD estimates. Conversely, if Islamic banking
institutions do not incorporate the possibility of additional drawings in its LGD
estimates, they must do so in its EAD estimates.
3.87 When only the drawn balances of retail facilities have been securitised, Islamic
banking institutions must continue to hold the required capital against the share
(i.e. sellers interest) of undrawn balances related to the securitised exposures,
using the IRB approach to credit risk. This means that for such facilities, Islamic
banking institutions must reflect the impact of CCFs in the EAD estimates rather
than in the LGD estimates. For determining the EAD associated with the sellers
interest in the undrawn lines, the undrawn balances of securitised exposures
would be allocated between the sellers and investors interests101 on a pro rata
basis, based on the proportions of the sellers and investors shares of the
securitised drawn balances.
3.88 To the extent that foreign exchange and profit rate commitments exist within
Islamic banking institutions retail portfolio for IRB purposes, Islamic banking
institutions are not permitted to use internal assessments of credit equivalent
amounts. Instead, the rules for the standardised approach would apply.
101
The investors share of undrawn balances related to the securitised exposures shall be subject to
the treatment specified in the securitisation component of the Framework.

Risk Components for Equity Exposures

3.89 In general, the value of an equity exposure on which capital requirements is
based is defined under the applicable Financial Reporting Standards as follows:
(i) For investments held at fair value with changes in the value flowing directly
through income and into regulatory capital, exposure is equal to the fair
value presented in the balance sheet.
(ii) For investments held at fair value with changes in the value not flowing
through income but into a tax-adjusted separate component of equity,
exposure is equal to the fair value presented in the balance sheet.
(iii) For investments held at cost, exposure is equal to the cost presented in
the balance sheet.
3.90 Investments in funds (e.g. collective investment schemes and unit trusts)
containing both equity investments and other non-equity types of investments
can be treated either as a single investment based on the majority of the funds
holdings or as separate and distinct investments in the funds component
holdings based on a look-through approach. Islamic banking institutions must
demonstrate to the Bank that the chosen treatment is appropriate for the
portfolio (for example, that regulatory arbitrage considerations have not
influenced their choice) and applied in a consistent manner. The Bank reserves
the right to require Islamic banking institutions to compute capital using the
more appropriate treatment where the Bank is satisfied that the exposures are
or are likely to become significant and the particular treatment used by the
Islamic banking institution would lead to consistent underestimation of risk of
that portfolio.
3.91 Where only the investment mandate of the fund is known, the fund can still be
treated as a single investment. For calculating capital requirement, it is
assumed that the fund first invests, to the maximum extent allowed under its
mandate, in the asset classes that attract the highest capital charge and
followed by, in descending order, the next highest requirement until the

maximum total investment level is reached. The same approach can also be
used for the look-through approach, but only where Islamic banking institutions
have rated all the potential underlying assets of the fund.
B.3.4 CREDIT RISK MITIGATION (CRM)
3.92 This section outlines general requirements for the use of credit risk mitigation
and eligibility criteria, detailed methodologies and specific requirements with
respect to the following CRM techniques:
(i) Collateralised transactions;
(ii) Guarantee; and
(iii) On-balance sheet netting.
3.93 While the use of CRM techniques reduces or transfers credit risk, it may
introduce or increase other risks such as legal, operational, liquidity and market
risk. Therefore, it is imperative that Islamic banking institutions control these
risks by employing robust policies, procedures and processes including
strategies to manage these risks, valuation, systems, monitoring and internal
controls. Islamic banking institutions must be able to demonstrate to the Bank
that it has adequate risk management policies and procedures in place to
control risks arising from the use of CRM techniques. In any case, the Bank
reserves the right to take supervisory action under Pillar 2 should the Islamic
banking institutions risk management in relation to the application of CRM
techniques be deemed insufficient. In addition, Islamic banking institutions will
also be expected to observe the Pillar 3 requirements in order to obtain capital
relief in respect of any CRM techniques.
Minimum Conditions for the Recognition of Credit Risk Mitigation Techniques

3.94 To obtain capital relief for use of any CRM technique, the following general
requirements must be fulfilled:

(i) All documentation used in collateralised transactions and for documenting

on-balance sheet netting and guarantees must be binding on all parties
and legally enforceable in all relevant jurisdictions;
(ii) Sufficient assurance from legal counsel with respect to the legal
enforceability of the documentation;
(iii) Periodic review is undertaken to confirm the ongoing enforceability of the

documentation; and
(iv) The collateral must be Shariah-compliant.
3.95 In general, only collateral and/or guarantees that are actually posted and/or
provided under a legally enforceable agreement are eligible for CRM purposes.
A commitment to provide collateral or a guarantee is not recognised as an
eligible CRM technique until the commitment to do so is actually fulfilled 102.
Collateralised Transactions
I. Eligible Collateral
3.96 Under the foundation IRB approach, there are four categories of eligible
collateral recognised, namely financial collateral, commercial and residential
real estate (CRE and RRE) collateral, financial receivables and other physical
collateral.
Eligible Financial Collateral
3.97 The following financial instruments are recognised as eligible financial collateral:
102
However, under the foundation IRB, in accordance with paragraphs 3.2655, forms of group support
may be reflected via PD but not LGD.


Cash103 (including certificate of deposits or comparable instruments issued by the
financing Islamic banking institution) on deposit104 with the Islamic banking institution
which is incurring the counterparty exposure
Gold
Debt securities/Sukk rated by recognised ECAIs where the risk weight attached to the
debt securities is lower than that of the obligor
Debt securities/Sukk unrated by a recognised ECAI but fulfil the following conditions:
Issued by a banking institution;
Listed on a recognised exchange;
Classified as senior debt;
All rated issues of the same seniority by the issuing banking institution that are rated
at least BBB- or A-3/P-3; and
The Bank is sufficiently confident about the market liquidity of the debt security/sukk.
Equities (including convertible bonds/sukk) that are listed on a recognised exchange

(refer to Appendix VIII)
Funds (e.g. collective investment schemes, unit trust funds, mutual funds etc) where:
A price for the units is publicly quoted daily, and
The funds are limited to investing in financial instruments recognised as eligible
financial collateral.105
103
Cash pledged includes `urbn (or earnest money held after a contract is established as collateral to
guarantee contract performance) and hamish jiddiyyah (or security deposit held as collateral) in
Islamic banking contracts (e.g. Ijrah).
104
Structured deposits and Restricted Investment Account would not qualify as eligible financial
collateral.
105
The use or potential use by a fund of derivative instruments solely to hedge investments listed in
this table shall not prevent units in that fund from being an eligible financial collateral.

Eligible CRE and RRE Collateral
3.98 Eligible CRE and RRE collateral for corporate, sovereign and bank exposures
are defined as:
(i) Collateral where the risk of the obligor is not materially dependent upon
the performance of the underlying property or project, but rather on the
underlying capacity of the obligor to repay the debt from other sources. As
such, facility repayment is not materially dependent on the cash flow from
the underlying CRE/RRE serving as collateral; and
(ii) Additionally, the value of the collateral pledged must not be materially
dependent on the performance of the obligor106.
3.99 However, in light of the generic description above and the definition of corporate
exposures, income producing real estate that falls under the SF asset class is
specifically excluded from recognition as collateral for corporate exposures.
Eligible Financial Receivables
3.100 Eligible financial receivables are claims with an original maturity of less than or
equal to one year where repayment will occur through the commercial or
financial flow related to the underlying assets of the obligor. This includes both
self-liquidation debt arising from the sale of goods or services linked to a
commercial transaction and general amounts owed by buyers, suppliers,
renters, national and local governmental authorities or other non-affiliated
parties not related to the sale of goods or services linked to a commercial
transaction. Eligible receivables do not include those associated with
securitisations or sub-participations.
106
This requirement is not intended to preclude situations where purely macro-economic factors affect
both the value of the collateral and the performance of the obligor.

Other Eligible Physical Collateral
3.101 Islamic banking institutions may also recognise other physical collateral subject
to conditions specified in paragraphs 3.119 being fulfilled.
II. Methodology
Methodology for Transactions Secured by Eligible Financial Collateral
3.102 Islamic banking institutions adopting the foundation approach must calculate the
effective loss given default (LGD*) applicable to a transaction secured by
eligible financial collateral, which is expressed as:
E*
LGD* LGD
E
where:
(i) LGD is that of the senior unsecured exposure before recognition of

collateral (45%);
(ii) E is the current value of the exposure;
(iii) E* is the adjusted exposure value after risk mitigation as determined under
the comprehensive approach as specified in paragraphs 3.103 to 3.108107.
Calculation of Adjusted Exposure (E*) Using Comprehensive Approach
3.103 Islamic banking institutions must calculate an adjusted exposure amount after
risk mitigation, E*. This is done by applying volatility adjustments to both the
collateral and the exposure, taking into account possible future price
fluctuations.
107
Under the foundation approach, E* is used only as input to calculate LGD*. Islamic banking
institutions must continue to calculate EAD without taking into account the presence of any
collateral, unless otherwise specified. This is unlike in the standardised approach where E* is used
directly to calculate risk-weighted assets by multiplying it with the counterparty risk weight.

3.104 When the exposure and collateral are held in different currencies, an additional
downward adjustment must be made to the volatility-adjusted collateral to take
account of possible future fluctuations in exchange rates.

3.105 The formula is as follows:
E* max0,E 1 HE C 1 HC HFX
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 for currency mismatch between the collateral and
exposure
3.106 Where the collateral is a basket of assets, the haircut on the basket will be
H ai H i where ai is the weight of the asset (as measured by units of
i
currency) in the basket and Hi the haircut applicable to that asset.
3.107 Partial collateralisation and mismatches in the maturity of the underlying

exposure and the collateral is allowed under the comprehensive approach.
3.108 There are two approaches in determining the appropriate haircut to be applied
on the exposure amount and collateral, namely:
(i) Standard supervisory haircuts (paragraphs 2.133 to 2.137); and
(ii) VaR modelling, subject to the Banks prior approval.
Calculation of LGD for Senior Claims Secured by Eligible Non-Financial Collateral
3.109 The LGD* for cases where Islamic banking institutions have taken eligible non-
financial collateral to secure a corporate exposure is determined as follows:

(i) The level of collateralisation of the exposure, C/E, must be calculated by

dividing the current value of the collateral, C, to the current value of the
exposure, E.
(ii) Exposures where the level of collateralisation is below the required

minimum collateralisation level of C* would receive the LGD of 45% for
senior unsecured exposures.
(iii) Where the level of collateralisation equals or exceeds the over-

collateralisation level of C**, full LGD recognition can be applied to the
exposure based on the following table:
LGD* for Secured Portion of Senior Exposures

Required Required
Minimum LGD* if Minimum Over- LGD* if
Collateralisation C/E < C* collateralisation C/E C**
Level (C*) Level (C**)
Receivables 0% 125% 35%
CRE/RRE 30% 140% 35%
Other physical
collateral
(excludes physical 45%
assets acquired by
30% 140% 40%
the Islamic
banking institution
as result of obligor
default)
(iv) Where the level of collateralisation is between the threshold levels C* and
C**, the exposures are to be divided into fully collateralised and
uncollateralised portions:
(a) The part of the exposure considered as fully collateralised, C/C**,

receives the LGD associated with the type of collateral as per the
above table;
(b) The remaining part of the exposure, 1-C/C**, is regarded as

unsecured and receives an LGD of 45%108.
108
For example, if an exposure of RM100 is covered by RM110 worth of CRE, only RM110/140 =
RM78.6 is considered fully covered. The remaining exposure, RM100 RM78.6 = RM21.4 is
regarded as unsecured.


Treatment for Pools of Collateral
3.110 The LGD* of a transaction where Islamic banking institutions have taken both
eligible financial and non-financial collateral is based on the following.
(i) Islamic banking institutions must subdivide the adjusted value of the
exposure (after haircut for eligible financial collateral) into portions each
covered by only one CRM type. That is, Islamic banking institutions must
divide the exposure into portions covered by the eligible financial
collateral, receivables, CRE/RRE collateral and any other collateral and
the unsecured portion, if any.
(ii) Where the ratio of the sum of CRE/RRE value and other collateral to the
reduced exposure (after recognising the eligible financial collateral and
receivables collateral) is below the minimum level of collateralisation, the
exposure would receive the unsecured LGD value of 45%.
(iii) The risk-weighted assets for each fully secured portion of exposure must
be calculated separately.
III. Specific Requirements
Specific Requirements for Transactions Secured by Eligible Financial Collateral
3.111 In addition to the general requirements specified under paragraphs 3.94 and
3.95, the legal mechanism by which collateral is pledged or transferred must
ensure that Islamic banking institutions have the right to liquidate or take legal
possession of the collateral in a timely manner in the event of default,
insolvency or bankruptcy of the counterparty. Furthermore, Islamic banking
institutions must take all steps necessary to fulfil those requirements under the
law to protect their interest in the collateral.
3.112 For collateral to provide effective cover, the credit quality of the counterparty
and the value of collateral must not have a material positive correlation. For

example, securities issued by the counterparty or a related counterparty 109 as a

form of collateral against a financing would generally be materially correlated,
thus providing little cover and therefore would not be recognised as eligible
collateral.
3.113 Islamic banking institutions must have clear and robust procedures for 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.
3.114 Where an Islamic banking institution is acting as an agent, arranges a SBBA

transaction between an obligor and a third party and provides a guarantee to
the obligor that the third party will perform its obligations, then the risk to the
Islamic banking institution is the same as if the Islamic banking institution had
entered into the transaction as a principal. Under such circumstances, the
Islamic banking institution will be required to allocate capital as if it were itself
acting as the principal.
3.115 Where collateral is held by a custodian, Islamic banking institutions must take
reasonable steps to ensure good custody of that collateral and take reasonable
steps to ensure that the custodian segregates the collateral from its own assets.
Specific Requirements for Eligible CRE and RRE Collateral
3.116 Subject to meeting the definition above, CRE and RRE will be eligible for
recognition as collateral only if the following operational requirements are met:
(i) Legal Enforceability: Any claim on collateral taken must be legally

enforceable in all relevant jurisdictions and any claim on collateral must be
properly filed on a timely basis. Collateral interests must reflect a perfected
109
As defined under the policy document on Single Counterparty Exposure Limit (SCEL).

charge110 (i.e. the legal collateral agreement and the legal process
underpinning it would enable Islamic banking institutions to realise the
value of the collateral within a reasonable timeframe);
(ii) Objective Market Value of Collateral: The collateral must be valued at or

less than the current fair value under which the property could be sold
under private contract between a willing seller and an arms-length buyer
on the date of valuation;
(iii) Frequent Revaluation: Islamic banking institutions are expected to monitor

the value of collateral at least once a year. More frequent monitoring may
be appropriate where market conditions are subject to significant changes.
Statistical methods of valuation (e.g. references to house price indices,
sampling) may be used to update estimates or to identify collaterals that
have declined in value and that require reappraisal. An engagement of a
qualified professional might become necessary to evaluate property which
value may have declined materially relative to general market prices or
when a credit event, such as default, occurs; and
(iv) Recognition only for First Charge Collateral: Subsequent charges can be
recognised only if all earlier charges were made by the same Islamic
banking institution. In instances where the subsequent charges are
recognised, Islamic banking institutions must be able to demonstrate that
such charges are enforceable and there have been precedent cases
where the Islamic banking institution has been able to recoup the residual
values.
3.117 Additional collateral management requirements are as follows:
(i) The types of CRE and RRE collateral accepted and the financing policies
(advance rates) when this type of collateral is taken must be clearly
documented;
110
Deeds of assignment and strata titles on the property are also recognised.

(ii) The property taken as collateral is sufficiently insured against any

deterioration and damages;
(iii) The extent of any permissible prior claims (e.g. tax) on the property is
assessed and monitored on an ongoing basis; and
(iv) The risk of environmental liability arising in respect of the collateral, such
as the presence of toxic material on a property is appropriately assessed
and monitored.
Specific Requirements for Eligible Financial Receivables
3.118 Financial receivables will be eligible for recognition as collateral for corporate
claims only if all of the following operational requirements are met:
Legal Certainty
(i) The legal mechanism by which collateral is given must be robust and
ensure that the Islamic banking institution has clear rights over the
proceeds from the collateral;
(ii) Islamic banking institutions must take all steps necessary to fulfil local
requirements in respect of the enforceability of security interest, e.g. by
registering a security interest with a registrar. There should be a process
to ensure the Islamic banking institution have a perfected first priority claim
over the collateral;
(iii) All documentation used in collateralised transactions must be binding on

all parties and legally enforceable in all relevant jurisdictions. Islamic
banking institutions must conduct a legal review at the onset of the
transaction and periodically to ensure the continuing enforceability of
collaterals pledged to them; and
(iv) The collateral arrangements must be properly documented with clearly

written procedures on the timely collection of collateral proceeds. Islamic
banking institutions should ensure that any legal conditions required to
declare an obligors default and timely collection of collateral are observed
strictly. In the event of the obligors financial distress or default, Islamic
banking institutions should have the legal authority to sell or assign the

receivables to other parties without the consent of the receivables

obligors.
Risk Management
(i) Islamic banking institutions must institute a sound process for determining
the credit risk in receivables. Such process should include among other
things, analyses of the obligors business and industry (e.g. effects of the
business cycle) and the types of obligors with whom the obligor does
business. Where Islamic banking institutions rely on the obligor to
ascertain the credit risk of the obligors customers, Islamic banking
institutions must review and assess the obligors credit policy to ascertain
its soundness and credibility;
(ii) The margin between the amount of the exposure and the value of the
receivables must incorporate relevant factors such as the cost of
collection, concentration within the receivables pool pledged by an
individual obligor and potential concentration risk within Islamic banking
institutions total exposures;
(iii) In ensuring ongoing appropriateness of the collateral as a risk mitigant,

Islamic banking institutions must maintain a continuous monitoring process
that is commensurate with the specific exposures (either immediate or
contingent) attributable to the collateral to be utilised as a risk mitigant.
This process may include, where appropriate and relevant, ageing reports,
control of trade documents, borrowing base certificates, frequent audits of
collateral, confirmation of accounts, control of the proceeds of accounts
paid, analysis of dilution (credits given by the obligor to the receivables
obligors) and regular financial analysis of both the obligor and the
receivables obligors, especially in the case when a small number of large
sized receivables are taken as collateral. Overall concentration limits
should be monitored strictly by Islamic banking institutions. Additionally,
any compliance with financing covenants, environmental restrictions and
other legal requirements should be monitored on a regular basis;

(iv) Receivables pledged by a obligor should be diversified and not be unduly

correlated with the obligor. Where the correlation is high, e.g. where some
receivables obligors are reliant on the obligors viability or where the
obligor and the receivables obligors belong to a common industry, the
attendant risks should be taken into account in the setting of margins for
the collateral pool as a whole. Receivables from affiliates of the obligor
(including subsidiaries and employees) will not be recognised as a risk
mitigant; and
(v) Islamic banking institutions should document the process relating to

collecting receivable payments in distressed situations. The necessary
processes for collection should be in place, even when Islamic banking
institutions normally look to the obligor for collections.
Specific Requirements for Recognition of Other Eligible Physical Collateral

3.119 The Bank may allow other physical collateral to be recognised as a credit risk
mitigant provided that the Islamic banking institution can demonstrate to the
Bank that such physical collateral meets the following standards:
(i) Existence of liquid markets for disposal of collateral in an expeditious and

economically efficient manner;
(ii) Existence of well established, publicly available market prices for the
collateral; and
(iii) The amount Islamic banking institutions receive when collateral is realised
does not deviate significantly from market prices.
In addition, the requirements in paragraphs 3.116 and 3.117 must be met,

subject to the following modification:
(iv) Islamic banking institutions must have priority of claims over all other
lenders to the realised proceeds of the collateral. Only first charges over
the collateral are permissible;
(v) The financing agreement must include detailed descriptions of the

collateral plus detailed specifications of the manner and frequency of
revaluation;

(vi) The types of physical collateral accepted by Islamic banking institutions

and policies and practices in respect of the appropriate amount of each
type of collateral relative to the exposure amount must be clearly
documented in internal credit policies and procedures and available for
examination by the Bank and/or audit review;
(vii) Islamic banking institutions credit policies must contain appropriate

collateral requirements. This includes requirements on the exposure
amount, the ability for timely liquidation of the collateral, determining
market value (including the frequency of revaluation) and volatility of the
market value. The periodic revaluation process must pay particular
attention to collaterals whose values depend on the current trend in the
market (i.e. fashion sensitive collaterals). This is to ensure that valuations
are appropriately adjusted downward for model year, obsolescence or
deterioration; and
(viii) In cases of inventories (e.g. raw material, finished goods, dealers

inventories of autos) and equipment, the periodic revaluation process must
include physical inspection of the collateral.
Guarantees
I. Eligible Guarantors
3.120 The range of eligible guarantors are the same as those under the standardised
approach. In addition, companies that are internally rated and associated with a
PD equivalent of BBB-111 rating or better, may also be recognised under the
foundation approach. The requirements outlined in paragraphs 3.130 to 3.131
must also be met to qualify for this recognition.
II. Methodology
The Substitution Method
111
This may be done by mapping the internal rating and associated PD of the protection provider to the
Islamic banking institutions PD masterscale to ascertain that it approximates a rating of BBB- or
better by an eligible ECAI.

3.121 Under the substitution method, guarantees will be recognised as follows:
(i) Risk weight for the covered portion of the exposure is derived by using:
(a) The risk weight function appropriate to the type of guarantor; and
(b) The PD appropriate to the guarantors obligor grade, or some grade

between the underlying obligor and the guarantors obligor grade if
the Islamic banking institution deems a full substitution treatment is
not warranted.
(ii) The LGD of the underlying transaction may be replaced with the LGD
applicable to the guarantee taking into account seniority and any
collateralisation of a guaranteed commitment.
3.122 The uncovered portion of the exposure is assigned the risk weight associated
with the obligor.
3.123 CRM from guarantees must not reflect the effect of double default 112. To the
extent that the CRM is recognised, the adjusted risk weight must not be less
than a comparable direct exposure to the protection provider.
3.124 Any amount for which the Islamic banking institution will not be compensated for
in the event of loss, shall be recognised as retained first loss positions and risk-
weighted at 1250% by the Islamic banking institution purchasing the credit
protection.
3.125 Where partial coverage exists, or where there is a currency mismatch between
the underlying obligation and the credit protection, the exposure must be split
into covered and uncovered amount. The treatment is outlined below:
Proportional Cover
112
Refer to footnote 100.

(i) Where the amount guaranteed, or against which credit protection is held,
is less than the amount of the exposure, and the secured and unsecured
portions are equal in seniority, i.e. the Islamic banking institution and
guarantor share losses on a pro-rata basis, capital relief will be accorded
on a proportional basis with the remainder being treated as unsecured.
Tranched Cover
(ii) Where:
(a) an Islamic banking institution transfers a portion of the risk of an

exposure in one or more tranches to a protection seller(s) and retains
some level of risk of the exposure; and
(b) the portion of risk transferred and retained are of different seniority,
Islamic banking 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 the securitisation component of the
Framework will apply.
Currency Mismatches
(iii) A haircut, HFX, shall be applied on the exposure protected if its credit
protection is denominated in a different currency, as follows:
GA G 1 HFX
where:
G = Nominal amount of the credit protection

HFX = Haircut appropriate for currency mismatch between the credit
protection and underlying obligation. The supervisory haircut
is 8%. The 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 2.138

3.126 For exposures where the obligor is part of a portfolio on the IRB approach while
the guarantor or credit protection provider is part of a portfolio which is not
under the IRB approach (i.e. standardised approach)113, Islamic banking
institutions must ensure that these obligors also fulfill the expectations under the
IRB approach (e.g. annually reviewed etc) on an ongoing basis. The
appropriate treatment based on the standardised approach shall be applied to
the guaranteed/protected portion of the exposure.
The Double Default Method
3.127 Islamic banking institutions also can apply the double default method instead of
the substitution method where exposures are hedged by single-name
guarantees.
3.128 The entity providing the above instruments must be an Islamic banking
institution114 or an insurance/takaful company (but only those that are in the
business of providing credit protection, including mono-lines, professional re-
insurers/re-takaful companies, and non-sovereign credit export agencies115)
that:
(i) is regulated in a manner broadly equivalent to the Framework (where

there is appropriate supervisory oversight and transparency/market
discipline), or externally rated as at least investment grade by an approved
ECAI for purposes of the capital framework;
(ii) had an internal rating with a PD equivalent to or lower than that associated
with an external BBB- rating at the time the credit protection for an
exposure was first provided; and
113
For example, a financing granted to a small medium enterprise (under the IRB approach) is
guaranteed by CGC (under the standardised approach).
114
This does not include PSEs and MDBs, even though claims on these may be treated as claims on
banking institutions according to Part B.3.2.
115
By non-sovereign it is meant that the credit protection in question does not benefit from any explicit
sovereign counter-guarantee.

(iii) continues to maintain an internal rating with a PD equivalent to or lower

than that associated with an external BBB- rating.
3.129 Islamic banking institutions using the double default method for the hedged
exposure would apply the risk weight formula described under paragraphs
3.154 to 3.155 in determining the capital requirement.
III. Specific Requirements
Specific Requirements Common for Guarantees
3.130 For a guarantee to be eligible for CRM, the following conditions must be met:
(i) The guarantee must represent a direct claim on the protection provider
and must be explicitly referenced to specific exposures or a pool of
exposures, so that the extent of the cover is clearly defined and could not
be disputed;
(ii) The credit protection contract must be irrevocable except where the credit
protection purchaser has not made the payment due to the protection
provider. The protection provider must also not have the right to
unilaterally cancel the credit cover or increase the effective cost of cover
as a result of deteriorating credit quality in the hedged exposure;
(iii) The contract must not have any clause or provision outside the direct
control of the Islamic banking institution that prevents the protection
provider from being obliged to pay in a timely manner in the event that the
original counterparty fails to make the payment(s) due. However, for
advanced IRB exposures, conditional guarantees may also be recognised
as eligible CRM as per paragraph 3.326; and
(iv) Additional operational requirements specific for guarantees specified in

paragraph 3.131 must be met.
Additional Specific Requirements for Guarantees

3.131 In addition to the requirements on legal certainty of the guarantee specified in

paragraph 3.94, all the following conditions must also be satisfied:
(i) On the default/non-payment of the counterparty, an Islamic banking

institution may in a timely manner pursue the guarantor for any monies
outstanding under the documentation governing the transaction. The
guarantor may pay at once all monies outstanding under such
documentation to the Islamic banking institution, or the guarantor may
assume the future payment obligations of the counterparty covered by the
guarantee;
(ii) The guarantee undertaking is explicitly documented; and
(iii) Except as noted in the following sentence, the guarantee covers all types
of payments the obligor is expected to make under the documentation
governing the transaction, such as notional amount and margin payments.
Where a guarantee covers payment of principal only, profits and other
uncovered payments should be treated as unsecured amounts in line with
the treatment for proportionally covered exposures under paragraph 3.125.
Additional Requirements for Recognition of Double Default
3.132 For each eligible exposure, Islamic banking institutions need to determine
whether either the double default or the substitution method is to be applied.
3.133 In addition to the conditions specified in paragraphs 3.127 and 3.128, the
double default method is only applicable if the following conditions have also
been met.
(i) The risk weight that is associated with the exposure prior to the application
of the double default treatment does not already factor in any aspect of the
credit protection.
(ii) The underlying obligation is:
(a) a corporate exposure as defined in paragraphs 3.24 to 3.27

(excluding SF exposures for which the SSC approach described in
paragraphs 3.150 to 3.153 is being used); or

(b) a claim on a PSE that is not a sovereign exposure as defined in

paragraph 3.28; or
(c) a financing extended to a small business and classified as a retail

exposure as defined in paragraph 3.30.
(iii) The obligor is not:
(a) a financial firm as defined in paragraph 3.128; or
(b) a member of the same group as the protection provider.
(iv) Credit protection meets the minimum operational requirements for such
instruments as outlined in paragraphs 3.130 to 3.131.
(v) Consistent with paragraph 3.131 for any recognition of double default that
affects guarantees, Islamic banking institutions must have the right and
expectation to receive payment from the credit protection provider without
having to take legal action to pursue the counterparty for payment. If a
credit event should occur, steps should be taken to ensure that the
protection provider is willing to pay promptly.
(vi) The purchased credit protection absorbs all credit losses incurred on the
hedged portion of an exposure that arises due to credit events outlined in
the contract.
(vii) If the payout structure provides for physical settlement, then there must be
legal certainty with respect to the deliverability of a financing, bond, or
contingent liability. If an Islamic banking institution intends to deliver an
obligation other than the underlying exposure, it must ensure that the
deliverable obligation is sufficiently liquid so that the Islamic banking
institution would have the ability to purchase it for delivery in accordance
with the contract.
(viii) The terms and conditions of credit protection arrangements must be

legally confirmed in writing by both the credit protection provider and the
Islamic banking institution.

(ix) In the case of protection against dilution risk, the seller of purchased
receivables must not be a member of the same group as the protection
provider.
(x) There is no excessive correlation between the creditworthiness of a

protection provider and the obligor of the underlying exposure due to
performance being dependent on common factors beyond the systematic
risk factor. Islamic banking institutions should establish a mechanism to
detect the existence of such excessive correlation. An example of
excessive correlation is where a protection provider guarantees the debt of
a supplier of goods or services and the supplier derives a high proportion
of its income or revenue from the protection provider.

On-Balance Sheet Netting116

I. Specific Requirements for On-Balance Sheet Netting
3.134 Islamic banking institutions are allowed to compute credit exposures on a net
basis for capital requirements where Islamic banking institutions have legally
enforceable netting arrangements for financing and deposits117. In addition,
Islamic banking institutions can only apply on-balance sheet netting on any
exposure if the following conditions have been met:
(i) Strong legal basis that the netting or off-setting agreement is enforceable
in each relevant jurisdiction regardless of whether the counterparty is in
default, insolvent or bankrupt;
(ii) Able to determine at any time the assets and liabilities of the counterparty
that are subject to the netting agreement;
(iii) Monitors and controls roll-off risks118; and
(iv) Monitors and controls the relevant exposure on a net basis.
II. Methodology
3.135 The computation of the net exposure to a counterparty for capital adequacy
computation purposes is similar to that specified for collateralised transactions
under paragraph 3.105, where assets (financing) are treated as exposures and
liabilities (deposits) as collateral. For on-balance sheet netting, the haircut will
be zero except where there is a currency mismatch. A 10-business day holding
period will apply when daily mark-to-market is conducted and all the
requirements contained in paragraphs 3.139 to 3.142 and paragraphs 2.133
and 2.138 are fulfilled.
116
As opposed to other CRM techniques that mostly affect the LGD component, the effects of on-
balance sheet netting are incorporated in the EAD component.
117
Structured deposits and Restricted Investment Account would not be recognised for on-balance
sheet netting.
118
Roll-off risks relate to the sudden increases in exposure which can happen when short dated
obligations used to net long dated claims mature.

3.136 For the purpose of calculating RWA for the exposure following the on-balance
sheet netting, the relevant PD and LGD or risk weight for the counterparty and
transaction shall be applied to the net exposure amount.
Other Aspects of Credit Risk Mitigation

Treatment of Pools of Credit Risk Mitigation Techniques
3.137 When multiple credit risk mitigation techniques are used to cover a single
exposure, the exposure should be divided into portions which are covered by
each type of credit risk mitigation technique. The risk-weighted assets of each
portion must be calculated separately. Where credit protection provided by a
single guarantor has different maturities, these must also be divided into
separate portions.
3.138 In addition, where a single transaction is attached to multiple forms of credit risk
mitigants, Islamic banking institutions are able to obtain the largest capital relief
possible from the risk mitigants.
Maturity Mismatches
3.139 For calculating RWA, a maturity mismatch occurs when the residual maturity of
a hedge is less than that of the underlying exposure.
Definition of Maturity
3.140 The maturity of the underlying exposure and the maturity of the hedge should
both be defined conservatively. The M of the underlying should 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 a hedge,
embedded options which may reduce the term of the hedge should be taken
into account so that the shortest possible M is used. Where a call is at the
discretion of the protection seller, the maturity will always be at the first call

date. If the call is at the discretion of the protection-buying Islamic banking

institution but the terms of the arrangement at origination of the hedge contain a
positive incentive for the Islamic banking institution to call the transaction before
contractual maturity, the remaining time to the first call date will be deemed to
be the M. For example, where there is a step-up in cost in conjunction with a
call feature or where the effective cost of cover increases over time even if
credit quality remains the same or increases, the M will be the remaining time to
the first call.
Risk Weights for Maturity Mismatches
3.141 Hedges with maturity mismatches are only recognised when the original
maturities are greater than or equal to one year. As a result, the maturity of
hedges for exposures with original maturities of less than one year must be
matched to be recognised. In all cases, hedges with maturity mismatches will
no longer be recognised when the residual maturity of the hedge is three
months or less.
3.142 When there is a maturity mismatch with recognised credit risk mitigant
(collateral, on-balance sheet netting and guarantees) the following adjustment
will be applied.
Pa P
t 0.25
T 0.25
where:
Pa = Value of the credit protection adjusted for maturity mismatch
P = Credit protection (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 (5, residual maturity of the exposure) expressed in years

B.3.5 RISK-WEIGHTED ASSETS
Risk-Weighted Assets for Corporate, Sovereign and Bank Exposures

I. Formula for Derivation of Risk-Weighted Assets
3.143 The derivation of RWA is dependent on estimates of the PD, LGD, EAD and, M
for a given exposure.
3.144 The computation of RWA for exposures not in default, is119:
Capital requirement120 (K) =
1 1 (M 2.5)b
N 1PD N 10.999 PD LGD
R
LGD N
1 R 1 R 1 1.5b
RWA = K x 12.5 x EAD
where:
= 0.11852 0.05478 lnPD

2
Maturity adjustment, b
1 EXP 50 PD 1 EXP 50 PD
0.12 0.241
Correlation, R = 1 EXP 50 1 EXP 50
Illustrative IRB risk weights are shown in Appendix XXIV.
3.145 The formula above and the requirement for foundation IRB Islamic banking
institutions to establish its own PD estimates121 for all obligors within their
corporate portfolio shall also apply to corporate exposures guaranteed by the
119
Ln denotes 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
-1
variance of one is less than or equal to x). N (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 normal
cumulative distribution function and the inverse of the normal cumulative distribution function are,
for example, available in Excel as the functions NORMSDIST and NORMSINV. EXP denotes the
exponential function.
120
If this calculation results in a negative capital charge for any individual sovereign exposure, banking
institutions should apply a zero capital charge for that exposure.
121
Advanced IRB banks would also have to estimate LGD and EAD.

Credit Guarantee Corporation (CGC). However, the effective risk weight for
corporate exposures guaranteed by CGC which are not in default, shall be
capped at 20%122.
3.146 The capital requirement (K) for a defaulted exposure is the greater of:
(i) zero, and
(ii) the difference between its LGD (described in paragraph 3.306) and the
Islamic banking institutions best estimate of expected loss (described in
paragraph 3.310).
The RWA amount for the defaulted exposure is the product of K, 12.5, and
EAD.
3.147 Islamic banking institutions that meet the requirements for the estimation of PD
for SF exposures may use the formula in paragraph 3.144 to derive the risk-
weighted assets, except for HVCRE where the following asset correlation
formula will apply:
Correlation (R) = 0.12 0.301
1 EXP 50 1 EXP 50
Islamic banking institutions that do not meet the requirements for the estimation
of PD for SF exposures are required to use the SSC approach from paragraphs
3.150 to 3.153.
II. Firm-size Adjustment for Small and Medium-sized Corporates
3.148 Islamic banking institutions may separately distinguish exposures to small and
medium-sized corporates123 from those to large corporates. A firm-size
adjustment (S) is made to the asset correlation formula. S is expressed as total
annual sales in RM millions with values of S falling between RM25 million to
122
Only applicable on guaranteed portion of the exposures.
123
Defined as corporate exposures where the reported sales for the consolidated group of which the
firm is a part is less than RM250 million.

RM250 million. Reported sales of less than RM25 million will be treated as
equal to RM25 million for the purpose of this paragraph.
Correlation (R) =
1 EXP 50 PD 1 EXP 50 PD S 25
0.12 0.241 0.041
1 EXP 50 1 EXP 50 225
3.149 When total sales is not a meaningful indicator of a firms size, the Bank may
allow Islamic banking institutions to use total assets of the consolidated group
as a basis to calculate the small and medium-sized corporate threshold and the
firm-size adjustment.
III. Risk Weights for Sub-classes of SF - PF, OF, CF, IPRE and HVCRE
3.150 For Islamic banking institutions adopting the SSC approach124 for their SF
portfolio, Islamic banking institutions should map the internal grades to five
supervisory categories based on the slotting criteria provided in Appendix Va.
3.151 The risk weights associated with each supervisory category for PF, OF, CF and
IPRE are:
Strong Good Satisfactory Weak Default
70% 90% 115% 250% 0%
3.152 Islamic banking institutions may apply preferential risk weights of 50% to
strong exposures, and 70% to good exposures as per the table below,
subject to meeting either of the following conditions:
(i) Remaining maturity of the current SF exposure is less than 2.5 years; or
(ii) Project construction is completed.

124
Islamic banking institutions that meet the requirements for the estimation of PD will be able to use
the general foundation approach for the corporate asset class to derive risk weights for SF sub-
classes. Islamic banking institutions that meet the requirements for the estimation of PD and LGD
and/or EAD will be able to use the general advanced approach for the corporate asset class to
derive risk weights for SF sub-classes.


50% 70% 115% 250% 0%
3.153 The risk weights for HVCRE exposures associated with each supervisory
category are:
95% 120% 140% 250% 0%
IV. Risk-Weighted Assets for Exposures subject to the Double Default

Framework
3.154 The capital requirement for a hedged exposure subject to the double default
treatment (KDD) is calculated by multiplying K0 as defined below by a multiplier
depending on the PD of the protection provider (PDg):
KDD K0 0.15 160 PDg
K0 is calculated in the same way as a capital requirement for an unhedged

corporate exposure (as defined in paragraphs 3.144 to 3.146 and 3.148), but
using different parameters for LGD and the maturity adjustment.
N 1PDo os N 10.999
PDo 1 M 2.5 b

K 0 LGDg N
1 os
1 1.5 b
PDo and PDg are the probabilities of default of the obligor and guarantor,
respectively, both subject to the PD floor set out in paragraph 3.47. The
correlation os is calculated according to the formula for correlation (R) in
paragraph 3.144 or 3.148, with PD being equal to PD o, and LGDg is the LGD of

a comparable direct exposure to the guarantor125. There shall be no

consideration of double recovery in the LGD estimate126. The maturity
adjustment coefficient, b, is calculated according to the formula for maturity
adjustment in paragraph 3.144, with PD being the lower of PD o and PDg. M is
the effective maturity of the credit protection, which must not be below the one-
year floor if the double default framework is to be applied.
3.155 The RWA amount is calculated in the same way as for unhedged exposures, as
follows:
RWADD KDD 12.5 EADg
Risk-Weighted Assets for Retail Exposures

3.156 There are three separate risk-weight functions for retail exposures, as defined
below. 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 retail risk-
weight functions contain an explicit maturity adjustment. Illustrative risk weights
are shown in Appendix XXIV.
I. Exposures Secured by Residential Real Estate (RRE) Properties
3.157 For exposures defined in paragraph 3.34 that are not in default and are secured
or partly secured127 by RRE, risk weights will be assigned based on the
following formula:
125
Consistent with paragraph 3.123, the LGD associated with an unhedged facility to the guarantor or
the unhedged facility to the obligor, depending upon whether, in the event both the guarantor and
the obligor default during the life of the hedged transaction, available evidence and the structure of
the guarantee indicate that the amount recovered would depend on the financial condition of the
guarantor or obligor, respectively; in estimating either of these LGDs, an Islamic banking institution
may recognise collateral posted exclusively against the exposure or credit protection, respectively,
in a manner consistent with paragraph 3.121, 3.150, 3.306 to 3.310, 3.314 and 3.315, as applicable.
126
Only recoveries from the guarantor are taken into consideration and no recognition is given for
recoveries from obligor.
127
This means that risk weights for RRE financing also apply to the unsecured portion of such RRE
financing.

Correlation (R) = 0.15
Capital requirement (K) =

1
R
LGD N
1 R 1 R
1
R
LGD N
1 R 1 R
II. Qualifying Revolving Retail Exposures
3.158 For QRRE as defined in paragraph 3.35 that are not in default, risk weights are
defined based on the following formula:
Correlation (R) = 0.04
1
R
LGD N
1 R 1 R
III. Other Retail Exposures
3.159 For all other retail exposures that are not in default, risk weights are defined
based on the following formula, which allows correlation to vary with PD:
0.03 0.161
Correlation (R) = 1 EXP 35 1 EXP 35

1
R
LGD N
1 R 1 R

1
R
LGD N
1 R 1 R RWA = K x
12.5 x EAD
3.160 The formulas above and the requirement to establish PD, LGD and EAD
estimates shall also apply to priority sector RRE financing and any retail
exposures guaranteed by CGC. However, the effective risk weight for:
(i) Priority sector RRE financing, which are not in default, shall be capped at
50%. However, the effective risk weight cap for any financing with a
financing-to-value ratio of more than 90% approved and disbursed by
Islamic banking institutions on or after 1 February 2011 is 75%; and
(ii) Any retail exposures guaranteed by CGC, which are not in default, shall
be capped at 20%128.
3.161 The capital requirement (K) for a defaulted exposure (for all three types of retail
exposures) is equal to the greater of :
(i) zero; and
(ii) the difference between its LGD and the Islamic banking institutions best
estimate of expected loss.
The RWA amount for the defaulted exposure is the product of K, 12.5, and
EAD.
Risk-Weighted Assets for Equity Exposures

3.162 There are two approaches to calculate RWA for equity exposures held in the
banking book:
(i) Market-based approach (which is subdivided into the simple risk weight
method and the internal models method); and
(ii) PD/LGD approach.
128
Only applicable on guaranteed portion of the exposures.

Certain equity holdings as defined in paragraphs 3.178 and 3.179 are excluded
from these approaches.
3.163 Islamic banking institutions choices must be applied consistently and not
determined by regulatory arbitrage considerations. The method used should be
consistent with the amount and complexity of the Islamic banking institutions
equity holdings and commensurate with the overall size and sophistication of
the institution.
3.164 Notwithstanding the above, the Bank may require an Islamic banking institution
to employ the PD/LGD or the internal models approach instead of the simple
risk weight approach if equity exposures constitute a significant part of its
business.
I. Market-Based Approach
3.165 Under the market-based approach, Islamic banking institutions are permitted to
use one or both of the methods below.
Simple Risk Weight Method
3.166 Under the simple risk weight method, a 300% risk weight is applied to equity
holdings that are publicly traded and a 400% risk weight to all other equity
holdings. A publicly traded holding is defined as any equity security traded on a
recognised securities exchange (please refer to Appendix VIII).
3.167 Short cash positions and derivative instruments held in the banking book are
permitted to offset long positions in the same individual stocks provided that
these instruments have been explicitly designated as hedges of specific equity
holdings with remaining maturities of at least one year. Other short positions
should be treated as if they are long positions with the relevant risk weight
applied to the absolute value of each position. In the context of maturity

mismatched positions, the methodology is similar to that for corporate

exposures.
Internal Models Method
3.168 Islamic banking institutions may use, or may be required by the Bank to use,
internal risk measurement models to calculate the capital requirement, subject
to the minimum requirements set out in Part B.3.7 of the Framework. Under this
method, Islamic banking institutions must hold capital equal to the potential loss
on equity holdings as derived using internal value-at-risk (VaR) models subject
to the 99th percentile, one-tailed confidence interval of the difference between
quarterly returns and an appropriate risk-free rate computed over a long-term129
sample period. The capital charge would be incorporated into Islamic banking
institutions capital adequacy computation through the calculation of risk-
weighted equivalent assets.
3.169 The risk weight used to convert holdings into risk-weighted equivalent assets
would be calculated by multiplying the derived capital charge by 12.5 (i.e. the
inverse of the minimum 8% risk-based capital requirement).
3.170 Capital charges calculated under the internal models method should not be less
than the capital charges that would be calculated under the simple risk weight
method using a 200% risk weight for publicly traded equity holdings and a 300%
risk weight for all other equity holdings. Further, these minimum risk weights are
to apply at the individual exposure level rather than at the portfolio level.
3.171 Subject to approval by the Bank, Islamic banking institutions may be allowed to
use different market-based approaches to different portfolios if they are already
adopting these approaches internally, subject to proper justifications.
129
The Bank would expect Islamic banking institutions to have data covering at least five years or 20
data points of quarterly returns.

3.172 Islamic banking institutions adopting the market-based approach for equity
exposures are permitted to recognise guarantees but not the collateral obtained
on that equity exposure.
II. PD/LGD Approach
3.173 Islamic banking institutions wishing to adopt the PD/LGD approach to calculate
the equivalent credit risk-weighted assets of equity exposures (including equity
of companies that are included in the retail asset class) are required to fulfil the
minimum requirements and methodology for the IRB foundation approach 130 for
corporate exposures, subject to the following specifications:
(i) The Islamic banking institutions estimate of the PD of a corporate entity in

which it holds an equity position must satisfy the same requirements as its
estimate of the PD of a corporate entity where it holds debt131, except in
the following instances:
(a) Where an Islamic banking institution does not hold a debt in the
company in which it holds equity, and does not have sufficient
information on the position of that company to be able to use the
applicable definition of default in practice but meets the other
minimum requirements, a 1.5 scaling factor will be applied to the risk
weights derived from the corporate risk-weight function, given the PD
set by the Islamic banking institution.
(b) If, however, the Islamic banking institutions equity holdings are
material132 and it is permitted to use the PD/LGD approach for
regulatory purposes but the Islamic banking institution has not yet
met the relevant standards, the simple risk-weight method under the
market-based approach will apply.
130
There is no advanced approach for equity exposures, given the 90% LGD assumption.
131
In practice, if there is both an equity exposure and an IRB credit exposure to the same counterparty,
a default on the credit exposure would thus trigger a simultaneous default for regulatory purposes
on the equity exposure.
132
Materiality threshold is defined similar to materiality threshold used to determine equity holdings that
are exempted from the IRB scope.

(ii) An LGD of 90% would be assumed in deriving the risk weight for equity
exposures.
(iii) The risk weight is subject to a five-year maturity adjustment whether or not
the Islamic banking institution is using the explicit approach to maturity
elsewhere in its IRB portfolio.
3.174 Under the PD/LGD approach, minimum risk weights as set out in paragraphs
3.175 and 3.176 apply. When the sum of UL and EL associated with the equity
exposure results in less capital than would be required from application of one
of the minimum risk weights, the minimum risk weights must be used. In other
words, the minimum risk weights must be applied, if the risk weights calculated
according to paragraph 3.173 plus the EL associated with the equity exposure
multiplied by 12.5 are smaller than the applicable minimum risk weights.
3.175 A minimum risk weight of 100% applies for the following types of equities for as
long as the portfolio is managed in the manner outlined below:
(i) Public equities where the investment is part of a long-term customer-

banker relationship and no capital gains are expected to be realised in the
short term and where there is no anticipation of (above trend) capital gains
in the long term. It is expected that in almost all cases, the Islamic banking
institution will have financing and/or general banking relationships with the
portfolio company so that the estimated PD is readily available. In general,
the Islamic banking institution is expected to hold the equity over a long
term period (at least five years).
(ii) Private equities, where the returns on the investment are based on regular
and periodic cash flows not derived from capital gains and there is no
expectation of future (above trend) capital gain or of realising existing gain.
3.176 For all other equity positions, including net short positions (as defined in
paragraph 3.167), capital charges calculated under the PD/LGD approach may

be no less than the capital charges that would be calculated under a simple risk
weight method using a 200% risk weight for publicly traded equity holdings and
a 300% risk weight for all other equity holdings.
3.177 The maximum risk weight for the PD/LGD approach for equity exposures is
1250%. This maximum risk weight can be applied, if risk weights calculated
according to paragraph 3.173 plus the EL associated with the equity exposure
multiplied by 12.5 exceed the 1250% risk weight.
III. Exclusions to the Market-Based and PD/LGD Approaches
3.178 Equity holdings in entities whose debt obligations qualify for a 0% risk weight
under the standardised approach can be excluded from the IRB approaches for
equities. These equity exposures will attract a risk weight of 20%.
3.179 Equity investments called for by the Federal Government of Malaysia, Bank
Negara Malaysia, Association of Banks in Malaysia, Association of Islamic
Banking Institutions in Malaysia, or Malaysian Investment Banking Association
shall receive a risk weight of 100% (subject to a cap of 10% of the Islamic
banking institutions Total Capital).
3.180 Investments in the equity of non-financial commercial subsidiaries will apply the
same treatment as per paragraph 2.51.
Risk-Weighted Assets for Purchased Receivables

Default Risk
3.181 For receivables categorised under one asset class, the IRB risk weight for
default risk is based on the risk-weight function applicable to that particular
exposure type.

3.182 The treatment above is applicable as long as the Islamic banking institution can
meet the qualification standards for this particular risk-weight function. For
example, if an Islamic banking institution cannot comply with the standards for
QRRE, it should use the risk-weight function for other retail exposures.
3.183 For hybrid pools containing mixtures of exposure types, if the purchasing
Islamic banking institution cannot separate the exposures by type, the risk-
weight function producing the highest capital requirements for the exposure
types in the receivable pool applies.
I. Purchased Retail Receivables
3.184 For purchased retail receivables, Islamic banking institutions must meet the risk
quantification standards for retail exposures but can utilise external and internal
reference data to estimate the PDs and LGDs. The estimates for PD and LGD
(or EL) must be calculated for the receivables on a stand-alone basis; that is,
without regard to any assumption of recourse or guarantees from the seller or
other parties.

II. Purchased Corporate Receivables
3.185 For purchased corporate receivables, the purchasing Islamic banking institution
is expected to apply the existing IRB risk quantification standards for the
bottom-up approach. However, for eligible purchased corporate receivables,
and subject to the Banks approval, Islamic banking institutions may employ the
following top-down procedure to calculate the IRB risk weights for default risk:
(i) The purchasing Islamic banking institution will estimate the pools one-year
EL for default risk, expressed in percentage of the exposure amount (i.e.
the total EAD amount to the Islamic banking institution by all receivables
obligors in the receivables pool). The estimated EL on the receivables
should be calculated on a stand-alone basis without any assumption of
recourse or guarantees from the seller or other parties. The treatment of
recourse or guarantees covering default risk (and/or dilution risk) is
elaborated separately below.
(ii) Given the EL estimate for the pools default losses, the risk weight for
default risk is determined by the risk-weight function for corporate
exposures133. As described below, the precise calculation of risk weights
for default risk depends on the Islamic banking institutions ability to
decompose EL into its PD and LGD components in a reliable manner.
Islamic banking institutions can utilise external and internal data to
estimate PDs and LGDs. However, the advanced approach cannot be
adopted by Islamic banking institutions that use the foundation approach
for corporate exposures.
Foundation IRB treatment
3.186 If the purchasing Islamic banking institution is unable to decompose EL into its
PD and LGD components in a reliable manner, the risk weight is determined
from the corporate risk-weight function using the following specifications:
133
The firm-size adjustment for small and medium-sized corporates will be the weighted average by
individual exposure of the pool of purchased corporate receivables. If the Islamic banking institution
does not have the information to calculate the average size of the pool, the firm-size adjustment will
not apply.

(i) If Islamic banking institution can demonstrate that the exposures are
exclusively senior claims to corporate obligors, an LGD of 45% can be
used. PD will be calculated by dividing the EL using this LGD. EAD will be
calculated as the outstanding amount minus the capital charge for dilution
prior to credit risk mitigation (KDilution).
(ii) Otherwise, PD is the Islamic banking institutions estimate of EL; LGD will
be 100%; and EAD is the amount outstanding minus KDilution.
(iii) EAD for a revolving purchase facility is the sum of the current amount of
receivables purchased plus 75% of any undrawn purchase commitments
minus KDilution.
(iv) If the purchasing Islamic banking institution is able to estimate PD in a

reliable manner, the risk weight is determined from the corporate risk-
weight functions according to the specifications for LGD and M under the
foundation approach as given in paragraphs 3.49 to 3.55 and 3.66.
Advanced IRB treatment
3.187 If the purchasing Islamic banking institution can estimate either the pools
default-weighted average loss rates given default (as defined in paragraph
3.306) or average PD in a reliable manner, Islamic banking institution may
estimate the other parameter based on an estimate of the expected long-run
loss rate as follows:
(i) using an appropriate PD estimate to infer the long-run default-weighted

average loss rate given default; or
(ii) using a long-run default-weighted average loss rate given default to infer
the appropriate PD.
In either case, it is important to recognise that the LGD used for the IRB capital
calculation for purchased receivables cannot be less than the long-run default-
weighted average loss rate given default and must be consistent with the
concepts defined in paragraph 3.306. The risk weight for the purchased
receivables will be determined using the Islamic banking institutions estimated

PD and LGD as inputs to the corporate risk-weight function. Similar to the

foundation IRB treatment, EAD will be the amount outstanding minus K Dilution.
EAD for a revolving purchase facility will be the sum of the current amount of
receivables purchased plus 75% of any undrawn purchase commitments minus
KDilution (thus, Islamic banking institutions using the advanced IRB approach will
not be permitted to use internal EAD estimates for undrawn purchase
commitments).
3.188 For drawn amounts, M will equal the pools exposure-weighted average M (as
defined in paragraphs 3.74 to 3.79). This same value of M will also be used for
undrawn amounts under a committed purchase facility provided the facility
contains effective covenants, early amortisation triggers, or other features that
protect the purchasing Islamic banking institution against a significant
deterioration in the quality of the future receivables it is required to purchase
over the facilitys term. In the absence of such effective protections, the M for
undrawn amounts will be calculated as the sum of:
(i) the longest-dated potential receivable under the purchase agreement; and
(ii) the remaining maturity of the purchase facility.
For purchased receivables, such as factoring and similar transactions, which

are deemed short term self liquidating trade transactions, M could be accounted
for using the actual remaining maturity. However, M must be at least 90 days.
Dilution Risk
3.189 Dilution refers to the possibility that the receivable amount is reduced through
cash or non-cash credits to the receivables obligor134. For both corporate and
retail receivables, unless the Islamic banking institution can demonstrate to the
Bank that the dilution risk for the purchasing Islamic banking institution is
immaterial, the treatment of dilution risk must be the following:
134
Examples include offsets or allowances arising from returns of goods sold, disputes regarding
product quality, possible debts of the obligor to a receivables obligor, and any payment or
promotional discounts offered by the obligor (e.g. a credit for cash payments within 30 days).

(i) At the level of either the pool as a whole (top-down approach) or the
individual receivables making up the pool (bottom-up approach), the
purchasing Islamic banking institution will estimate the one-year EL for
dilution risk, also expressed in percentage of the receivables amount.
Islamic banking institutions can utilise external and internal data to
estimate EL. As with the treatment of default risk, this estimate must be
computed on a stand-alone basis; that is, under the assumption of no
recourse or other support from the seller or third-party guarantors.
(ii) For the purpose of calculating risk weights for dilution risk, the corporate
risk-weight function must be used with the PD set equal to the estimated
EL, and the LGD set at 100%. An appropriate maturity treatment applies
when determining the capital requirement for dilution risk. If an Islamic
banking institution can demonstrate that the dilution risk is appropriately
monitored and managed to be resolved within one year, the Bank may
allow the Islamic banking institution to apply a one-year maturity.
3.190 This treatment will be applied regardless of whether the underlying receivables
are corporate or retail exposures, and regardless of whether the risk weights for
default risk are computed using the standard IRB treatments or, for corporate
receivables, the top-down treatment described above.
Recognition of credit risk mitigants
3.191 Credit risk mitigants will be recognised generally using the same framework as
set forth in paragraphs 3.120 to 3.126135 In particular, a guarantee provided by
the seller or a third party will be treated using the existing IRB rules for
guarantees, regardless of whether the guarantee covers default risk, dilution
risk, or both.
135
Islamic banking institutions may recognise guarantors that are internally rated and associated with a
PD equivalent to BBB- or better under the foundation IRB approach for purposes of determining the
capital requirements for dilution risk.

(i) If the guarantee covers both the pools default risk and dilution risk, the
pools total risk weight for default and dilution risk is substituted with the
risk weight for an exposure to the guarantor.
(ii) If the guarantee covers only default risk or dilution risk, but not both, the
pools risk weight for the corresponding risk component (default or dilution)
is substituted with the risk weight for an exposure to the guarantor. The
capital requirement for the other component will then be added.
(iii) If a guarantee covers only a portion of the default and/or dilution risk, the
uncovered portion of the default and/or dilution risk will be treated as per
the existing credit risk mitigation rules for proportional or tranched
coverage (i.e. the risk weights of the uncovered risk components will be
added to the risk weights of the covered risk components).
3.192 If protection against dilution risk has been purchased, and the conditions of
paragraphs 3.127, 3.128 and 3.133 are met, the double default framework may
be used for the calculation of the RWA amount for dilution risk. In this case,
paragraphs 3.154 and 3.155 apply with PDo being equal to the estimated EL,
LGDg being equal to 100%, and M being set according to paragraph 3.188.
Risk-Weighted Assets for Leasing

3.193 Leases other than those that expose Islamic banking institutions to residual
value risk (refer below) will be accorded the same treatment as if the exposures
were collateralised by the underlying leased asset. Islamic banking institutions
must ensure that the minimum requirements for the collateral type must be met
(CRE/RRE or other collateral). In addition, the following standards should be
met:
(i) Robust risk management on the part of the lessor with respect to the
location of the asset, the use to which it is put, its age and planned
obsolescence;

(ii) A robust legal framework establishing the lessors legal ownership of the
asset and its ability to exercise its rights as owner in a timely fashion; and
(iii) The difference between the rate of depreciation of the physical asset and
the rate of amortisation of the lease payments must not be so large as to
overstate the CRM attributed to the leased assets.
3.194 Leases that expose Islamic banking institutions to residual value risk136 will be
treated in the following manner:
(i) The discounted lease payment stream will receive a risk weight
appropriate for the lessees financial strength (PD) and supervisory or
own-estimate of LGD, whichever is appropriate; and
(ii) The residual value will be risk-weighted at 100%.
B.3.6 CALCULATION OF MINIMUM CAPITAL REQUIREMENT
Regulatory Capital
3.195 [Deleted].
3.196 However, Islamic banking institutions using the IRB approach (other than for
equity under PD/LGD approach) are required to compare:
(i) the total EL amount as calculated within the IRB approach, with
(ii) the amount of total eligible provisions,
defined in this section.
3.197 Where the total EL amount exceeds total eligible provisions, Islamic banking
institutions must deduct the difference in the calculation of CET1 Capital.
136
Residual value risk is the Islamic bank institutions exposure to potential loss due to the fair value of
equipment declining below its residual estimate at lease inception.

3.198 Where the total EL amount is less than total eligible provisions, Islamic banking
institutions may recognise the difference in Tier 2 Capital up to a maximum of
0.6% of credit RWA.
3.199 Islamic banking institutions using the PD/LGD approach for equity exposures
must calculate the EL for equity exposures separately from the EL for other
exposures. The EL amount for equity exposures under the PD/LGD approach
shall be risk-weighted at 1250%.
3.200 For residual exposures that will remain under the standardised approach to
credit risk, general provisions137 as explained in paragraphs 3.212 and 3.213
can be included in the calculation of Tier 2 Capital.
Calculation of Expected Losses

3.201 This section outlines the method by which the difference between provisions
and EL may be included in or must be deducted in the calculation of CET1
Capital.
3.202 In general, an Islamic banking institution must add up the EL amount (defined
as EL multiplied by EAD) associated with its exposures (excluding the EL
amount associated with equity exposures under the PD/LGD approach) to
obtain a total EL amount.
3.203 Islamic banking institutions must calculate an EL as PD x LGD for corporate,

sovereign, bank, and retail exposures, both not in default and not treated as
hedged exposures under the double default treatment.
137
General provisions include collective impairment provisions (and regulatory reserves, if any), to the
extent that they are not ascribed to financing classified as impaired.

3.204 For corporate, sovereign, bank and retail exposures that are in default, Islamic
banking institutions must use the best estimate of EL as defined in paragraph
3.310. Those under the foundation approach must use the supervisory LGD.
3.205 For equity exposures subject to the PD/LGD approach, the EL is calculated as
PD x LGD, except where the minimum and maximum risk weights in
paragraphs 3.175 to 3.177 apply. In these cases, the minimum and maximum
risk weights are already regarded as UL, thereby rendering any EL-provision
calculation unnecessary.
3.206 Islamic banking institutions will not be required to calculate EL for the portion of
exposures which have been applied a risk weight cap (i.e. exposures
guaranteed by CGC and priority sector RRE financing) and exposures subject
to a 100% risk weight as per paragraph 3.22.
3.207 For all other exposures, including hedged exposures under the double default
treatment, the EL is zero.
3.208 For SF exposures subject to the SSC, the EL amount is determined by

multiplying 8% by the RWA produced from the appropriate risk weights, as
specified below, multiplied by EAD.
Supervisory Categories and EL Risk Weights for Other SF Exposures
3.209 The EL risk weights for SF, other than HVCRE, are as follows:
5% 10% 35% 100% 625%

3.210 Islamic banking institutions meeting the requirements under paragraph 3.152
are allowed to assign preferential EL risk weights falling into the strong and
good supervisory categories as follows:
0% 5% 35% 100% 625%
Supervisory Categories and EL Risk Weights for HVCRE
3.211 The EL risk weights for HVCRE are as follows:

5% 5% 35% 100% 625%

Calculation of Provisions
Exposures Subject to IRB Approach
3.212 Total eligible provisions are defined as the sum of all provisions138 that are
attributed to exposures treated under the IRB approach. In addition, total
eligible provisions may include any discounts on defaulted assets.
Portion of Exposures Subject to the Standardised Approach to Credit Risk
3.213 Islamic banking institutions applying the standardised approach for the portion
of credit risk exposures exempted from the IRB approach (including exposures
which have been applied a risk weight cap), either on a permanent or temporary
basis as per paragraph 3.4 to 3.6, must determine the portion of general
provisions attributed to the standardised or IRB treatment of provisions (see
paragraph 3.199), according to the methods outlined in paragraph 3.213.
3.214 Islamic banking institutions should generally attribute total general provisions on
a pro rata basis according to the proportion of credit RWA subject to the
standardised and IRB approaches. However, when one approach is used to
determine credit RWA (i.e. standardised or IRB approach) exclusively within an
entity, general provisions booked within the entity using the standardised
approach may be attributed to the standardised treatment. Similarly, general
provisions booked within entities using the IRB approach may be attributed to
the total eligible provisions as defined in paragraph 3.211.
Risk-Weighted Assets
3.215 The Bank reserves the right to require Islamic banking institutions to apply a
scaling factor139 to the credit RWA with a view for Islamic banking institutions to
138
Provisions include individual impairment provisions, collective impairment provisions (and
regulatory reserves, if any), partial write-offs and any discounts on defaulted assets.
139
At this juncture, the Bank proposes to adopt a scaling factor of 1.06 as adopted by the BCBS. This
factor was designed to offset the expected decrease in the capital requirement resulting from the
change in the capital formula from a EL plus UL orientation, to a UL-only orientation. The size of the

maintain the aggregate level of minimum capital requirements, while also

providing incentives for Islamic banking institutions to adopt the more advanced
risk-sensitive approaches of the framework.
Parallel Calculation
3.216 Islamic banking institutions migrating to the IRB approaches for credit risk will
be subjected to a one-year parallel calculation prior to actual implementation,
whereby Islamic banking institutions are required to calculate the credit RWA
using the approach under the Framework concurrently with the approach the
Islamic banking institution is currently using (i.e. either the current accord or the
standardised approach). During the parallel run period, Islamic banking
institutions are required to submit to the Bank the computation of their capital
adequacy ratio based on the templates provided by the Bank on a quarterly
basis. Please refer to the reporting manual for IRB approach for further details
on the reporting requirements.
Prudential Capital Floor

3.217 For Islamic banking institutions using the IRB approach, there will be a capital
floor following implementation of the Framework. Islamic banking institutions
must calculate the difference between:
(i) The capital floor, which is based on application of the current accord, or
standardised approach. The capital floor is derived by applying an
adjustment factor to the following amount:
(a) 8% of the RWA under the current requirement, plus
(b) Tier 1 and Tier 2 Capital deductions, less
(c) General provisions that are recognised in Tier 2 Capital; and
(ii) The capital derived from:
(a) 8% of total RWA calculated under the IRB framework, plus (or less)
scaling factor was derived based on the results of the third Quantitative Impact Study conducted by
the BCBS.

(b) Negative (or positive) regulatory adjustments, as specified in Part E

of the Capital Adequacy Framework for Islamic Banking institutions
(Capital Components).
Where a Islamic banking institution uses the standardised approach for

credit risk for any portion of its exposures, it also needs to exclude general
provisions that may be recognised in Tier 2 Capital for that portion from
the amount calculated under item (ii) above.
If the floor amount is larger than the capital derived under the Framework,
Islamic banking institutions are required to add 12.5 times the difference
between the floor and the capital derived under the Framework to the RWA.
3.218 The following table sets out the application of the adjustment factors:
One year From first year From second From third year
before of year of of
implementation implementation implementation implementation
Foundation
and
advanced Parallel
95% 90% 80%
IRB calculation
approaches
for credit risk
3.219 The Bank may continue to impose the prudential floors beyond the transitional
period to provide time to ensure that individual Islamic banking institutions
implementation of the IRB approaches are sound. Such floors may be based on
the approach the institution was using before adoption of the IRB approach,
subject to full disclosure of the floors adopted (in terms of adjustment factors
and the duration).

B.3.7 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE IRB APPROACH

Overview of Minimum Requirements
3.220 To adopt the IRB approach, Islamic banking institutions must demonstrate to
the Bank that it has in place a comprehensive framework140 for model
implementation that meets all minimum requirements in this section at the
outset and on an ongoing basis. These requirements focus on the ability to rank
order and quantify risk in a consistent, reliable and valid manner. Credit risk
management standards and practices must also meet the expectations set by
the Bank in its risk management policy documents.
3.221 The rationale behind these requirements is that rating and risk estimation
systems and processes in place should provide for a meaningful assessment of
obligor and transaction characteristics; a meaningful differentiation of risks; and
reasonably accurate and consistent quantitative estimates of risks.
Furthermore, the systems and processes established must be consistent with
internal use of these estimates. The Bank does not intend to prescribe the form
or operational details of banking institutions risk management policies and
practices, but will exercise its right to perform detailed review procedures to
ensure that systems and controls are adequate to serve as the basis for the IRB
approach.
3.222 The minimum requirements set out in this document shall apply to all asset
classes unless noted otherwise. The standards related to the process of
assigning exposures to obligor or facility grades (and the related oversight,
validation, etc.) apply equally to the process of assigning retail exposures to
pools of homogenous exposures, unless noted otherwise.
3.223 The minimum requirements set out in this document shall apply to both
foundation and advanced approaches unless noted otherwise. Generally, all
140
The framework shall cover the entire policies, process and procedures required for the effective
implementation of rating systems within the Islamic banking institution. Minimum requirements
outlined in this section specify the Banks expectation on various parts of the framework.

IRB institutions must produce internal estimates of PD and must adhere to the
overall requirements for rating system design, operations, governance and the
requisite requirements for estimation and validation of PD measures. Islamic
banking institutions wishing to use internal estimates of LGD and EAD must
also meet the incremental minimum requirements for these risk factors included
in paragraphs 3.306 to 3.310 and 3.316 to 3.322.
3.224 In circumstances where an Islamic banking institution is not in full compliance

with all the minimum requirements, the institution shall explain the reason for
the non-compliance and:
(i) Produce a plan for the timely return to full compliance, and seek the
Banks approval thereof; or
(ii) Demonstrate to the Bank that the effect of such non-compliance is

temporary and immaterial in terms of the risk posed to the Islamic banking
institution.
Failure to perform either of the above may affect the Islamic banking
institutions eligibility for the IRB approach. For the duration of any non-
compliance, the Bank may require additional capital under Pillar 2 or take other
appropriate supervisory action.
Rating System Design

3.225 A rating system comprises all of the methods, processes, controls, and data
collection and IT systems that support the assessment of credit risk, the
assignment of internal risk ratings, and the quantification of default and loss
estimates.
3.226 Within each asset class, an Islamic banking institution may utilise multiple rating
methodologies/systems. For example, it may have customised rating systems
for specific industries or market segments (e.g. middle market, and large
corporate). However, Islamic banking institutions must not allocate obligors

across rating systems inappropriately to minimise regulatory capital

requirements (i.e. cherry-picking by choice of rating system). If multiple rating
systems are used, the policies to assign an obligor to a particular rating system
must be clear and applied in a consistent manner that best reflects the level of
risk of the obligor.
I. Rating System Dimension
Standards for Corporate, Sovereign, and Bank Exposures
3.227 A qualifying IRB system must have two separate and distinct dimensions:
(i) the risk of obligor default; and
(ii) transaction-specific factors.
3.228 The first dimension must be oriented to the risk of obligor default. Separate
exposures to the same obligor must be assigned to the same obligor grade,
irrespective of any differences in the nature of each specific transaction. There
are two exceptions to this:
(i) Firstly, in the case of country transfer risk, where an Islamic banking
institution may assign different obligor grades depending on whether the
facility is denominated in a local or foreign currency.
(ii) Secondly, when the treatment of associated guarantees to a facility may

be reflected in an adjusted obligor grade.
In either case, separate exposures may result in multiple grades for the same
obligor. An Islamic banking institution must articulate in its credit policy the
various obligor grades and the associated risks of obligors in a particular credit
grade. Perceived and measured risk must increase as credit quality declines
from one grade to the next. The policy must also articulate the risk of each
grade in terms of both the description of the probability of default risk typical for
obligors with an assigned grade and the criteria used to distinguish that level of
credit risk.

3.229 The second dimension must reflect transaction-specific factors, such as

collateral, seniority, product type, etc and is applicable for Islamic banking
institutions adopting both the foundation and advanced IRB approaches. Under
the foundation IRB approach, this requirement can be fulfilled by the existence
of a facility dimension, which reflects both obligor and transaction-specific
factors. For example, a rating dimension that reflects EL by incorporating both
obligor strength (PD) and loss severity (LGD) considerations would qualify.
Likewise a rating system that exclusively reflects LGD would also qualify.
Where a rating dimension reflects EL and does not separately quantify LGD, the
supervisory estimates of LGD must be used in the capital computation.
3.230 For Islamic banking institutions using the advanced approach, facility ratings
must reflect exclusively LGD. These ratings can reflect any and all factors that
can influence LGD including, but not limited to, the type of collateral, product,
industry, and purpose. Obligor characteristics may be included as LGD rating
criteria only to the extent that the characteristics are predictive of LGD. Islamic
banking institutions may alter the factors that influence facility grades across
segments of the portfolio as long as the factors satisfy the Bank that it further
improves the relevance and precision of estimates.
3.231 Islamic banking institutions using the SSC for exposures under the SF sub-
class are exempted from this two-dimensional requirement for such exposures.
Given the interdependence between obligor/transaction characteristics in SF,
Islamic banking institutions may satisfy the requirements under this heading
through a single rating dimension that reflects EL by incorporating both obligor
strength (PD) and loss severity (LGD) considerations. This exemption does not
apply to Islamic banking institutions using either the corporate foundation or
advanced approach for the SF subclass.
Standards for Retail Exposures

3.232 Rating systems for retail exposures must be oriented to both obligor and
transaction risk, and must capture all relevant obligor and transaction
characteristics. Islamic banking institutions must assign each exposure that falls
within the definition of retail into a particular pool. Islamic banking institutions
must demonstrate that this process provides for a meaningful differentiation of
risk, provides for a grouping of sufficiently homogenous exposures, and allows
for accurate and consistent estimations of loss characteristics at the pool level.
3.233 For each pool, Islamic banking institutions must estimate PD, LGD, and EAD.
Multiple pools may share identical PD, LGD and EAD estimates, even though
these are influenced by different risk drivers. At a minimum, the following risk
drivers should be considered when assigning exposures to a pool:
(i) Obligor risk characteristics (e.g. obligor type, demographics such as

age/occupation);
(ii) Transaction risk characteristics, including product and/or collateral types

(e.g. financing-to-value measures, seasoning, guarantees, and seniority
such as first vs. second charge). Islamic banking institutions must explicitly
address cross-collateral provisions where present141; and
(iii) Delinquency of exposure: Islamic banking institutions are expected to

separately identify exposures that are delinquent and those that are not.
3.234 Islamic banking institutions may also allocate or segment exposures to pools
based on scores or PD, LGD and EAD, provided requirements under paragraph
3.231 are met.
II. Rating Structure
141
In cases where single or multiple collateral(s) is used to secure multiple exposures, Islamic banking
institution must have a methodology of apportioning the collateral to the appropriate exposures
according to seniority and other factors. This should be reflected in assigning exposures to the
proper pools.

3.235 Islamic banking institutions must have a meaningful distribution of exposures

across grades with no excessive concentrations, on both its obligor-rating and
its facility-rating scales.
3.236 An obligor grade is defined as an assessment of obligor risk on the basis of a

specified and distinct set of rating criteria, from which estimates of PD are
derived. The grade definition must include both a description of the degree of
default risk typical for obligors assigned the grade and the criteria used to
distinguish that level of credit risk. Furthermore, + or - modifiers to
alphabetical or numerical grades will only qualify as distinct grades if the Islamic
banking institution has developed complete rating descriptions and criteria for
assignment, and separately quantifies PDs for these modified grades.
3.237 Islamic banking institutions must have a minimum of seven obligor grades for
non-defaulted obligors and one for those that have defaulted. However, the
Bank may require Islamic banking institutions to have a greater number of
obligor grades if the following characteristics apply:
(i) Financing activities are spread over obligors of diverse credit quality or
concentrated in a particular segment; or
(ii) Undue concentrations of obligors in specific grades which are not

supported by sufficient empirical evidence that the grades cover
reasonably narrow PD bands and that the default risk posed by all
obligors in a grade fall within that band142.
3.238 There is no specific minimum number of facility grades for Islamic banking
institutions using the advanced approach for estimating LGD. Islamic banking
institutions must have a sufficient number of facility grades to avoid grouping
facilities with widely varying LGDs into a single grade. The criteria used to
define facility grades must be grounded in empirical evidence.
142
Undue concentration also includes cases where bunching is evident in the lower grades from the
application of policy grades (e.g. in instances where exposures are moved to a certain obligor grade
as a result of the Islamic banking institutions internal policy trigger) or downgrades overtime.

3.239 Islamic banking institutions using the SSC for the SF asset classes must have
at least four internal grades for non-defaulted obligors, and one for defaulted
obligors. The requirements for SF exposures that qualify for the corporate
foundation and advanced approaches are the same as those for corporate
exposures.
3.240 For each pool identified, the Islamic banking institution must be able to provide
quantitative measures of loss characteristics (PD, LGD, and EAD) for that pool.
The level of differentiation must ensure that the number of exposures in a given
pool is sufficient to allow for meaningful quantification and validation of the loss
characteristics at the pool level. There must be a meaningful distribution of
obligors and exposures across pools. Undue concentration of total retail
exposure within a single pool must also be avoided.
III. Rating Criteria
3.241 Islamic banking institutions must have specific rating definitions, processes and
criteria for assigning exposures to grades within a rating system. Rating
definitions and criteria must be both plausible and intuitive and must result in a
meaningful differentiation of risks.
(i) The grade descriptions and criteria must be sufficiently detailed to allow
those responsible for assigning ratings to consistently assign the same
grade to obligors or facilities with similar risk. This consistency should exist
across lines of business, departments and geographic locations. If rating
criteria and procedures differ for different types of obligors or facilities,
Islamic banking institutions must monitor for possible inconsistency143, and
shall alter rating criteria to improve consistency, when appropriate.
143
This can be achieved through back-testing or by having a controlled, independent group to rate a
sample of the obligors.

(ii) Rating definitions should be written clearly and with sufficient detail to
allow third parties (such as internal audit or other independent functions) to
understand and replicate rating assignments and evaluate the
appropriateness of the grade/pool assignments.
(iii) The criteria must also be consistent with the Islamic banking institutions
internal financing standards and policies for handling troubled obligors and
facilities.
3.242 To ensure relevance, Islamic banking institutions are required to consistently

take into account available information that is material and current when
assigning ratings to obligors and facilities. As a general rule, the less
information an Islamic banking institution has, the more conservative the rating
assigned to a obligor and facility grades or pools (for retail exposures). While an
external rating can be used as primary factor in determining an internal rating
assignment, an Islamic banking institution must ensure that it takes into
consideration other relevant information.
3.243 Rating criteria and procedures must be periodically reviewed to ensure

relevance and resulting ratings are reflective of the current portfolio and reflect
external conditions.
SF Product Lines Within the Corporate Asset Class
3.244 Islamic banking institutions using the SSC for SF exposures must assign
exposures to internal rating grades based on internal criteria, systems and
processes and in compliance with minimum requirements outlined in the
framework. The internal rating grades must then be mapped into five
supervisory rating categories using the SSC provided in Appendix Va. The
mapping must be conducted for each sub-class of SF exposures.

3.245 The Bank recognises that the criteria Islamic banking institutions use to assign
exposures to internal grades will not perfectly align with the criteria that define
supervisory categories. However, Islamic banking institutions must demonstrate
that the mapping process has resulted in an alignment of grades which is
consistent with the preponderance of the characteristics in the respective
supervisory category. Special care must be taken to ensure that any overrides
other than internal criteria do not render the mapping process ineffective.
3.246 In cases where the internal grade definition results in an asset being slotted into
two possible supervisory categories, the exposures should be assigned to the
riskier category. For example, if the internal rating system had one rating that
described both the supervisory strong and satisfactory categories, the
exposures should be slotted into the satisfactory category.

IV. Rating Philosophy and Assignment Horizon
3.247 Islamic banking institutions whose ratings are used primarily for underwriting
purposes are likely to adopt a through-the-cycle (TTC) rating philosophy. TTC
systems usually assign ratings based on the likelihood of an obligors survival in
a specific macroeconomic stress scenario. Hence, TTC ratings will tend to
remain relatively constant as current macroeconomic conditions change over
time. On the other hand, Islamic banking institutions whose ratings are used for
pricing purposes or to track the current portfolio risk are more likely to adopt a
point-in-time (PIT) rating philosophy. PIT ratings will tend to adjust quickly to
changes in the economic environment. In practice, Islamic banking institutions
usually adopt a hybrid rating approach that embodies characteristics of both
the PIT and TTC rating philosophies. For capital computation purposes, Islamic
banking institutions are free to adopt the rating philosophy suitable to its own
business processes and strategy.
3.248 In any case, Islamic banking institutions must document and articulate to the
Bank the philosophy of the rating assignment for each of their rating systems. In
addition, Islamic banking institutions must document how the movements in the
economic cycle affect the migration of obligors across rating grades, and
conduct adequate stress tests on Islamic banking institutions portfolio as
specified under paragraphs 3.335 to 3.340. Islamic banking institutions must
understand the effects of ratings migration on capital requirement and ensure
that sufficient capital is maintained during all phases of the economic cycle.
3.249 Although the time horizon used in PD estimation is one year (as described in
paragraph 3.281), Islamic banking institutions must use a longer time horizon in
assigning ratings. An obligor credit rating must represent the Islamic banking
institutions assessment of the obligors ability and willingness to contractually
perform despite adverse economic conditions or the occurrence of unexpected
events. For example, Islamic banking institutions may base rating assignments
on specific, appropriate stress scenarios. Alternatively, Islamic banking

institutions may take into account obligor characteristics that are reflective of the
obligors vulnerability to adverse economic conditions or unexpected events,
without explicitly specifying a stress scenario. The range of economic conditions
that are considered when making assessments must be consistent with current
conditions that are most likely to occur over a business cycle within the
respective industry/geographic region.
3.250 Given the difficulties in forecasting future events and the influence the events
may have on obligors financial condition, Islamic banking institutions must take
a conservative view of projected information. Furthermore, where limited data
are available, Islamic banking institutions must adopt a conservative bias in its
analysis.
V. Use of Models in Rating Assignment
3.251 Credit scoring models and other mechanical procedures are permissible as the
primary or partial basis of rating assignments. However, these models and
procedures are generally developed based on a subset of available information.
Although mechanical rating procedures may sometimes avoid some of the
idiosyncratic errors made by rating systems in which human judgement plays a
large role, the mechanical use of limited information can also be a source of
rating errors. Appropriate and experienced judgment and oversight is necessary
to ensure that all relevant and material information, including those outside the
scope of the model, is taken into consideration.
3.252 The burden is on the Islamic banking institution to satisfy the Bank that a model
or procedure has good predictive power and that regulatory capital
requirements will not be distorted as a result of its use. The variables
representing inputs to the model must form a reasonable set of predictors. The
model must be accurate on average across the range of obligors or facilities to
which the Islamic banking institution is exposed and there must be no known
material biases.

3.253 Islamic banking institutions must have in place a process for vetting data inputs
into a statistical default or loss prediction model which includes an assessment
of the accuracy, completeness and appropriateness of the data specific to the
assignment of an approved rating. In addition, Islamic banking institutions must
demonstrate that the data used to build the model are representative of the
population of the Islamic banking institutions actual obligors or facilities.
3.254 When combining model results with experienced judgment, the Islamic banking
institution must take into account all relevant and material information not
considered by the model. There must be written guidance describing how
judgment and model results are to be combined.
3.255 Islamic banking institutions must establish procedures for the review of model-
based rating assignments. Such procedures should focus on identifying and
limiting errors associated with known model weaknesses and must also include
credible ongoing efforts to improve the models performance.
3.256 Islamic banking institutions must have a regular cycle of model validation that
includes monitoring of model performance and stability, review of model
relationships and testing of model outputs against outcomes.
VI. Documentation of Rating System Design
Standards for All Asset Classes
3.257 Islamic banking institutions must document in writing its rating systems design
and operational details, including, at a minimum, the following:
(i) a detailed outline of the theory, assumptions and/or mathematical and

empirical basis for the assignment of estimates to grades, individual
obligors, exposures, pools, parameters, variables and source of data
used in estimation;

(ii) an explanation on the treatment of historical data used, including any

limitations, during development to ensure depth, scope, reliability,
accuracy and completeness;
(iii) an articulation of any circumstances under which the rating system does
not work effectively;
(iv) evidence of compliance with the minimum standards, including

appropriate elaborations on portfolio differentiation, rating criteria,
responsibilities of parties that rate obligors and facilities, policies on
rating exceptions, parties that have authority to approve exceptions,
frequency of rating reviews, and management oversight of the rating
process;
(v) rationale for choice of specific definitions of default and loss used
internally and the assessment of consistency with the reference
definitions set out in paragraphs 3.287 to 3.298;
(vi) rationale for choice of internal rating criteria and the analyses
demonstrating that rating criteria and procedures are likely to result in
ratings that meaningfully differentiate risk;
(vii) history of major changes in the risk rating process that identifies changes
made to the risk rating process subsequent to the last review by the
Bank; and
(viii) the organisation of rating assignments, including the internal control

structure.
Additional Standards for Internal Models Approach for Equity
3.258 The documentation should address the following points:
(i) The rationale for the choice of internal modelling methodology and the
analysis that the model and modelling procedures adopted are likely to
result in meaningful estimates of the risk of equity holdings;
(ii) Where proxies and mapping are used, these are supported by rigorous
analysis performed by the Islamic banking institution that demonstrates

that all chosen proxies and mappings are sufficiently representative of the
risks of the equity holding to which they correspond. The documentation
should show, for instance, relevant and material factors (e.g. business
lines, balance sheet characteristics, geographic location, company age,
industry sector and sub-sector, operating characteristics) used in mapping
individual investments to proxies. In summary, Islamic banking institutions
should be able to prove that the proxies and mappings employed are:
(a) adequately comparable to the underlying holding or portfolio;
(b) derived based on relevant and material historical economic and

market conditions that are consistent to the underlying holdings or,
where inconsistent, the necessary adjustments have been made;
and
(c) robust estimates of the potential risk of the underlying holding.
VII. Use of External (Vendor) Models
3.259 As a general rule, there should not be a separate set of rules for the use of
models obtained from a third-party vendor (hereinafter referred to as external
models) nor should the external models be exempted from any of the
requirements under the Framework. The use of an external model obtained
from a third-party vendor that claims proprietary technology is not sufficient
justification for exemption from documentation or any other requirements for
adoption of internal rating systems. The burden is on the models vendor and
the Islamic banking institution to satisfy the Bank that the model and its use
comply with the requirements set out under the Framework. For example, the
Islamic banking institution needs to ensure that models and calibrations are
tested at least annually, and that necessary changes to the model are made
promptly if necessary. Over reliance on external models might be a threat to the
Islamic banking institutions ability to fulfil these requirements.

3.260 Islamic banking institutions must also document and be able to explain to the
Bank the role of external models and the extent to which they are used within
the institutions processes and how risk estimates are derived and validated.
Islamic banking institutions must be able to explain the underlying rationale for
choosing external models over internally developed models and data. The Bank
also expects Islamic banking institutions to explain alternative solutions that
were considered and how the results compare with the output of the external
models.
3.261 Islamic banking institutions must retain in-house expertise on the external
models for as long as the models are used for IRB purposes in order to be able
to demonstrate a thorough understanding of external models. This includes:
(i) Methodological underpinnings and the basic construction of the external

models, including an understanding of the models capabilities,
limitations and appropriateness for use in developing IRB risk estimates
for the Islamic banking institutions own portfolio of exposures;
(ii) Effect and significance of the proprietary elements in the external

models; and
(iii) Rationale behind any adjustment made to the external models input data
sets as well as output.
3.262 Islamic banking institutions must be able to demonstrate the appropriateness of

the external models used under the IRB approach. There must be clear
linkages and a reasonable degree of consistency and comparability between
the external model inputs, data sets and estimates and Islamic banking
institutions own portfolio characteristics and risk rating methodologies. Islamic
banking institutions must also ensure that external models are consistent with
the requirements for IRB, particularly in relation to data history, definitions of
default and validation.

Rating System Operation

I. Rating Coverage
3.263 Islamic banking institutions must ensure that each exposure is assigned to the
right rating system, particularly where multiple rating systems are being used. In
addition, Islamic banking institutions must demonstrate to the Bank that the
methodology for assigning exposures to different classes within the corporate
asset class is appropriate and consistent over time. In this regard,
comprehensive policies and procedures to facilitate differentiation between
each asset sub-class within the corporate asset class must be put in place.
3.264 For exposures in the corporate, sovereign and bank asset classes, each obligor
and eligible guarantor must be assigned an obligor rating and each exposure
must be associated with a facility rating as part of the financing approval
process. Similarly, for the retail IRB asset class, each exposure must be
assigned to a pool as part of the financing approval process.
3.265 For obligors belonging to a group, group support may be allowed in assigning
ratings subject to:
(i) Islamic banking institutions having in place policies regarding the

treatment of individual entities in a connected group, including the
circumstances under which the same rating may or may not be assigned
to some or all connected entities; and
(ii) Established governance and control procedures surrounding the

adjustments made to the ratings as a result of group support.
3.266 Where group support is taken into account in the assignment of ratings, Islamic
banking institutions should at a minimum consider the following factors144:
144
Group support that has been provided via verbal communication or letters of comfort will not be
recognised by the Bank.

(i) The obligor must be an integral part of the group; and
(ii) The support provider is able to demonstrate the willingness and capacity
to support the obligor. For example, a parent company may have a past
history of providing material support to the obligor in the form of financing
facilities or cash placements.
II. Integrity of the Rating Process
3.267 Rating assignments and periodic rating reviews must be completed or approved
by a party that does not directly stand to benefit from the extension of credit.
Independence of the rating assignment process can be achieved through a
range of practices. These operational practices must be documented in Islamic
banking institutions policies and procedure manuals. Credit policies and
underwriting procedures must contain and reinforce the independence of the
rating process.
3.268 Obligor ratings and facility ratings must be reviewed at least on an annual basis
and not later than six months after the publication of the obligors financial
statement. Certain exposures, especially higher risk obligors or problem
exposures must be subject to more frequent rating reviews. More frequent
reviews of high risk obligors or problem exposures may be satisfied not only
through a more frequent, full re-rating, but also through analysis of interim
financial statements, analysis of account behaviour and other measures. In
addition, a new rating review must be initiated when material information on the
obligor or facility comes to light.
3.269 Islamic banking institutions must have an established process to obtain and
update relevant and material information on the obligors financial condition and
other characteristics that affect assigned estimates of PD, LGD, and EAD. Upon
receipt of such information, Islamic banking institutions must have a mechanism

to update the obligors ratings in a timely manner. In addition, Islamic banking

institutions must also establish policies to address stale or outdated ratings.
3.270 The requirement to conduct an annual rating review may be exempted in the
following circumstances:
(i) Where the exposures are fully collateralised by cash or fixed deposits; and
(ii) Where the exposures are part of a portfolio which the Islamic banking
institution is downsizing due to the withdrawal from a business line or a
discontinued business relationship145, subject to these exposures being
immaterial.
145
Exposures arising from a discontinued business relationship shall be considered on a collective
basis to determine materiality.

3.271 Islamic banking institutions must review the loss characteristics and
delinquency status of each identified pool at least on an annual basis. There
should also be an ongoing review of the status of individual obligors within each
pool as a means of ensuring that exposures continue to be assigned to the
correct pool. This requirement may be satisfied by review of a representative
sample of exposures in the pool.
III. Overrides
3.272 For rating systems based on expert judgment, the circumstances in which
officers may override the outputs of the rating process, including how and to
what extent such overrides can be made and by whom, should be clearly
documented. For model-based ratings, Islamic banking institutions must have
guidelines and processes in place for monitoring cases where model ratings
have been overridden, including the review of variables that were excluded or
inputs that were altered. These guidelines must include identifying personnel
that are responsible for approving these overrides. The nature of the overrides
must be identified and tracked for performance. It should be demonstrated in
back-testing that overrides improve the overall predictive power of the rating
system. Islamic banking institutions should clearly specify a threshold
expressed in terms of a percentage of ratings overridden, above which an
automatic review of the rating model and process would be triggered.
IV. Integrity of Data Input
3.273 In the process of assigning ratings, Islamic banking institutions must have in
place a process for vetting data inputs which includes an assessment of the
accuracy, completeness and appropriateness of the data.

V. Data Maintenance
3.274 Islamic banking institutions must collect and store data on key obligor and
facility characteristics to provide effective support to its internal credit risk
measurement and management processes, to enable Islamic banking
institutions to meet the requirements set out under the Framework, and to serve
as a basis for regulatory reporting. These data should be sufficiently detailed to
allow retrospective reallocation of obligors and facilities to grades, for example if
the increasing sophistication of the internal rating system suggests that finer
segregation of portfolios can be achieved. The data collected on various
aspects of the internal ratings should also facilititate Pillar 3 reporting
requirements.
3.275 For Islamic banking assets, the data captured should allow Islamic banking
institutions to assess the performance of the model on the Islamic portfolio. For
example, data on the type of underlying Shariah contract is necessary to enable
an assessment of the loss characteristics of exposures under a particular
Shariah contract and establish if the exposures exhibit risk profiles that are
comparable to the portfolio as a whole.
3.276 Islamic banking institutions must maintain at least the following information:
(i) Rating histories on obligors and eligible guarantors, including the rating
since the obligor or guarantor was assigned an internal rating;
(ii) Dates the ratings were assigned;
(iii) Methodology and key data used to derive the rating;
(iv) Officer responsible for the most recent rating;
(v) Identity of obligors and facilities that default and the timing and
circumstances of such defaults;
(vi) Data used to derive PD estimates;
(vii) Ratings migration; and

(viii) Realised default rates associated with obligor grades in order to track the
predictive power of the obligor rating system.
3.277 Islamic banking institutions using the advanced IRB approach must also
maintain the following information:
(i) Complete history of data on the LGD and EAD estimates associated
with each facility;
(ii) Methodology and key data used to derive the estimate;
(iii) Officer responsible for the most recent rating;
(iv) Data used to derive LGD and EAD estimates; and
(v) The realised rates associated with each defaulted facility.
3.278 Islamic banking institutions that reflect the credit risk mitigating effects of
guarantees or credit derivatives through its LGD estimates must retain the
following information:
(i) Data on the LGD of the facility before and after evaluation of the effects of
the guarantee;
(ii) Information about the components of loss and recovery for each defaulted
exposure including:
(a) amounts and source of recoveries (e.g. collateral, liquidation

proceeds and guarantees); and
(b) timing of cash flows and administrative costs including date and
circumstances of default and exposures in arrears.
3.279 Islamic banking institutions using supervisory estimates (including SSC under
the foundation IRB approach) must also collect and retain the relevant data as
specified in paragraphs 3.276 and 3.277 to enable the institution to make a
comparison between the actual loss experience and the supervisory estimates
prescribed by the Bank. Examples of relevant data include data on loss and

recovery experience for corporate exposures under the foundation approach

and data on realised losses for banking institutions using the SSC for SF.
3.280 Islamic banking institutions must retain the following information:
(i) Data used in the process of allocating retail exposures to pools. This
includes the following:
(a) Data on obligor and transaction risk characteristics used either

directly or through the use of a model; and
(b) Data on delinquency;
(ii) Data on PD, LGD and EAD estimates associated with pools of retail
exposures;
(iii) For defaulted exposures:
(a) Data on the pools to which the retail exposure was assigned over the
year prior to default;
(b) Identity of obligors and facilities that default;
(c) Information about the components of loss and recovery for each
defaulted exposure, including information relating to amounts and
source of recoveries (e.g. collateral, liquidation process and
guarantees), timing of cash flows and administrative costs; and
(d) Data on realised EAD.
Risk Estimation
I. Overall Requirements for Estimation
3.281 This section addresses the broad standards for internal estimates of PD, LGD,
and EAD. Generally, all Islamic banking institutions using the IRB approaches
must estimate a PD for each internal obligor grade for corporate, sovereign and
bank exposures or for each pool in the case of retail exposures.

3.282 PD estimates must be a long-run average of one-year default rates for obligors
in a particular grade, or retail pool. Requirements specific to PD estimation are
provided in paragraphs 3.299 to 3.305. Islamic banking institutions adopting the
advanced approach must estimate an appropriate downturn LGD (as defined in
paragraphs 3.306 to 3.315) for each of its facilities or retail pools. Islamic
banking institutions on this approach must also estimate an appropriate long-
run default-weighted average EAD for each of its facilities. Requirements
specific to EAD estimation are outlined in paragraphs 3.316 to 3.321.
3.283 For corporate, sovereign and bank exposures, Islamic banking institutions that
do not meet the requirements for own estimates of EAD or LGD above must
use the estimates of these parameters determined by the Bank. Standards for
use of such estimates are set out in Part B.3.4.
3.284 Internal estimates of PD, LGD, and EAD must incorporate all relevant, material
and available data, information and methods. Islamic banking institutions may
utilise internal data and data from external sources (including pooled data).
Where internal or external data is used, Islamic banking institutions must
demonstrate that the estimates are representative of its long run experience.
3.285 Estimates must be based on empirical evidence, including own historical

experience, and not based purely on subjective or judgmental considerations.
Any changes in financing practice or the process for pursuing recoveries over
the observation period must be taken into account. Estimates must promptly
reflect the implications of technical advances and new data and other
information, as it becomes available. Islamic banking institutions must review
these estimates on a yearly basis or more frequently.
3.286 The population of exposures represented in the data used for estimation, and
financing standards in use when the data were generated, and other relevant

characteristics should be closely matched to or at least comparable with those

of the Islamic banking institutions exposures and standards. Islamic banking
institutions must also demonstrate that economic or market conditions that
underlie the data are relevant to current and foreseeable conditions. The
number of exposures in the sample and the data period used for quantification
must be sufficient to provide the Islamic banking institution with confidence in
the accuracy and robustness of its estimates. The estimation technique must
also perform well in out-of-sample tests.
3.287 In general, estimates of PDs, LGDs, and EADs are likely to involve
unpredictable errors. In order to avoid over-optimism, Islamic banking
institutions must add to its estimates a margin of conservatism related to the
likely range of errors. Where methods and data reliability are less satisfactory
and the likely range of errors is wide, the margin of conservatism must be
larger. The Bank may allow some flexibility in application of the required
standards for data that are collected prior to the date of implementation of the
Framework. However, in such cases, Islamic banking institutions must
demonstrate to the Bank that appropriate adjustments have been made to
achieve broad equivalence to the required standards. Data collected after the
date of implementation must conform to the minimum standards.
II. Definition of Default
3.288 A default is considered to have occurred when:
(i) The Islamic banking institution considers that an obligor is unlikely to

repay in full its credit obligations to the banking group, without recourse
by the Islamic banking institution to actions such as realising security; or
(ii) The obligor has breached its contractual repayment schedule and is past
due for more than 90 days on any material credit obligation to the banking
group, or as provided below:
(a) Under national discretion, the Bank has elected to apply the following:

i. for financing governed under the Hire-Purchase Act 1967, a

default occurs when the obligor is past due for more than 120
days; and
ii. for RRE financing, a default occurs when the obligor is past due
for more than 180 days.
(b) For securities, a default occurs immediately upon breach of

contractual repayment schedule.
(c) For overdrafts, a default occurs when the obligor has breached the
approved limits (consecutively) for more than 90 days.
(d) For obligations with repayments schedule of three months or longer,

a default occurs immediately upon breach of contractual repayment
schedule.
Where Islamic banking institutions have internally adopted a more

stringent definition than that prescribed above, the more stringent
definition must be applied for purposes of risk estimation under the IRB
approach.
3.289 Indicative elements of unlikeliness to pay include but are not limited to the
following:
(i) Islamic banking institution is uncertain about the collectability of a credit

obligation which has already been recognised as revenue and then treats
the uncollectible amount as an expense.
(ii) Islamic banking institution makes a charge off or an account-specific

provision or impairment resulting from a significant decline in credit
quality subsequent to taking on the exposure (impairment provisions on
equity exposures set aside for price risk do not signal default).
(iii) Islamic banking institution sells the credit obligation at a material credit
related economic loss. (For securities financing, the facility should not be
recorded as a default if the collateral is liquidated not due to the
deterioration of an obligors creditworthiness but to restore an agreed

collateral coverage ratio given a fall in the value of collateral and this has
been disclosed to the customer in writing at the granting of this facility).
(iv) Islamic banking institution consents to a restructuring of the credit

obligation where this is likely to result in a diminished financial obligation
caused by the material forgiveness, or postponement of principal, profit
or (where relevant) fees146. This constitutes a granting of a concession
that the Islamic banking institution would not otherwise consider.
(v) Default of a related obligor. Islamic banking institutions must review all
related obligors in the same group to determine if that default is an
indication of unlikeliness to pay by any other related obligor. Islamic
banking institutions must judge the degree of economic interdependence
between the obligor and its related entities.
(vi) Acceleration of an obligation.
(vii) An obligor is in significant financial difficulty. An indication could be a

significant downgrade of an obligors credit rating.
(viii) Default by the obligor on credit obligations to other financial creditors,

e.g. other Islamic banking institutions or bondholders.
(ix) Islamic banking institution has filed for the obligors bankruptcy or a
similar order in respect of the obligors credit obligation to the banking
group.
(x) The obligor has sought or has been placed in bankruptcy or similar
protection where this would avoid or delay repayment of the credit
obligation to the banking group.
3.290 The default definition under paragraphs 3.287 and 3.288 also applies to
Mushrakah and Mudrabah contracts for capital computation purposes147.
146
Including in the case of equity holdings assessed under a PD/LGD approach, such distressed
restructuring of the equity itself.
147
Islamic banking institutions are required to monitor and maintain data on the default rate and default
events under Mushrakah and Mudrabah contracts including the occurrence of negligence and
misconduct by the Mudrib for the Banks supervisory assessment purposes moving forward. In

However, it should be clarified that pure negligence or misconduct on the part of

the partner acting as an agent or Mudrib in discharging their roles and
responsibilities in a Mushrakah and Mudrabah contract with Islamic banking
institutions (i.e. capital provider or rabbumal), on its own, will not automatically
constitute a default for capital computation purposes.
Default at Facility Level
3.291 For retail exposures, Islamic banking institutions are allowed to apply the
definition of default at facility level, rather than at obligor level. For example, an
obligor might default on a credit card obligation and not on other retail
obligations. However, Islamic banking institutions should be vigilant and
consider an obligors cross-default of facilities if a default on one facility is
representative of his incapacity to fulfil other obligations.
3.292 Islamic banking institutions must record actual defaults on IRB exposure
classes using this reference definition. Islamic banking institutions must also
use the reference definition for its estimation of PDs, and (where relevant)
LGDs and EADs. In arriving at these estimations, Islamic banking institutions
may use available external data which may not be fully consistent with the
definition of default subject to the requirements set out in paragraph 3.300.
However, in such cases, Islamic banking institutions must demonstrate to the
Bank that appropriate adjustments to the data have been made to achieve
broad equivalence with the reference definition. This same condition would
apply to any internal data used prior to the implementation of the Framework.
Internal data (including that pooled by Islamic banking institutions) used in such
estimates after the date of implementation of the Framework must be consistent
with the reference definition.
addition, Islamic banking institutions are encouraged to establish and adopt stringent criteria for the
definition of misconduct, negligence or breach of contracted terms.

3.293 If an Islamic banking institution considers that a previously defaulted exposure

is no longer in default, the PD and LGD for that exposure must be rated as if it
is a non-defaulted facility. Should the reference definition subsequently be
triggered, a second default would be deemed to have occurred.
Administrative Default
3.294 Administrative defaults include cases where exposures become overdue

because of oversight on the part of the obligor and/or the Islamic banking
institution. Instances of administrative defaults may be excluded from the
historical default count, subject to appropriate policies and procedures
established by the Islamic banking institution to evaluate and approve such
cases.
Re-ageing
3.295 Re-ageing is a process by which Islamic banking institutions adjust the

delinquency status of exposures based on subsequent repayment of arrears or
restructuring. This is done when all or some of the arrears under the original
repayment schedule have been paid off or repackaged into a new repayment
structure.
3.296 Islamic banking institutions must have clearly articulated and documented
policies in respect of the counting of days past due, in particular respect of the
re-ageing of the facilities and the granting of extension, deferrals, renewals and
rewrites to existing accounts. At a minimum, the re-ageing policy must include:
(i) appropriate approving authority and reporting requirements;
(ii) minimum age of a facility before it is eligible for re-ageing;
(iii) delinquency levels of facilities that are eligible for re-ageing;
(iv) maximum number of re-ageing per facility; and
(v) reassessment of the obligors capacity to repay.

3.297 Re-ageing is allowed for both defaulted and delinquent exposures. However,
the exposure shall not be immediately re-aged if the restructuring causes a
diminished financial obligation or material economic loss, or it is assessed that
the obligor does not have the capacity to repay under the new repayment
structure. For defaulted exposures, re-ageing is permitted after the obligation
has been serviced promptly for six months consecutively. For exposures with
repayments scheduled at three months or longer, re-aging is only permitted
after the obligation has been serviced promptly for two consecutive payments.

More than One Default Count in a Year
3.298 For quantification purposes, only the first of two or more defaults occurring
within twelve months will be counted as default. Hence, for PD measurement,
only one default event should be recorded. Accordingly, for advanced IRB, the
EAD measure should be defined with reference to the first default event, and
the LGD measure should express the economic loss in reference to the first
default event, but including losses incurred at any time after this default event
until the exposure is reduced to zero or cured.
Treatment of Overdrafts
3.299 Overdrafts must be subject to a credit limit and brought to the knowledge of the
obligor. Breaches of the limit must be monitored. If the account was not brought
under the limit after 90 to 180 days (subject to the applicable past-due trigger), it
would be considered as defaulted. Non-authorised overdrafts will be associated
with a zero limit for IRB purposes. Thus, days past due commence once any
credit is granted to an unauthorised customer; if such credit was not repaid
within 90 to 180 days, the exposure would be considered in default. Rigorous
internal policies must be in place to assess the creditworthiness of customers
who are offered overdraft accounts.
III. Requirements Specific to PD Estimation
3.300 Islamic banking institutions must use information and techniques that take
appropriate account of its long-run experience when estimating the average PD
for each rating grade. Islamic banking institutions may use one or more of the
three specific techniques set out below: internal default experience, mapping to
external data, and statistical default models.
3.301 Islamic banking institutions may have a primary technique and use others as a
point of comparison and to support potential adjustments. The mechanical

application of a technique without supporting analysis would not be deemed as

sufficient by the Bank. Islamic banking institutions must recognise the
importance of experienced judgements in combining results of techniques and
making adjustments for limitations of techniques and information.
Internal Default Experience
i) Islamic banking institutions may use data on internal default experience

for the estimation of PD. Islamic banking institutions must demonstrate in
its analysis that the estimates are reflective of underwriting standards
and highlight the differences between the rating system that generated
the data and the current rating system, if any. Where only limited data
are available, or where underwriting standards or rating systems have
changed, the Islamic banking institution must add a greater margin of
conservatism in its estimate of PD. The use of pooled data across
institutions may also be recognised. In such cases, Islamic banking
institutions must demonstrate that the internal rating systems and criteria
of other Islamic banking institutions in the pool are comparable with its
own.
Mapping to External Data
ii) Islamic banking institutions may associate or map internal grades to the
scale used by an external credit assessment institution or similar
institution and then attribute the default rate observed for the external
institutions grades to the Islamic banking institutions grades. Mappings
must be based on a comparison of internal rating criteria to the criteria
used by the external institution and on a comparison of the internal and
external ratings of any common obligors. Biases or inconsistencies in the
mapping approach or underlying data must be avoided. The external
institutions criteria underlying the data used for quantification must be
oriented to the risk of the obligor and not reflect transaction
characteristics. Islamic banking institutions analysis must include a
comparison of the default definitions used, subject to the requirements in
paragraphs 3.287 to 3.293. The basis for the mapping must be
documented.

Statistical Default Models
iii) Islamic banking institutions are allowed to use a simple average of

default-probability estimates for individual obligors in a given grade,
where such estimates are drawn from statistical default prediction
models. Islamic banking institutions use of default probability models for
this purpose must meet the standards specified in paragraphs 3.250 to
3.255.
3.302 Irrespective of whether an Islamic banking institution is using external, internal,

or pooled data sources, or a combination of the three, for its PD estimation, the
length of the underlying historical observation period used must be at least five
years from at least one source (except during the transition period). If the
available observation period spans a longer period for any source, and this data
is relevant and material, the longer period must be used.
3.303 Given the bank-specific basis of assigning exposures to pools, Islamic banking
institutions must regard internal data as the primary source of information for
estimating loss characteristics. Islamic banking institutions are permitted to use
external data or statistical models for quantification provided a strong link can
be demonstrated between (a) the Islamic banking institutions process of
assigning exposures to a pool and the process used by the external data
source, and (b) between its internal risk profile and the composition of the
external data. In all cases, Islamic banking institutions must use all relevant and
material data sources as points of comparison.
3.304 One method for deriving long-run average estimates of PD and default-
weighted average loss rates given default (as defined in paragraphs 3.306) for
retail would be based on an estimate of the expected long-run loss rate. The
following may be used:

i) an appropriate PD estimate to infer the long-run default-weighted

average loss rate given default; or
ii) a long-run default-weighted average loss rate given default to infer the
appropriate PD.
In either case, it is important to recognise that the LGD used for the IRB capital
calculation cannot be less than the long-run default-weighted average loss rate
given default and must be consistent with the concepts defined in paragraphs
3.306 to 3.313 and 3.315.
3.305 Irrespective of whether Islamic banking institutions are using external, internal,
pooled data sources, or a combination of the three, for estimation of loss
characteristics, the length of the underlying historical observation period used
must be at least five years (except during the transition period). If the available
observation spans a longer period for any source, and these data are relevant,
this longer period must be used. Islamic banking institutions need not give equal
importance to historical data if it can convince the Bank that more recent data
are a better predictor of loss rates.
3.306 Seasoning148 can be quite material for some long-term retail exposures
characterised by its effects that peak several years after origination. Islamic
banking institutions should anticipate the implications of rapid exposure growth
and take steps to ensure that estimation techniques are accurate, and that
current capital level and earnings and funding prospects are adequate to cover
future capital needs. To minimise volatility in capital positions arising from short-
term PD horizons, all Islamic banking institutions are required to adjust PD
estimates upward in a consistent manner to capture the potential seasoning
effects. Subject to the Banks approval, Islamic banking institutions may
disregard such seasoning adjustments if it can be proven that such adjustments
are immaterial and do not result in an underestimation of risk for the particular
portfolio.
148
Seasoning is defined as the potential change of risk parameters over the life of a credit exposure.

IV. Requirements Specific to Own-LGD Estimates Under the Advanced

Approach
3.307 Islamic banking institutions must estimate an LGD for each facility that aims to
reflect economic downturn conditions where necessary to prevent the possibility
of underestimation of capital required during times of higher defaults and
losses. This downturn LGD must not be less than the long-run default-weighted
average loss rate given default calculated based on the average economic loss
of all observed default within the data source for that type of facility. In addition,
Islamic banking institutions must take into account the potential for the LGD of
the facility to be higher than the default-weighted average during a period when
credit losses are substantially higher than average. For certain types of
exposures, loss severities may not exhibit such cyclical variability and LGD
estimates may not differ materially (or possibly at all) from the long-run default-
weighted average. However, for other exposures, this cyclical variability in loss
severities may be important and Islamic banking institutions will need to
incorporate it into their LGD estimates. For this purpose, Islamic banking
institutions may use averages of loss severities observed during periods of high
credit losses, forecasts based on appropriately conservative assumptions, or
other similar methods. Appropriate estimates of LGD during periods of high
credit losses might be formed using either internal and/or external data.
3.308 As a general rule, consecutive or prolonged periods of negative GDP growth

and high unemployment rates may be indicative of an economic downturn for
Islamic banking institutions with a well-diversified wholesale portfolio. Islamic
banking institutions should also be aware of periods in which observed historical
default rates have been elevated for a portfolio of exposures that is
representative of the current portfolio. For exposures where common risk
drivers (e.g. collateral values) influence the default rates and the recovery rates,

Islamic banking institutions should refer to periods where those drivers are
expected to be distressed when estimating downturn LGD149.
3.309 In its analysis, Islamic banking institutions must also consider the extent of any
dependence between the risk of the obligor and that of the collateral or
collateral provider. In cases where there is a significant degree of dependence,
the issue must be addressed in a conservative manner. Any currency mismatch
between the underlying obligation and the collateral must also be considered
and treated conservatively in the Islamic banking institutions assessment of
LGD.
3.310 LGD estimates must be based on historical recovery rates and, when
applicable, must not solely be predicated on the collaterals estimated market
value. This requirement is premised on the potential inability of Islamic banking
institutions to gain both control of the collateral and to liquidate it expeditiously.
To the extent that LGD estimates take into account the existence of collateral,
Islamic banking institutions must establish internal requirements for collateral
management, operational procedures, assurance of legal certainty and effective
risk management as described in Part B.3.4.
3.311 Recognising the principle that realised losses can at times systematically
exceed expected levels, the LGD assigned to a defaulted asset should reflect
the possibility that Islamic banking institutions would have to recognise
additional, unexpected losses during the recovery period. For each defaulted
asset, Islamic banking institutions must also construct its best estimate of the
EL on that asset based on current economic circumstances and the facility
status. The amount, if any, by which the LGD on a defaulted asset exceeds the
best estimate of EL on the asset represents the capital requirement for that
asset, and should be set by the Islamic banking institution on a risk-sensitive
basis in accordance with paragraphs 3.144 to 3.147 and 3.157 to 3.161. In
149
The Bank will continue to monitor and review the development of appropriate approaches to
estimate downturn LGD by Islamic banking institutions.

general, the best estimate of EL on a defaulted asset should not be less than
the sum of individual impairment provisions and partial charge-offs on that
asset. Any deviation from this will attract the Banks scrutiny and must be
justified by the Islamic banking institution.
V. Definition of Loss for All Asset Classes

3.312 The definition of loss used in estimating LGD is economic loss. When
measuring economic loss, all relevant factors should be taken into account. This
must include material discount effects and material direct and indirect costs
associated with collecting on the exposure. Islamic banking institutions must not
simply measure the loss recorded in accounting records but must be able to
compare accounting and economic losses. Internal workout and collection
expertise would significantly influence recovery rates and must be reflected in
the LGD estimates, but adjustments to estimates for such expertise must be on
a conservative basis until sufficient internal empirical evidence of the impact is
available.
Rate for Discounting Recoveries
3.313 Most approaches to quantifying LGDs either implicitly or explicitly involve the
discounting of streams of recoveries received after a facility goes into default in
order to compare the net present value (NPV) of recovery streams as of a
default date with a measure of exposure at default. For the estimation of LGDs,
measures of recovery rates should reflect the costs of holding defaulted assets
over the workout period, including an appropriate risk premium. When recovery
streams are uncertain and involve risk that cannot be diversified away, NPV
calculations must reflect the time value of money and a risk premium
appropriate to the undiversifiable risk. In establishing appropriate risk premiums
for the estimation of LGDs consistent with economic downturn conditions,
Islamic banking institutions should focus on the uncertainties in recovery cash
flows associated with defaults that arise during the economic downturn
conditions. When there is no uncertainty in recovery streams (e.g., recoveries

derived from cash collateral), NPV calculations need only reflect the time value
of money, and a risk-free discount rate is appropriate. These measures of
recovery rates can be computed in several ways, for example:
(i) By discounting the stream of recoveries and the stream of workout costs
by a risk adjusted discount rate which is the sum of the risk free rate and a
spread appropriate for the risk of the recovery and cost cash flows; or
(ii) By converting the stream of recoveries and the stream of workout costs to
certainty equivalent cash flows and discounting these by the risk free rate;
or
(iii) By a combination of adjustments to the discount rate, the stream of

recoveries and the stream of workout costs that are consistent with the
principle of reflecting the costs of holding defaulted assets over the
workout period150 ; or
(iv) Other methods for recovery estimation/LGD estimates include observed

market value of defaulted bonds, implied value of defaulted bonds, implied
LGD based on EL and PD.
3.314 Islamic banking institutions may use cost of capital151 as a proxy for the funding
cost of defaulted assets, which itself is not observable in the absence of a liquid
market for such assets. Different discount rates per asset type would not be
required if the Islamic banking institution uses the cost of capital, as the cost of
capital is a sufficiently conservative measure. If an Islamic banking institution
decides against using the cost of capital, the Bank may be satisfied if it uses a
discount rate higher than the contractual or effective profit rate, for exposures
other than those that are secured by low risk collateral (for such lower risk
exposures, a lower discount rate may be used, e.g. the risk free rate for cash-
collateralised exposures is acceptable).
150
Islamic banking institutions using the effective profit rate in accordance with FRS 139 as the
discount rate must adjust the stream of net recoveries in a manner consistent with this principle.
151
Islamic banking institutions may use the weighted average cost of capital (WACC) incurred for
funding defaulted assets provided that the Islamic banking institution is able to demonstrate to the
Bank that the method of computation and the inputs used to derive the WACC are robust.

Additional Standards for Corporate, Sovereign, and Bank Exposures
3.315 Estimates of LGD must be based on a minimum data observation period that
should ideally cover at least one complete economic cycle but must in any case
be no shorter than a period of seven years for at least one source. If the
available observation period spans a longer period for any source, and the data
are relevant, this longer period must be used.
Additional Standards for Retail Exposures
3.316 The minimum data observation period for LGD estimates for retail exposures is
five years (except during the transition period). The less data an Islamic banking
institution has, the more conservative it must be in its estimation. It is not
necessary to give equal importance to historic data if it can be demonstrated
that more recent data are a better predictor of loss rates.
VI. Requirements Specific to Own-EAD Estimates Under the Advanced

Approach
3.317 EAD for an on-balance sheet or off-balance sheet item is defined as the
expected gross exposure of the facility upon default of the obligor. For on-
balance sheet items, Islamic banking institution must estimate EAD at no less
than the current drawn amount, subject to recognising the effects of on-balance
sheet netting as specified in the foundation approach. The minimum
requirements for the recognition of netting are the same as those under the
foundation approach. The additional minimum requirements for internal
estimation of EAD under the advanced approach, therefore, focus on the
estimation of EAD for off-balance sheet items (excluding derivatives). Islamic
banking institutions under the advanced IRB must have established procedures
in place for the estimation of EAD for off-balance sheet items. These
procedures must specify the estimates of EAD used for each facility type.
Internal estimates of EAD should reflect the possibility of additional drawings by

the obligor up to and after the time a default event is triggered. Where estimates
of EAD differ by facility type, the delineation of these facilities must be clear and
unambiguous.
3.318 Islamic banking institutions under the advanced approach must assign an
estimate of EAD for each facility. It must be an estimate of the long-run default-
weighted average EAD for similar facilities and obligors over a sufficiently long
period of time, but with a margin of conservatism appropriate to the likely range
of errors in the estimate. If a positive correlation can reasonably be expected
between the default frequency and the magnitude of EAD, the EAD estimate
must incorporate a larger margin of conservatism. Moreover, for exposures for
which EAD estimates are volatile over the economic cycle, Islamic banking
institutions must use EAD estimates that are appropriate for an economic
downturn, if these are more conservative than the long-run average. For Islamic
banking institutions that have been able to develop their own EAD models, this
could be achieved by considering the cyclical nature, if any, of the drivers of
such models. Others may have sufficient internal data to examine the impact of
previous recession(s). However, some Islamic banking institutions may only
have the option of making conservative use of external data.
3.319 The criteria by which estimates of EAD are derived must be plausible and
intuitive, and represent what the Islamic banking institution believes are the
material drivers of EAD. The choices must be supported by credible internal
analysis. Islamic banking institutions must be able to provide a breakdown of its
EAD experience by the factors it sees as the drivers of EAD. All relevant and
material information must be used in the derivation of EAD estimates. Across
facility types, Islamic banking institutions must review its estimates of EAD
when material new information comes to light and at least on an annual basis.
3.320 Due consideration must be given to specific policies and strategies adopted in
respect of account monitoring and payment processing. Islamic banking

institutions must consider its ability and willingness to prevent further drawings
in circumstances short of payment default, such as covenant violations or other
technical default events. Adequate systems and procedures should be in place
to monitor facility amounts, current outstanding against committed lines and
changes in outstanding per obligor and per grade. Outstanding balances must
be monitored on a daily basis.
Additional Standards for Corporate, Sovereign, and Bank Exposures
3.321 Estimates of EAD must be based on a time period that ideally should cover a
complete economic cycle but in any case be no shorter than a period of seven
years. If the available observation period spans a longer period for any source,
and the data are relevant, this longer period should be used. EAD estimates
must be calculated using a default-weighted average and not on a time-
weighted average.

Additional Standards for Retail Exposures
3.322 The minimum data observation period for EAD estimates for retail exposures is
five years. The less data an Islamic banking institution has available, the more
conservative estimates should be used. Equal importance given to historical
data is not necessary if the more recent data is demonstrated as a better
predictor of draw downs.
VII. Requirements for Assessing Effect of Guarantees
Standards for Corporate, Sovereign, and Bank Exposures where Own Estimates of
LGD are used and Standards for Retail Exposures
Guarantees
3.323 When an Islamic banking institution uses its own estimates of LGD, it may
reflect the risk-mitigating effect of guarantees through an adjustment to PD or
LGD estimates. The option to adjust LGDs is available only to those Islamic
banking institutions that have been approved to use their own internal estimates
of LGD. For retail exposures, where guarantees exist, either in support of an
individual obligation or a pool of exposures, an Islamic banking institution may
reflect the risk-reducing effect either through its estimates of PD or LGD,
provided this is done consistently. In adopting one or the other technique, an
Islamic banking institution must adopt a consistent approach, both across types
of guarantees and over time.
3.324 In all cases, both the obligor and all recognised guarantors must be assigned an
obligor rating at the outset and on an ongoing basis. Islamic banking institutions
must follow all minimum requirements set out in this document for assigning
obligor ratings to guarantors, including the regular monitoring of the guarantors
condition and ability and willingness to honour its obligations. Consistent with
the requirements in paragraphs 3.275 to 3.277, Islamic banking institutions
must retain all relevant information on the obligor on a standalone basis
excluding the guarantee and the guarantor. In the case of retail guarantees,

these requirements also apply to the assignment of an exposure to a pool, and

the estimation of PD.
3.325 In no case can an Islamic banking institution assign the guaranteed exposure
an adjusted PD or LGD such that the adjusted risk weight would be lower than
that of a comparable, direct exposure to the guarantor. The rating processes
must not consider possible favourable effects of lower correlation between
default events for the obligor and guarantor, for purposes of regulatory minimum
capital requirements. As such, the adjusted risk weight must not reflect the risk
mitigation of double default.
Eligible Guarantors and Guarantees
3.326 There are no restrictions on the types of eligible guarantors. Islamic banking
institutions must, however, have clear internal criteria for the types of
guarantors recognised for regulatory capital purposes.
3.327 The guarantee must be evidenced in writing, non-cancellable by the guarantor,

in force until the debt is satisfied in full (to the extent of the amount and tenor of
the guarantee) and legally enforceable against the guarantor in a jurisdiction
where the guarantor has assets to attach to the guarantee and where the
judgment against the guarantor can be enforced. In contrast to the foundation
approach to corporate, bank, and sovereign exposures, conditional
guarantees152 may be recognised under certain conditions. Specifically, the
onus falls on the Islamic banking institution to demonstrate that the rating
assignment criteria adequately address any potential reduction in the risk
mitigation effect.
Adjustment Criteria
3.328 An Islamic banking institution must have clearly specified criteria for adjusting
obligor grades or LGD estimates (or in the case of retail and eligible purchased
152
Guarantees prescribing conditions under which the guarantor may not be obliged to perform.

receivables, the process of allocating exposures to pools) to reflect the impact

of guarantees for regulatory capital purposes. These criteria must be as detailed
as the criteria for assigning exposures to grades under paragraphs 3.240 to
3.242, and must follow all minimum requirements for assigning obligor or facility
ratings in the Framework.
3.329 The criteria must be plausible and intuitive, and must address the guarantors
ability and willingness to perform under the guarantee. The criteria must also
address the likely timing of any payments and the degree to which the
guarantors ability to perform under the guarantee is correlated with the obligors
ability to repay. The criteria must also consider the extent to which residual risk
to the obligor remains, for example a currency mismatch between the guarantee
and the underlying exposure.
3.330 In adjusting obligor grades or LGD estimates (or in the case of retail and eligible
purchased receivables, the process of allocating exposures to pools), all
relevant available information must be taken into account.
VIII. Requirements Specific to PD and LGD (or EL) Estimation for Purchased
Receivables
3.331 The following minimum requirements for risk quantification must be satisfied for
any purchased receivables (corporate or retail) making use of the top-down
treatment of default risk and/or the IRB treatments of dilution risk.
3.332 The purchasing Islamic banking institution will be required to group the
receivables into sufficiently homogeneous pools so that accurate and consistent
estimates of PD and LGD (or EL) for default losses and EL estimates of dilution
losses can be determined. In general, the risk bucketing process will reflect the
sellers underwriting practices and the heterogeneity of its customers. In
addition, the methods and data for estimating PD, LGD, and EL must comply
with the existing risk quantification standards for retail exposures.

(i) In particular, quantification should reflect all information available to the

purchasing Islamic banking institution regarding the quality of the
underlying receivables, including data for similar pools provided by the
seller, by the purchasing Islamic banking institution, or by external
sources.
(ii) The purchasing Islamic banking institution must determine whether the
data provided by the seller are consistent with expectations agreed upon
by both parties concerning, for example, the type, volume and ongoing
quality of receivables purchased. Where this is not the case, the
purchasing Islamic banking institution is expected to obtain and rely upon
more relevant data.
Minimum Operational Requirements for Purchased Receivables
3.333 An Islamic banking institution purchasing receivables has to demonstrate its

confidence that current and future advances can be repaid from the liquidation
of (or collections against) the receivables pool. To qualify for the top-down
treatment of default risk, the receivable pool and overall financing relationship
should be closely monitored and controlled. Specifically, an Islamic banking
institution must demonstrate the following:
(i) Legal Certainty: The structure of the facility must ensure that under all
foreseeable circumstances, Islamic banking institutions have effective
ownership and control of the cash remittances from the receivables,
including incidences of seller or servicer distress and bankruptcy. When
the receivables obligor makes payments directly to a seller or servicer,
Islamic banking institutions must verify regularly that payments are
forwarded completely and within the contractually agreed terms.
Ownership over the receivables and cash receipts should also be
protected against bankruptcy stays or legal challenges that could
materially delay the Islamic banking institutions ability to liquidate/assign
the receivables or retain control over cash receipts.

(ii) Effective Monitoring Systems: An Islamic banking institution must ensure

that:
(a) It assesses and reviews the default risk correlation of the receivables
and the financial conditions of both the seller and servicer;
(b) Internal policies and procedures are in place to ensure that the
receivables, seller and servicer are of high quality. This includes the
assignment of an internal risk rating for each seller and servicer;
(c) Clear and effective policies and procedures are in place to assess the
eligibility of the seller and servicer. Periodic reviews of seller and
servicer must be conducted either by the Islamic banking institution or
its agent in order to:
i. verify the accuracy of reports from the seller/servicer;
ii. detect fraud or operational weaknesses; and
iii. verify the quality of the sellers credit policies and servicers
collection policies and procedures.
Findings of these reviews must be well documented;
(d) It has the ability to assess the characteristics and performance of the
receivables in the pool, including over-advances, history of the
sellers arrears, bad debts, bad debt allowances, payment terms, and
potential contra accounts;
(e) Effective policies and procedures are in place to monitor on an

aggregate basis concentrations to a single- receivables obligor both
within and across receivables pools; and
(f) Sufficiently detailed reports on ageing and dilutions of the receivables

are received on timely basis to:
i. ensure compliance with the Islamic banking institutions eligibility

criteria and policies on advances governing purchased
receivables; and

ii. facilitate effective monitoring and confirmation of the sellers

terms of sale (e.g. invoice date ageing) and dilution.
(iii) Effective Work-Out Systems: An effective programme requires systems

and procedures not only for detecting deterioration in the sellers financial
condition and deterioration in the quality of the receivables at an early
stage, but also for addressing emerging problems pro-actively. This
relates to the need for:
(a) Clear and effective policies, procedures, and information systems to

monitor compliance with all contractual terms of the facility
(including covenants, advancing formulas, concentration limits,
early amortisation triggers, etc.) and internal policies governing
advance rates and receivables eligibility. The systems established
should be able to track covenant violations and waivers as well as
exceptions to established policies and procedures.
(b) Limiting inappropriate draw downs, including having in place

effective policies and procedures for detecting, approving,
monitoring, and correcting over-advances; and
(c) Effective policies and procedures to deal with sellers or servicers

who have been observed to be in distress and/or where the quality
of receivable pools has deteriorated. These include, but are not
limited to:
i. early termination triggers in revolving facilities and other

protective covenants;
ii. a structured and effective approach to deal with covenant

violations; and
iii. clear and effective policies and procedures for initiating legal
actions and dealing with problem receivables.
(iv) Effective Systems for Controlling Collateral, Credit Availability, and Cash:
Islamic banking institutions must have clear and effective policies and

procedures governing the control of receivables, credit, and cash. In

particular:
(a) Written internal policies that specify all material elements of the
receivables purchase programme, including the advancing rates,
eligible collateral, necessary documentation, concentration limits,
and how cash receipts are to be handled. These elements should
take appropriate account of all relevant and material factors,
including the sellers/servicers financial condition, risk
concentrations, and trends in the quality of the receivables and the
sellers customer base.
(b) Internal systems must ensure that funds are advanced only against
specified supporting collateral and documentation (such as servicer
attestations, invoices, shipping documents, etc.)
(v) Compliance with Internal Policies and Procedures: Given the reliance on
monitoring and control systems to limit credit risk, Islamic banking
institutions should have an effective internal process for assessing
compliance with all critical policies and procedures, including:
(a) regular internal and/or external audits of all critical phases of the
Islamic banking institutions receivables purchase programme; and
(b) verification of the separation of duties (i) between the assessment

of the seller/servicer and the assessment of the receivables obligor
and (ii) between the assessment of the seller/servicer and the field
audit of the seller/servicer.
An effective internal process for assessing compliance with all critical

policies and procedures should also include evaluations of back office
operations, with particular focus on qualifications and experience of staff,
staffing levels, and supporting systems.
IX. Requirements Specific to Internal Models Approach for Equity

Capital Charge and Risk Quantification
3.334 The following minimum quantitative standards apply for the purpose of
calculating minimum capital charges under the internal models approach for
equity:
(i) The capital charge is equivalent to the potential loss on the institutions
equity portfolio arising from an assumed instantaneous shock equivalent to
the 99th percentile, one-tailed confidence interval of the difference between
quarterly returns and an appropriate risk-free rate computed over a long-
term sample period.
(ii) The estimated losses should be robust to adverse market movements

relevant to the long-term risk profile of the institutions specific holdings.
The data used to represent return distributions should reflect the longest
sample period for which data are available and be meaningful in
representing the risk profile of the specific equity holdings. The data used
should be sufficient to provide conservative, statistically reliable and robust
loss estimates that are objectively determined and not based purely on
subjective or judgmental considerations. Islamic banking institutions must
demonstrate to the Bank that the shock employed provides a
conservative estimate of potential losses over a relevant long-term market
or business cycle. Models adopted using data that do not reflect realistic
ranges of long-run experience, including a period of reasonably severe
declines in equity market values relevant to an Islamic banking institutions
holdings, are presumed to produce optimistic results unless there is
credible evidence of appropriate adjustments built into the model. In the
absence of built-in adjustments, Islamic banking institution must combine
empirical analysis of available data with adjustments based on a variety of
factors to attain model outputs that are realistic and conservative. In
constructing VaR models to estimate potential quarterly losses, Islamic
banking institutions may use quarterly data or convert shorter horizon
period data to a quarterly equivalent using an analytically appropriate
method supported by empirical evidence. Such adjustments must be
applied through a well-developed and documented thought process and

analysis. In general, adjustments must be applied conservatively and

consistently over time. Furthermore, where only limited data are available,
or where technical limitations are such that estimates from any single
method will be of uncertain quality, appropriate margins of conservatism
must be added to avoid over-optimism.
(iii) Any particular type of VaR model that is used (e.g. variance-covariance,
historical simulation, or Monte Carlo) must be able to adequately capture
all of the material risks inherent in equity returns including both the general
market risk and specific risk exposure of the Islamic banking institutions
equity portfolio. Internal models must adequately explain historical price
variation, capture both the magnitude and changes in the composition of
potential concentrations, and be sufficiently robust under adverse market
conditions. The population of risk exposures represented in the data used
for estimation must be closely matched to or at least comparable with
equity exposures of the Islamic banking institution.
(iv) Modelling techniques such as historical scenario analysis may also be

used to determine minimum capital requirements for banking book equity
holdings. However, the use of such models is conditioned upon the
demonstration to the Bank that the methodology and its output can be
quantified in the form of the loss percentile specified under (i).
(v) Islamic banking institutions must use an internal model which is most
appropriate for its risk profile and complexity of the equity portfolio. Those
with material holdings of instruments with values that are highly non-linear
in nature (e.g. equity derivatives, convertibles) must employ an internal
model designed to appropriately capture the risks associated with such
instruments.
(vi) Subject to the Banks review, equity portfolio correlations can be integrated
into an Islamic banking institutions internal risk measures. The use of
explicit correlations (e.g. utilisation of a variance/covariance VaR model)
must be fully documented and supported using empirical analysis. The
appropriateness of implicit correlation assumptions will be evaluated by

the Bank during the review of model documentation and estimation

techniques.
(vii) Mapping of individual positions to proxies, market indices, and risk factors
should be plausible, intuitive, and conceptually sound. Mapping techniques
and processes should be fully documented, and demonstrated with both
theoretical and empirical evidence to be appropriate for the specific
holdings. Where professional judgement is combined with quantitative
techniques in estimating a holdings return volatility, the judgement must
take into account the relevant and material information not considered by
the quantitative techniques utilised.
(viii) Where factor models are used, either single or multi-factor models are
acceptable depending upon the nature of an institutions holdings. Islamic
banking institutions are expected to ensure that the factors are sufficient to
capture the risks inherent in the equity portfolio. Risk factors should
correspond to the appropriate equity market characteristics (for example,
public, private, market capitalisation, industry sectors and sub-sectors,
operational characteristics) in which the Islamic banking institution holds
significant positions. While Islamic banking institutions have discretion to
choose the factors, the appropriateness of those factors including its ability
to cover both general and specific risk must be demonstrated through
empirical evidence.
(ix) Estimates of the return volatility of equity investments must incorporate

relevant and material available data, information, and methods. Islamic
banking institutions may use independently reviewed internal data or data
from external sources (including pooled data). The number of risk
exposures in the sample, and the data period used for quantification
should be sufficient to provide confidence that the estimates used are
accurate and robust. Islamic banking institutions should take appropriate
measures to limit the potential of sampling or survivorship bias in
estimating return volatilities.
(x) A rigorous and comprehensive stress testing programme should be

established. Islamic banking institutions are expected to subject its internal

model and estimation procedures, including volatility computations, to

either hypothetical or historical scenarios that reflect worst-case losses
given underlying positions in both public and private equities. At a
minimum, stress tests should be employed to provide information about
the effect of tail events beyond the level of confidence assumed in the
internal models approach.
Risk Management Process and Controls
3.335 Islamic banking institutions must establish policies, procedures, and controls to
ensure the integrity of the model and modelling process used to derive
regulatory capital. Policies, procedures, and controls should include the
following:
(i) Full integration of the internal model into the Islamic banking institutions
overall management information systems, including the management of
the banking book equity portfolio. Internal models should be fully
integrated into the risk management infrastructure including use in:
(a) establishing investment hurdle rates and evaluating alternative

investments;
(b) measuring and assessing equity portfolio performance (including the

risk-adjusted performance); and
(c) allocating economic capital to equity holdings and evaluating overall

capital adequacy as required under Pillar 2.
Islamic banking institutions should be able to demonstrate, through for

example, investment guidelines and investment committee minutes, that
the internal model output plays an essential role in the investment
management process.
(ii) Established management systems, procedures, and control functions for

ensuring periodic and independent review of all elements of the internal
modelling process, including approval of model revisions, vetting of model
inputs, and review of model results, such as direct verification of risk

computations. Proxy and mapping techniques and other critical model

components should receive special attention. These reviews should
assess the accuracy, completeness, and appropriateness of model inputs
and results and focus on both identifying and limiting potential errors
associated with known weaknesses and be aware of unknown model
weaknesses. Such reviews may be conducted as part of internal or
external audit programmes, by an independent risk control unit, or by an
external third party.
(iii) Adequate systems and procedures for monitoring investment limits and
the risk exposures of equity investments. Senior management should be
actively involved in the risk control process and ensure that adequate
resources and authority are assigned to risk control as an essential aspect
of the business. Daily reports prepared by the independent risk control unit
must be reviewed by responsible persons within senior management with
sufficient seniority and authority to enforce remedial actions where
appropriate to reduce the Islamic banking institutions overall risk
exposure.
(iv) The units responsible for the design and application of the model must be
functionally independent from the units responsible for managing individual
investments. The former should produce and analyse daily reports on the
output of the risk measurement model, including an evaluation of limit
utilisation. This unit must also be independent from trading and other risk
taking units and should report directly to senior management with
responsibility for risk management.
(v) Parties responsible for any aspect of the modelling process must be
adequately qualified. Management must allocate sufficient skilled and
competent resources to the modelling function.
X. Stress Test in Assessment of Capital Adequacy

3.336 Islamic banking institutions must establish sound stress testing processes for
the assessment of capital adequacy. Stress testing must involve identifying

possible events or future changes in economic conditions that might have

unfavourable effects on an Islamic banking institutions credit exposures and
credit risk components (PD, LGD and EAD), and an assessment of the Islamic
banking institutions ability to withstand such changes. For more guidance on
stress testing approaches and methodologies, Islamic banking institutions
should be guided by the Banks Guideline on Stress Testing153.
3.337 In addition, Islamic banking institutions must perform credit risk stress tests to
assess the effect of certain specific conditions on the IRB regulatory capital
requirements. The test to be employed is chosen by the Islamic banking
institution, subject to the Banks review. The test employed must be meaningful,
reasonably conservative and relevant to the Islamic banking institutions
circumstances, and consider at least the effect of mild recession scenarios. For
example, the use of two consecutive quarters of zero growth to assess the
effect on the Islamic banking institutions PDs, LGDs and EADs.
3.338 Islamic banking institutions using the double default framework must consider,
as part of the stress testing framework, the impact of a deterioration in the credit
quality of protection providers (particularly those falling outside the eligibility
criteria due to rating changes). Islamic banking institutions should also consider
the impact of the default of one but not both of the obligor and protection
provider, and the consequent increase in risk and capital requirements at the
time of default.
3.339 Whatever method is used, the following sources of information must be

considered:
(i) Islamic banking institutions own data supporting the estimation of the
ratings migration of its exposures;
153
Refer to Appendix II of the Guidelines on Stress Testing for Credit Risk.

(ii) information about the impact of smaller deterioration in the credit

environment on an Islamic banking institutions ratings, giving some
information on the likely effect of more severe stress circumstances; and
(iii) evidence of ratings migration in external ratings. This would entail the
Islamic banking institution broadly matching its buckets to the external
rating categories.
3.340 The stress test results may indicate no difference in the capital calculated under
the IRB rules if the estimates used as input to the IRB calculation have already
considered information from stressed circumstances described above. Where
there is a shortfall between the results of the stress test and those calculated
under the IRB rules, Islamic banking institutions must undertake necessary
actions to address the differences. Where an Islamic banking institution
operates in several markets, stress testing on portfolios representing the vast
majority of its total exposures should be carried out (in other words, Islamic
banking institutions need not stress test all the portfolios in all the markets it
operates in).
3.341 In addition to the above requirements, Islamic banking institutions are required
to specifically incorporate the following factors into stress tests under Pillar 2 for
purposes of setting internal capital targets:
(i) The effect of not recognising the firm-size adjustment for small and
medium-sized corporates under paragraphs 3.148 and 3.149;
(ii) The effect of not recognising any group support which is allowed under
paragraphs 3.264 and 3.265;
(iii) The effect of removing the risk weight cap applied to exposures to priority
sector RRE financing and exposures guaranteed by CGC; and
(iv) The effect of incorporating seasoning adjustment as required under

paragraph 3.305, which have been deemed to be immaterial.

Governance, Oversight and Use of Internal Ratings

I. Governance
3.342 The board of directors remains principally responsible for ensuring that a
comprehensive framework is in place for the use of internal models. In
particular, the framework should address the governance of the IRB systems
employed by the Islamic banking institution. This responsibility includes
approval of high-level issues, major policies and all other material aspects of the
IRB systems. The board may delegate certain functions to a designated board
committee, but remains accountable for the decisions of such a committee.
3.343 The board must have an adequate understanding of the key principles and
features of the Islamic banking institutions IRB systems to make well-informed,
high-level decisions in relation to its responsibilities (for example, specifying
acceptable risk tolerance levels using IRB results and approving risk
management strategies). The requisite information or knowledge may include:
(i) Basic information about the rating system (for example, objective,
coverage, broad rating structure and definitions);
(ii) Uses of rating systems in the Islamic banking institution;
(iii) Overall results of validation and back-testing performed on the rating

systems and corresponding actions taken;
(iv) Information on the rating systems compliance with the Banks guideline;
and
(v) Stress test design, assumptions and results.
3.344 Senior management is responsible for informing and obtaining approval from
the board of directors or its designated committee on the material aspects of the
internal rating system. At a minimum, these include the following:
(i) Major rating system policies, including but not limited to ownership, uses of
rating systems and the exception framework;

(ii) Material changes or replacement of rating systems (including recalibration,

reselection of factors, reweighting, master scale rebanding, change of
approach or any adjustment that would significantly impact the output);
and
(iii) Changes or exceptions from established policies, and the resulting impact
on the Islamic banking institutions IRB systems.
3.345 Senior management is responsible to ensure on an ongoing basis that the

system is operating as intended and sufficient resources, including qualified and
skilled personnel, are assigned to critical aspects of the rating system. Regular
communications between management and credit risk management personnel
regarding the performance of the rating process, areas needing improvement,
and the status of efforts to improve previously identified deficiencies should be
an important part of this process.
3.346 Senior management must have a good understanding of the rating system
which reflects detailed knowledge of the components of the rating system. The
following section illustrates areas of detailed knowledge expected of senior
management according to their functional responsibilities:
Heads/Officers of Risk Management in-charge of Active Oversight of Rating

Systems:
(i) Design, estimation (including parameterisation, rating philosophy and

horizon), performance monitoring process and assessments, validation
process and results and continuing appropriateness of rating systems;
(ii) Underwriting standards, financing practices, collection and recovery

practices, and how these factors affect estimation;
(iii) Stress testing processes, including portfolio coverage, design,

assumptions, frequency, results, implications and reporting processes;

(iv) Policies, procedures and the control process surrounding the rating
system (including segregation of duties, access control, security, and
confidentiality of model documentation); and
(v) Uses of the rating system.
Key Business Heads (the Primary Operator and User of Ratings):
(i) Approach, objective, purpose and coverage of the rating system;
(ii) Policies and procedures relating to the following:
(a) Rating system design, such as rating dimension (obligor vs facility,

retail segments), rating structure (modules, number of grades,
distribution), rating criteria/definition, philosophy/horizon and
documentation; and
(b) Rating system operation, namely the means by which the integrity of
the system is assured, procedures for overrides and data
maintenance;
(iii) Uses of the rating system;
(iv) Stress testing processes, including portfolio coverage, business input on

assumptions, results and required management actions; and
(v) Results of validation/back-testing, identified weaknesses (e.g. data quality)

and implications for the use of the rating system, and relevant actions.
Internal Audit:
(i) Understanding of the Banks policy documents, especially the minimum

requirements for rating systems;
(ii) Good understanding of the critical aspects of the rating systems, including
the design, operation, estimation, validation and use of the systems; and
(iii) The level of consistency and compliance of the Islamic banking

institutions rating systems to the Banks policy documents and internal
policies.

3.347 Internal ratings must be an essential part of reporting to the board and senior
management. The emphasis is on presenting meaningful analyses which
should include, at a minimum, assessments of the following:
(i) Distribution of credit/sectoral exposures by grades;
(ii) Rating migration;
(iii) Estimation of the relevant parameters per grade; and
(iv) Model performance and back-testing.
Reporting frequencies may vary with the significance and type of information as
well as the specific roles expected of the recipients.
II. Credit Risk Management Function

3.348 Islamic banking institutions must have an independent credit risk management
equivalent function responsible for the development (design or selection),
implementation and performance of internal rating systems. The function must
be operationally independent154 from the business lines or risk taking functions.
Areas of responsibility should include:
(i) Testing and monitoring internal grades;
(ii) Production and analysis of summary reports from the Islamic banking
institutions rating system, including historical default data sorted by rating
at the time of default and one year prior to default, grade migration
analyses, and monitoring of trends in key rating criteria;
(iii) Implementing procedures to verify that rating definitions are consistently

applied across functions and geographic areas;
(iv) Reviewing and documenting changes to the rating process, including the
rationale for such changes; and
(v) Reviewing the rating criteria to ensure it remains predictive of risk.

Changes to the rating process, criteria or individual rating parameters must
154
The Bank does not dictate which unit within the Islamic banking institution that is required to
perform the independent function.

be documented and retained for review by internal or external audit and

the Bank.
3.349 The credit risk management function must actively participate in the
development, selection, implementation and validation of rating models. This
includes the effective oversight of any model used in the rating process. The
credit risk management function is also primarily responsible for the ongoing
review and control of alterations to rating models.
III. Internal and External Audit

3.350 Internal audit or an appropriately independent function must review at least
annually the Islamic banking institutions compliance with all applicable
minimum requirements for the IRB approach as described in the Framework.
The result of the review should be reported to the Audit Committee.
3.351 The parties performing this function must possess the necessary skill set and a
good understanding of the internal rating system, to provide an effective check
and balance within the institution.
3.352 Islamic banking institutions should consider engaging an external party to

undertake the review, at least during the initial period, pending the development
of requisite internal audit capabilities. However, the Bank expects such capacity
to exist within the institution within a reasonable period to support the internal
audits responsibility to conduct independent reviews. In any case, the Bank
reserves the right to require an external auditor to review the Islamic banking
institutions internal rating systems where reviews by internal audit are found to
be inadequate. Any costs associated with the reviews shall be borne by the
IV. Use of Internal Ratings

3.353 As a general rule, internal ratings and loss estimates must play an important
role in the day to day running of the Islamic banking institutions business. This
includes its application in credit approval, risk governance and management,
and internal capital allocation. The Bank will not accept ratings systems and
estimates designed and implemented exclusively for the purpose of qualifying
for the IRB approach and used only to provide inputs for regulatory capital
adequacy purposes.
3.354 Islamic banking institutions must demonstrate the use of internal ratings and
loss estimates in the following areas155:
(i) Essential areas: where internal ratings and loss estimates are directly
used as input in credit approval, capital management (including internal
capital allocations), credit policies, reporting, pricing and limit setting; and
(ii) Areas for consideration: where internal ratings and loss estimates are
indirectly used as input in provisioning decisions, profitability measures,
the performance and compensation framework, other elements of the
credit process (not only credit approval) and strategy.
3.355 The demonstration of the use of internal ratings does not automatically imply
that the estimates must have an exclusive or primary role in all of the above
functions. It is recognised that Islamic banking institutions may not necessarily
apply exactly the same estimates used for capital computation under the IRB,
for other internal purposes. For example, pricing models are likely to use PDs
and LGDs relevant to the life of the asset. The emphasis is on ensuring the
relevance of these estimates for decision making. Where there are adjustments
made to the estimates for different business purposes, Islamic banking
institutions must document and be able to demonstrate its reasonableness to
the Bank.
155
Regardless of any exemption from IRB application granted to a business unit or asset class under
paragraph 3.4 to 3.6, although the degree of reliance on internal ratings and loss estimates in these
circumstances may differ.

3.356 Rating systems should also form an integral part of an Islamic banking
institutions risk culture. Although this can only be demonstrated over time,
Islamic banking institutions should be able to provide evidence of compliance
with the essential areas described in Appendix XXV.
3.357 Islamic banking institutions must have a credible track record in the use of
internal ratings information. Rating systems that are in compliance with the
minimum requirements under this document should be in use for at least 3
years prior to full implementation. Similar requirements are also applied to the
estimation and use of own LGDs and EADs under the advanced IRB approach.
Ongoing enhancements to Islamic banking institutions rating systems will not
render it non-compliant under this requirement.
Validation of Rating Systems and Internal Estimates

3.358 Validation should encompass a range of processes and activities that evaluate
and examine the rating system and the estimation process and methods for
deriving the risk components, namely PD, LGD and EAD. Validation should be
designed to assess the ability of ratings to adequately differentiate risk and the
extent to which PD, LGD and EAD appropriately characterise the relevant
aspects of risk.
3.359 Islamic banking institutions must establish a robust framework to validate the
consistency of rating systems, processes, and accuracy of the estimation of all
relevant risk components. Islamic banking institutions must demonstrate to the
Bank that the internal validation process allows for a consistent and meaningful
assessment of the performance of internal rating and risk estimation systems.
The validation framework, the results of validation and the subsequent review or
changes made to the framework, must be fully documented.

3.360 An appropriate design of a validation framework should cover at least the

following:
(i) Authorised roles and responsibilities for validation;
(ii) Scope and methodology of validation;
(iii) Reporting and approval procedures;
(iv) Frequency of validation; and
(v) Management actions.

I. Authorised Roles and Responsibilities for Validation

3.361 Validation must be performed by a unit that is independent from the risk taking
units and the development team. Functions responsible for validation must not
include individuals who would benefit directly from any adjustments made to the
rating system.
3.362 In addition, the validation process should also be subjected to review by internal
audit or an appropriately independent party as outlined in paragraph 3.349 to
3.351.
II. Scope and Methodology

3.363 The scope of validation should cover both the quantitative and qualitative
aspects of the rating system. The quantitative aspect includes review of
developmental evidence, outcome analysis and back-testing:
Review of Developmental Evidence
3.364 The review of developmental evidence should include evaluating the conceptual
soundness and the logic of the rating systems theory and methodology. The
validation unit should review documentation and empirical evidence supporting
the methods used.
3.365 The review conducted should encompass the evaluation of the analysis and
statistical tests made during the development phase to assess
representativeness of internal data and other available information including
external data, against the Islamic banking institutions own portfolio. The design
of the rating system must be appropriate for its intended use and have no
known material biases, either towards a particular customer segment, asset
size or economic cycle. The review must demonstrate that the data used to
build the model are representative of the population of actual obligors or
facilities.

3.366 The review must also demonstrate that the use of statistical techniques (e.g.
sampling, smoothing and sample truncation to remove outliers) in the
preparation of development data sets and in the operations of internal rating
systems is justified and based on sound scientific methods. The review should
demonstrate that the properties and limitations of the statistical techniques
used, and the applicability of these techniques to different types of data are fully
understood by key personnel of the Islamic banking institution.
3.367 The review must evaluate and demonstrate that the occurrences of missing
data are random and do not have systematic relationships with default events or
credit losses. Where it is necessary to remove observations with missing data, it
should be accompanied with sound justification, as these observations may
contain important information on default events or credit losses. Removal of a
large number of observations with missing data should be evaluated and
justified thoroughly in the review.
3.368 The review must also assess the variables selected in the design and
estimation of the rating systems, to verify that variables used as inputs to the
system form a reasonable set of predictors. Statistical process or tests
conducted to evaluate the performance of individual variables selected and the
overall performance during development must also be evaluated.
3.369 The review must also assess the adequacy and efficacy of documentation
outlining judgemental decisions or expert opinions engaged in the determination
and selection of methods, criteria and characteristics.
Outcomes Analysis and Back-Testing
3.370 Subsequent to development and implementation, the rating system must be

reviewed to verify its performance beyond the development stage and to assess

how well the rating system works on both existing and new customers (i.e.
works well out-of-time).
3.371 An outcome analysis involves ex-post evaluation of the discriminatory power or

relative risk-ranking ability of the internal rating system on a regular basis and
over time in order to monitor trends and stability. The evaluation must be done
at the overall rating system level, going down to the detailed component level
depending on the results of the initial evaluation. At a minimum, all Islamic
banking institutions should use the Accuracy Ratio (AR) as a common test for
discriminatory power. However, Islamic banking institutions are expected to also
use other measures in addition to AR.
3.372 A comparison between realised default rates and estimated PDs should be
performed for each grade to demonstrate that the realised default rates are
within the expected range for that grade. At a minimum, this comparison should
be done at the overall portfolio level to assess the PD calibration or the anchor
point of the model. Islamic banking institutions using the advanced IRB
approach must complete analyses on estimates of LGDs and EADs. Such
comparisons must make use of historical data over a reasonable period. The
methods and data used in such comparisons must be clearly documented.
3.373 To supplement the analysis, a benchmarking of the internal estimates with

relevant external (whether public or non-public) data sources should be
conducted. The benchmarking must be based on data that are appropriate to
the portfolio, updated regularly, and cover a relevant observation period.
3.374 Regardless of the method chosen, Islamic banking institutions must be able to
explain the rationale and the appropriateness of the chosen validation
techniques to the Bank. Islamic banking institutions should also understand the
limitations, if any, of such techniques.

Additional Considerations for Quantitative Review
3.375 In addition, Islamic banking institutions need to demonstrate to the Bank that
the underlying philosophy of the rating system is well understood and properly
considered when determining which validation tools and techniques are applied.
This applies to both the choice of validation methods for assessing the accuracy
and stability of a rating system, and the choice of methods for assessing the
appropriateness of the stress tests applied.
3.376 If an outcome of a validation method on a particular portfolio or segment is

unreliable because of the lack or total absence of internal default data, other
methods and techniques should be considered. Islamic banking institutions
should always ensure that relevant additional information is taken into account
and adequate margins of conservatism are applied.
3.377 Islamic banking institutions should periodically assess the performance of any
external models used in its IRB processes to ensure the models continue to
function as intended. Since external model parameters and weights may have
been calibrated using external data, it is critical for Islamic banking institutions
to test the performance of the external models against its own portfolio of
exposures. In addition, Islamic banking institutions should also undertake
procedures to verify the accuracy and consistency of any external data used
within its IRB risk quantification processes. This can be done, among other
ways, by comparing the results obtained using the external data to the results
obtained using its own portfolio data in the same risk rating, segmentation, or
parameter estimation models or methods.
3.378 In cases where transparency of the models development is inadequate and

where there is scarcity of internal performance data, Islamic banking institutions
could also rely on alternative validation approaches. For further guidance on the
appropriate treatments, please refer to Appendix XXVI.

3.379 Internal assessments of rating systems performance must be based on long

data histories, covering a range of economic conditions, and ideally one or more
complete business cycles.
3.380 Quantitative testing methods and other validation methods must not vary
systematically with the economic cycle. Changes in methods and data (both
data sources and periods covered) must be justified and clearly documented.
3.381 Islamic banking institutions should review and improve validation techniques in
response to changing markets and practices in the industry as more data
becomes available.
Qualitative Review
3.382 Apart from the more technical and quantitative review of the rating system
components (data, models, etc), Islamic banking institutions should also review
the adequacy and effectiveness of rating system processes, the oversight
structure and control procedures to ensure the forward-looking accuracy of the
IRB estimates. At a minimum, the review should cover rating system
documentation, rating operations (including rating coverage, assignment,
reviews, overrides and data maintenance), the governance (including level of
understanding and training of personnel in key oversight roles) and control
(including independence) framework and internal use of ratings.
Specific Requirements for Validation of Internal Models Approach to Equity
3.383 Islamic banking institutions must establish model review standards, especially
where actual results deviate significantly from expectations and the validity of
the internal model is called into question. These standards must take into
account business cycles and similar systematic variability in equity returns.

Adjustments made to internal models in response to model reviews must be

well documented and consistent with the model review standards.
3.384 To facilitate model validation through back-testing on an ongoing basis, Islamic

banking institutions must construct and maintain appropriate databases on the
actual quarterly performance of its equity investments and estimates derived
from internal models. Islamic banking institutions should also back-test the
volatility estimates used within the internal models and the appropriateness of
the proxies used in the model.
3.385 Where the Bank deems necessary, Islamic banking institutions may be required
to adjust quarterly forecasts to shorter time horizons, store performance data for
such time horizons and use this for back-testing.
III. Reporting and Approval Process

3.386 Validation results should be deliberated with the development team and
business units and brought before the board or its designated board-level
committee for deliberation and approval.
IV. Frequency of Validation

3.387 Islamic banking institutions internal policies must establish the frequency or
cycle of the validation exercise and the scope of validation for each cycle. The
internal policies should also address situations that may call for validation
outside the normal cycle.
3.388 Validation of internal estimates must be conducted prior to the adoption and
implementation of IRB and thereafter at least annually. Developmental evidence
must be reviewed whenever the Islamic banking institution makes material
changes to its rating systems.

V. Management Actions
3.389 Islamic banking institutions must have clearly written and properly documented
internal standards for the following:
(i) to determine if the test results conducted to assess the discriminatory

power of the rating system are below expectation, leading to a more
detailed analysis of the discriminatory power of the model drivers, or to
conclude that the power of the rating system has in fact diminished.
(ii) to determine situations in back-testing where deviations in realised PDs,

LGDs and EADs from expectations become significant enough to call into
question the validity of the estimates. These standards must take account
of business cycles and similar systematic variability in default experiences.
Where realised values continue to be higher than expected values, Islamic
banking institutions must revise estimates upward to reflect higher default
and loss experience; and
(iii) to determine, based on the results of the tests of discriminatory power and
back-testing, that the estimates or the model itself needs to be redesigned,
recalibrated, or replaced in its entirety.
3.390 Where supervisory estimates of risk parameters, rather than internal ones are
being used, Islamic banking institutions are expected to compare the realised
LGDs and EADs to the supervisory estimates set by the Bank. The information
on realised LGDs and EADs should form part of the Islamic banking institutions
assessment of internal capital.
3.391 When benchmarking is conducted, Islamic banking institutions should

investigate the sources of substantial discrepancies between internal estimates
and benchmarking sources.
3.392 The Bank recognises that relatively sparse data might require increased
reliance on alternative data sources and data-enhancing tools for quantification

and alternative techniques for validation. Several of these tools and techniques,
most of which are especially relevant for low default portfolios (LDPs) (and for
PDs in particular), are described in Appendix XXVI. The Bank also recognises
that there are circumstances in which Islamic banking institutions will
legitimately lack sufficient default history to compare realised default rates with
parameter estimates that may be based in part on historical data. In such
cases, greater reliance must be placed on other validation techniques, including
those described in Appendix XXVI.
VI. Supervisory Approach to Validation

3.393 The validation of models adopted by banking institutions is ultimately the The
validation of models adopted by Islamic banking institutions is ultimately the
Islamic banking institutions responsibility. The burden is therefore on the
Islamic banking institution to satisfy the Bank that a model has good predictive
power and that regulatory capital will not be under-estimated as a result of its
adoption.
3.394 The Bank will review the results of the validation and independent reviews
conducted by Islamic banking institutions. The Bank reserves the right to also
carry out its own statistical tests on Islamic banking institutions data where
necessary.
B.3.8 QUALIFICATION
Overview of Approval and Review Process

3.395 Islamic banking institutions intending to adopt the IRB approach in determining
regulatory capital for its conventional and Islamic exposures would be required
to seek the Banks approval.

General Qualification Process

3.396 In general, the qualification process would consist of:
(i) Submission of information by the IRB candidate to the Bank;
(ii) Review of the submitted information by the Bank within a stipulated period
(between three to six months); and
(iii) Communication of the outcome of the review to the IRB candidate.
3.397 The approval process conducted by the Bank would cover an offsite
assessment of application documents and a detailed on-site examination of
Islamic banking institutions operations to assess compliance with the minimum
requirements described in the Framework.
3.398 The information requirements and minimum expectations of the Bank are
outlined in Appendix XV.
3.399 Based on the information requirements, Islamic banking institutions must submit
to the Bank internal documentation or evidence that it considers relevant for the
approval process, such as policies, procedures, technical documents and
internal or external audit reports. The Bank reserves the right to request for
more detailed information at any point in time during and after the submission of
an application is made. Such documents have to be made available upon
request without delay to facilitate the timely assessment of the application.
3.400 To facilitate the approval of the IRB approach by the Bank, Islamic banking
institutions should conduct a self-assessment of its compliance with the
minimum requirements described in the Framework. Gaps identified from the
self assessment exercise should be documented and reported to the board and
the necessary rectification measures taken promptly.

3.401 The IRB implementation program would differ from one IRB candidate to
another. Therefore, the review process and approval granted would be specific
to the particular circumstances of each Islamic banking institution, taking into
account its nature, size of operations and implementation progress. In some
cases, the approval may be conditional.
3.402 In cases where an Islamic banking institution departs from full compliance with
all the minimum requirements of this document subsequent to the approval, the
requirements in paragraph 3.223 shall apply. The Bank reserves the right to
reconsider the Islamic banking institutions eligibility for the IRB approach and
would consider appropriate supervisory actions.
3.403 Further details on the qualification process are given in Appendix XXII.
Home-Host Supervisory Issues

3.404 Locally-incorporated foreign Islamic banking institutions may be intending to use
or are currently using systems, processes or models that have been developed
and adopted by their parent institutions. These centrally-developed systems,
processes or models (herein referred to as global/regional models) can be
characterised as follows:
(i) Ownership by either the regional or global risk management committee (in
terms of model commission, development and approval);
(ii) Adapted (e.g. in terms of calibration to PD) to the Malaysian market using
Malaysian customer/market data either as part of a larger data set, or on
its own; and
(iii) Processes and usage of model are largely standardised globally, but may
incorporate Malaysian-specific practices.

3.405 Due to the centralisation of the development of the global/regional IRB models,
the review process could have already been initiated by the home regulator due
to an earlier implementation timeframe adopted by the home regulator.
3.406 Under these circumstances, the Bank would be supportive of coordination with
the home regulator in the review of global/regional IRB models in the spirit of
home-host cooperation. To assist the Bank, locally-incorporated foreign Islamic
banking institutions with the intention of adopting global/regional models should
submit the following information156 to the Bank:
(i) Number of models developed or to be developed outside Malaysia;
(ii) The asset classes covered by the models;
(iii) Estimated coverage in terms of RWA percentage;
(iv) Date rolled out or estimated date for roll out;
(v) The extent to which documents (development, independent validation) are

available locally;
(vi) Whether the home regulator has reviewed or has plans to review the
model;
(vii) Where available, detailed assessments by the home regulator, for the
purpose of the Banks review for initial adoption as well as on an ongoing
basis; and
(viii) Date of last review by the home regulator and the results of the review.
3.407 In general, the Banks principles and expectations for recognising

global/regional models are similar to those applied to locally-developed models.
In cases where there are differences between the rules and regulations adopted
by the Bank and the home regulator, Islamic banking institutions are expected
to adopt the more stringent rules.
156
If not readily included in the IRB submission as per Appendix XV.

Changes to IRB Implementation and Adoption

3.408 Changes to the IRB implementation and ongoing adoption may be allowed by
the Bank when significant changes occur in the institutions business
environment. However, this should be well justified by the institution. Two
examples that could justify altering an Islamic banking institutions rollout policy
are fundamental changes in strategy or mergers and acquisitions.
3.409 A change in strategy could result from changes in shareholders or

management, or from a new business orientation. In either case, the broad time
horizon for rollout should remain the same, but the rollout sequence may
change.
3.410 A merger or an acquisition is considered a significant event that is likely to result

in a modification to the Islamic banking institutions IRB implementation plans.
Whether an IRB bank acquires a standardised approach bank or vice versa, the
acquiring Islamic banking institution must submit a new plan detailing the CAFIB
implementation of the acquired Islamic banking institution, including the effects
of the acquisition on the consolidated capital position of the group. In an
acquisition, the acquiring Islamic banking institution is responsible to seek
appropriate approval from the Bank for adoption of the IRB approach.
3.411 Islamic banking institutions adopting either the advanced or foundation IRB
approach are expected to continue to employ the same approach, unless
otherwise permitted by the Bank. A voluntary return from foundation IRB to the
standardised approach, or from advanced IRB to the foundation approach, is
permitted only under extraordinary circumstances, such as disposal of a large
fraction of the credit related business.

3.412 The Bank reserves the right to revoke the IRB status if Islamic banking
institutions are unable to ensure ongoing compliance with the minimum
requirements under the Framework.

PART C OPERATIONAL RISK
C.1 INTRODUCTION
4.1 Operational risk is defined as the risk of losses resulting from inadequate
or failed internal processes, people and systems or from external events,
which includes legal risk and Shariah compliance risk but excludes
strategic and reputational risks. Legal risk includes, but is not limited to,
exposure to fines, penalties, or punitive damages resulting from
supervisory actions, as well as private settlements157.
4.2 The following methods are available for the purpose of calculating capital
charges against operational risk of Islamic banking institutions in a
continuum of increasing sophistication and risk sensitivity:
(i) The Basic Indicator Approach (BIA); and
(ii) The Standardised Approach (TSA) or the Alternative Standardised

Approach (ASA).
4.3 Islamic banking institutions that have adopted TSA or ASA are not allowed
to revert to a simpler approach without the approval of the Bank. However,
if the Bank is not satisfied with an Islamic banking institution that has
adopted TSA or ASA on meeting the qualifying criteria for that approach,
the Bank may require the Islamic banking institution to use a simpler
approach for some or all of its operations. Thereafter, the Islamic banking
institution shall not revert to the more advanced approach without the
approval of the Bank.
C.1.1 SOUND PRACTICES FOR OPERATIONAL RISK MANAGEMENT
4.4 Regardless of the approach adopted for the operational risk capital charge
computation, Islamic banking institutions shall have in place internal
157
Islamic banking institutions that have different internal definition must be able to explain the impact
of the difference to the measurement and management of operational risk.

operational risk management framework that commensurate with the

nature, complexity and sophistication of their business activities.
4.5 Islamic banking institutions shall adopt the principles set out in the Risk
Management Guidelines - Operational Risk, to be issued by the Bank158.
4.6 Islamic banking institutions are encouraged to collect operational risk loss
data given that the information would enable management to identify
potential areas of vulnerability, improve overall risk profile and support
decision making. Loss data is also an essential prerequisite to the
development and functioning of a credible operational risk measurement
system.
C.2 THE BASIC INDICATOR APPROACH (BIA)
4.7 The operational risk capital charge for Islamic banking institutions using
BIA is equal to the average of a fixed percentage [denoted ()] of positive
annual gross income over the previous three years.
4.8 The formula for calculating the operational risk capital charge under BIA is
as follows:
KBIA = [(GI 1n x )]/n
Where
KBIA = capital charge under the BIA
GI = positive annual gross income of the Islamic banking institutions
over the preceding three years159 as set out in paragraph 4.10
n = number of the preceding three years where annual gross income
is positive
= 15%
158
The principles in the paper are generally consistent with the Sound Practices for the Management
and Supervision of Operational Risk issued by the BCBS in February 2003.
159
If the annual gross income for any given year is negative or zero, the figure shall not be included for
the purposes of calculating the operational risk capital charge.

4.9 Islamic banking institutions shall calculate the gross income as the sum of:
(i) Net income from financing activities;
(ii) Net income from investment activities; and
(iii) Other income160
gross of:
(i) Any provisions (e.g. for unpaid income); and
(ii) Any operating expenses, including fees paid to outsourcing

service provider and depreciation of Ijarah assets
but does not include
(i) Any realised or unrealised profits/losses from sales or impairment

of securities in banking book;
(ii) Any income or expense from extraordinary or irregular items; and
(iii) Any income derived from Takaful recoveries.
Less:
Income attributable to the investment account holders and depositors.
A summary table of the gross income computation is provided in

Appendix X.
4.10 Under the BIA, gross income figures are categorised into 12 quarters
(equivalent to three years). Islamic banking institutions shall calculate the
current years annual gross income by aggregating the gross income of
the last four financial quarters. Similar computation methodology shall be
applied to calculate the annual gross income for the two years preceding
the current year.
160
Includes income from non-Shariah compliant sources, if any.

Example
For Islamic banking institutions calculating operational risk capital charge
as at end of April 2008, the annual gross income shall be calculated as
follows:
Year 3 Year 2 Year 1
Gross March 08 (GI3a) March 07(GI2a) March 06 (GI1a)

Income for
financial Dec 07 (GI3b) Dec 06(GI2b) Dec 05 (GI1b)
quarter
ending Sept 07 (GI3c) Sept 06(GI2c) Sept 05(GI1c)
June 07 (GI3d) June 06(GI2d) June 05 (GI1d)
Total GI3 = GI3a + GI3b + GI2 = GI2a + GI2b + GI1 = GI1a + GI1b +
GI3c + GI3d GI2c + GI2d GI1c + GI1d
4.11 If the annual gross income in any of the given years is negative or zero,
this figure is excluded from both the numerator and denominator when
calculating the three years average.
Example
Using the above example, the operational risk capital charge as at April
2008 is calculated as follows:
Year 3 Year 2 Year 1

Gross March 08 (+10) March 07 (+10) March 06 (+10)
Income for
Dec 07 (+20) Dec 06 (-30) Dec 05 (+10)
financial
quarter Sept 07 (-10) Sept 06 (-20) Sept 05 (+10)
ending
June 07 (+30) June 06 (+10) June 05 (+10)
Total GI3 = 10 + 20 - 10 + GI2 = 10 - 30 - 20 + GI1 = 10 + 10 + 10 +
30 = 50 10 = (30) 10 = 40
Operational {[(GI3 x ) + (GI1 x )]} / 2 = 6.75
risk capital
charge
Newly established Islamic banking institutions that do not have a complete

three years data shall only take into account the actual gross income

earned to date for purposes of deriving the average gross income, while
leaving the gross income for any remaining quarters as zero. In the case
of new Islamic subsidiaries, the income earned during previous Islamic
window operation shall be accounted for by the parent banking institutions
and would not form part of the gross income computation for the new
entity
C.3 THE STANDARDISED APPROACH AND ALTERNATIVE STANDARDISED

APPROACH
C.3.1 THE STANDARDISED APPROACH (TSA)
4.12 Subject to the Banks prior approval, Islamic banking institutions may use
TSA to calculate its operational risk capital charges. The Banks approval
may be given upon its review on the Islamic banking institutions
compliance with all requirements listed in paragraph 4.15 and 4.16.
4.13 Islamic banking institutions adopting TSA shall classify their business
activities into eight business lines, namely, corporate finance, trading and
sales, retail banking, commercial banking, payment and settlement,
agency services, asset management and retail brokerage. The definition of
these business lines are provided in detail in Appendix XI.
4.14 Specific policies shall be put in place covering amongst others the criteria
for mapping the gross income of its current business activities into the
specified eight business lines. Islamic banking institutions shall review and
adjust these policies and criteria for new or changing business activities as
appropriate.
4.15 Islamic banking institutions shall adopt the following principles for the
purposes of mapping the business activities to the appropriate business
lines:

(i) All activities must be mapped into the eight business lines (at
minimum, to level 1 business lines as described in Appendix XI) in a
mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive manner;
(ii) Any business or non-banking activity which cannot be readily mapped

into any of the business lines in paragraph 4.13 and which is an
ancillary function to and supports a business line in paragraph 4.13,
must be allocated to the business line it supports. If the ancillary
activity supports more than one business line, an objective mapping
criteria must be used to allocate the annual gross income derived
from that ancillary activity to the relevant business lines;
(iii) If an activity cannot be mapped into a particular business line in

paragraph 4.13 and is not an ancillary activity to a business line, then
the activity shall be mapped into one of the business lines with the
highest associated beta factor (that is 18%). Any associated ancillary
activity to that activity will follow the same business line treatment;
(iv) Islamic banking institutions may use internal pricing methods or

allocation keys161 to allocate gross income between business lines
provided that the total gross income of the Islamic banking institution
(as calculated under BIA) equals the sum of gross income for the
eight business lines;
(v) The mapping of activities into business lines for operational risk
capital purposes must be consistent with the definitions of business
lines used for regulatory capital calculations for credit and market
risks. Any deviations from this principle and the reason(s) must be
clearly documented;
(vi) The mapping process used must be clearly documented. In particular,

the definition of the business lines must be outlined with sufficient
detail to allow third parties to replicate the business line mapping. The
documentation must also identify specific circumstances for
161
Examples of allocation keys are number of headcounts/ human resource cost, similar basis used to
allocate Head Office expenses to business lines, floor space occupied and customer group.

exceptions and the requirement for recording and approval to address

the exceptions in the event that it is occurred;
(vii) Processes must be put in place to define the mapping of any new
activities or products;
(viii) Senior management is responsible for the mapping policy (which is

subject to the approval by the board); and
(ix) The mapping process into business lines must be subject to regular
independent reviews by internal and/or external auditors.
4.16 Islamic banking institutions adopting TSA, are also required to assess their
compliance to the qualitative requirements specified in the Risk
Management Guidelines - Operational Risk162, particularly, with respect to
the following requirements:
(i) The board and senior management, are actively involved in the
oversight of the operational risk management;
(ii) Islamic banking institution must have an operational risk management

system with clear responsibilities assigned to an operational risk
management function. The operational risk management function is
responsible for developing strategies to identify, assess, monitor and
control/mitigate operational risk; codifying bank-level policies and
procedures concerning operational risk management and controls;
designing and implementing the operational risk assessment
methodology; and for the design and implementation of a operational
risk-reporting system of the Islamic banking institution;
(iii) As part of the internal operational risk assessment system, the

Islamic banking institution must systematically track relevant
operational risk data including material losses by business line. The
162
The principles in the paper are generally consistent with the Sound Practices for the Management
and Supervision of Operational Risk issued by the BCBS in February 2003.

operational risk assessment system must be closely integrated163 into

its risk management processes;
(iv) There must be regular reporting of operational risk exposures,

including material operational losses, to business unit management,
senior management and to the board of which appropriate action/s
can be taken accordingly;
(v) Islamic banking institutions operational risk management system

must be well documented. It must have a routine in place for ensuring
compliance with a documented set of internal policies, controls and
procedures concerning the operational risk management system,
which must include policies for the treatment of non-compliance
issues;
(vi) The operational risk management processes and assessment system

must be subject to validation and regular independent review. These
reviews must include both the activities of the business units and of
the operational risk management function; and
(vii) The operational risk assessment system (including the internal

validation processes) must be subject to regular review by internal
and/or external auditors.
4.17 The operational risk capital charge for Islamic banking institutions using
TSA is calculated as the three-year average of the simple summation of
the regulatory capital charges across the eight business lines in each year.
The capital charge for each business line is calculated by multiplying the
annual gross income by a factor (denoted ) assigned to that business
line.
163
The output must be an integral part of the process of monitoring and controlling the operational risk
profile of the Islamic banking institution. For instance, this information must play a prominent role in
risk reporting, management reporting, and risk analysis. Islamic banking institution must have
techniques for creating incentives to improve the management of operational risk throughout the

4.18 The formula for calculating the operational risk capital charge under TSA is
as follows:
KTSA = {years 1-3 max [(GI1-8 x 1-8), 0]}/3
Where
KTSA = capital charge under TSA
GI1-8 = annual gross income in a given year for each of the eight
business lines
1-8 = a fixed beta factor as detailed below
Business Lines Beta Factors

Corporate Finance (1) 18%
Trading and Sales (2) 18%
Retail Banking (3) 12%
Commercial Banking (4) 15%
Payment and Settlement (5) 18%
Agency Services (6) 15%
Asset Management (7) 12%
Retail Brokerage (8) 12%
4.19 In any given year, negative operational risk capital charges (resulting from
negative gross income) in any business line may offset positive
operational risk capital charges in other business lines. However, where
the aggregate operational risk capital charge across the eight business
lines in a given year is negative, then the operational risk capital charge for
that year would be set to zero. An illustration of the offsetting rules is
provided in Appendix XII.

4.20 Once the Islamic banking institution is allowed to use TSA, it is not allowed
to adopt BIA without the approval of the Bank.
C.3.2 THE ALTERNATIVE STANDARDISED APPROACH (ASA)
4.21 Subject to the Banks approval, Islamic banking institutions may use ASA
to calculate its operational risk capital charge provided that all
requirements as listed in paragraphs 4.15 and 4.16 are met and that the
Bank is satisfied that ASA provides an improved basis over TSA, for
example in avoiding double counting of risks.
4.22 Once the Islamic banking institution is allowed to use ASA, it is not allowed
to revert to TSA without the approval of the Bank.
4.23 The approach in the computation of operational risk capital charge under
ASA is similar to that of TSA with the exception for retail banking and
commercial banking business lines. The operational risk capital charge for
these two business lines is calculated by multiplying the amount of
financing and advances by a fixed factor m. Nevertheless, the betas for
both retail and commercial banking remain unchanged as per TSA.
4.24 The formula for calculating the operational risk capital charge under ASA
is as follows:
KASA = { years 1-3 max [(GI1-6 x 1-6), 0]} / 3
+ (r x m x LAr) + (c x m x LAc)
Where
KASA = capital charge under ASA
r = the beta for the retail banking (3) business line (where 3 =
12%)
c = the beta for the commercial banking (4) business line
(where 4 = 15%)

m = fixed factor of 0.035

LAr = the total outstanding financing and advances of the retail
banking164 business line (non-risk-weighted and gross of
provision165), averaged over the past three years166
LAc = the total outstanding financing and advances of the
commercial banking167 business line (non-risk-weighted and
gross of provision), averaged over the past three years
164
Total financing and advances in the retail banking business line consists of the total drawn amounts
in the following credit portfolios: retail, SMEs treated as retail, and purchased retail receivables,
including NPLs and financing sold to Cagamas.
165
Covers both general and specific provisions.
166
Simple average of total drawn amount of retail or commercial banking business lines over the 12
most recent quarters.
167
For commercial banking, total loans and advances consists of the drawn amounts in the following
credit portfolios: corporate, sovereign, bank, specialised lending, SMEs treated as corporate and
purchased corporate receivables, including NPLs. The book value of securities held in the banking
book should also be included.

4.25 The exposure indicator and the relevant beta factor for ASA can be
depicted in the following table:
Business Line Exposure Indicator Beta Factor (%)

Corporate Finance GI 18
Trading and Sales GI 18
Retail Banking LAr x m 12
Commercial Banking LAc x m 15
Payment and Settlement GI 18
Agency Services GI 15
Asset Management GI 12
Retail Brokerage GI 12
4.26 Under ASA, Islamic banking institutions may choose to adopt one of the
following options, depending on the capability to identify and disaggregate
the exposure into 8 business lines:
(i) Option 1 - Total gross income for retail and commercial banking shall
be aggregated by assigning a beta of 15%. All other business lines
shall be disaggregated and assigned the respective beta factor.
(ii) Option 2 Gross income for retail and commercial banking shall be
disaggregated and assigned the respective beta factor. Total gross
income of the other six business lines shall be aggregated by
assigning a beta of 18%.
(iii) Option 3 - Total gross income for retail and commercial banking shall
be aggregated by using a beta of 15%. The total gross income of the
other six business lines shall be aggregated by assigning a beta of
18%.

These options can be summarised in the following table:
Option I Option II Option III

Business Exposure Beta Exposure Beta Exposure Beta
Line Indicator Factor Indicator Factor Indicator Factor
(%) (%) (%)
Retail Banking LAr x m 12
Commercial LArc x m 15 LAc x m 15 LArc x m 15

Banking
Corporate GI 18
Finance
Trading and GI 18
Sales
Payment and GI 18
Settlement
GI 18 GI 18
Agency GI 15
Services
Asset GI 12
Management
Retail GI 12
Brokerage

PART D MARKET RISK
D.1 INTRODUCTION
5.1 Market risk is defined broadly as the risk of losses in on- and off-balance
sheet positions arising from movements in market prices. This part
outlines the applicable approaches to determine the level of capital to be
held by an Islamic banking institution against the market risk in its trading
book, which comprises of:
(i) Benchmark rate risk168 and equity risk pertaining to financial

instruments in the trading book;
(ii) Foreign exchange risk and commodities risk in the trading and
banking books; and
(iii) Inventory risk arising from Islamic banking institutions business

activities.
5.2 In determining the consolidated minimum capital requirement, market risk

positions in each subsidiary can be netted against positions in the
remainder of the group if:
(i) the risk positions of the group are centrally managed; and
(ii) there are no obstacles to quick repatriation of profits from a foreign

subsidiary or legal and procedural difficulties in operationalising
timely risk management on a consolidated basis.
Scope of the Capital Charges

5.3 The market risk capital charge in the Framework is divided into benchmark
rate risk, equity risk, foreign exchange risk, commodities risk and inventory
risk charges. Islamic banking institutions that have any exposure arising
from investment account placements made with Islamic banking
institutions or Islamic banking operations shall be subject to the look-
through approach as described in Appendix XXI.
168
Also known as profit rate risk.

5.4 The capital charges for benchmark rate risk and equity risk are applied to
the current market value of benchmark rate and equity related financial
instruments or positions in the trading book. The capital charge for foreign
exchange risk, commodities risk and inventory risk however are applied to
all foreign currency169, commodities positions and inventories. Some of the
foreign exchange and commodities positions will be reported and hence
evaluated at market value, while some may be reported and evaluated at
book value.
Approaches of Measuring Market Risks

5.5 In measuring capital charge for market risk, Islamic banking institutions
may adopt one of the following approaches:
(i) the standardised approach; or
(ii) the internal models approach.
5.6 The Bank expects Islamic banking institutions involved in the trading of
complex financial instruments to adopt advanced approaches in
measuring market risk exposure.
Standardised Approach
5.7 The first option in measuring market risk capital charge is the standardised
approach, described in Part D.2 The Standardised Market Risk
Approach. This is based on a building block approach where
standardised supervisory capital charge is applied separately to each risk
category.
Internal Models Approach

5.8 The second option in measuring market risks capital charge is the internal
models approach described in Part D.3 The Internal Models Approach.
169
However, Islamic banking institutions are given some discretion to exclude structural foreign
currency exchange positions from the computation.

The adoption of this approach is permitted only upon receipt of written

approval from the Bank.
5.9 The approach allows Islamic banking institutions to use risk measures
derived from internal risk management models. Islamic banking institutions
would need to submit the information set out in Appendix XVI of the
Framework to initiate the recognition process of this approach.
5.10 Since the focus of most internal models is only on the general market risk
exposure, Islamic banking institutions employing internal models are
expected to measure the specific risk (that is, exposures to specific issuers
of debt securities/sukk or equities) through separate credit risk
measurement systems. A separate capital charge for specific risk based
on the standardised market risk approach will apply to all Islamic banking
institutions employing internal models, unless the models capture the
specific risk and meet the requirements set out in Part D.3.5 Modelling of
Specific Risk.
D.1.1 PRUDENT VALUATION GUIDANCE
5.11 This part provides Islamic banking institutions with guidance on prudent
valuation for positions in the trading book. This guidance is especially
important for less liquid positions which, although not excluded from the
trading book solely on grounds of lesser liquidity, would raise issues
relating to valuation.
5.12 A framework for prudent valuation practices should at a minimum adhere

to the requirements specified in paragraph 5.13 to 5.19, covering systems
and controls, valuation methodologies, independent price verification,
valuation adjustments/reserves.

Systems and Controls
5.13 Islamic banking institutions must establish and maintain adequate systems
and controls sufficient to give the management and the Banks supervisors
the confidence that valuation estimates are prudent and reliable. These
systems must be integrated with other risk management systems within
the organisation (such as credit analysis). Such systems must be
supported by:
(i) Board-approved policies and procedures on valuation process. This

includes clearly defined responsibilities of the various parties involved
in the valuation process, sources of market information and review of
their appropriateness, frequency of independent valuation, method of
determining closing prices, procedures for adjusting valuations, end
of the month and ad-hoc verification procedures; and
(ii) Clear and independent (i.e. independent of front office) reporting lines
for the department accountable for the valuation process.
Valuation Methodologies
5.14 Islamic banking institutions should mark-to-market portfolio positions, at
least on daily basis, based on close out prices that are sourced
independently. Examples of readily available close out prices include
exchange prices, screen prices, or quotes from several independent
reputable brokers. The more prudent side of bid/offer must be used unless
the Islamic banking institution is a significant market maker in a particular
position type and it can close out at mid-market.
5.15 Where mark-to-market is not possible, Islamic banking institutions may

mark-to-model, provided that this can be demonstrated to be 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 Bank will consider the following in assessing whether a mark-to-model
valuation is prudent:

(i) Senior management awareness on the assumptions used in

constructing the model and their understanding on the materiality of
the assumptions used and its impacts in the reporting of the
risk/performance of the business;
(ii) Regular review of the appropriateness of the market inputs for the
particular positions. Market input for instance, should reflect market
prices to the nearest extent possible.
(iii) Consistent adoption of generally accepted valuation methodologies

for particular products, where available and appropriate;
(iv) Use of appropriate assumptions, which have been assessed and

challenged by suitably qualified parties independent of the
development process. In cases where the models are internally
developed, 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;
(v) Formal change control procedures in place to govern any changes

made to the model and a secure copy of the model should be held
and periodically used to check valuations;
(vi) Risk managers awareness of the weaknesses of the models used

and how best to reflect those in the valuation output;
(vii) Periodic review to determine the accuracy of the models

performance (for example, assessing continued appropriateness of
the assumptions, analysis of profit and loss (P&L) versus risk factors,
comparison of actual close out values to model outputs); and
(viii) Formal valuation adjustments in place where appropriate, for

example, to cover the uncertainty of the model valuation.

Independent Price Verification

5.16 In addition, Islamic banking institutions should also conduct regular
independent verification of market prices or model inputs for accuracy.
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 is to
reveal any error or bias in pricing, which should result in the elimination of
inaccurate daily marking.
5.17 Independent price verification should be subjected to a higher standard of

accuracy since the market prices or model inputs would be used to
determine profit and loss figures, whereas daily markings are used
primarily for management reporting in between reporting dates. For
independent price verification, where pricing sources are more subjective,
for example, only one available broker quote, prudent measures such as
valuation adjustments may be appropriate.
Valuation Adjustments
5.18 Islamic banking institutions must establish and maintain procedures for
considering valuation adjustments which should be deducted in the
calculation of CET1 Capital. The following valuation adjustments shall be
formally considered where relevant: unearned credit spreads, close-out
costs, operational risks, early termination, investing and funding costs,
future administrative costs and, if appropriate, model risk.
5.19 In addition, Islamic banking institutions shall consider the need for
establishing reserves for less liquid positions. The appropriateness of the
reserves shall be subjected to an ongoing review. Reduced liquidity could
arise from structural and/or market events. In addition, close-out prices for
concentrated positions and/or stale positions are more likely to be
adverse. Islamic banking institutions shall, at the minimum, consider
several factors when determining whether valuation reserve is necessary
for less liquid items. These factors include the amount of time it would take

to hedge out the risks within the position, the average volatility of bid/offer
spreads, the availability of market quotes (number and identity of market
makers), and the average and volatility of trading volumes.
D.1.2 CLASSIFICATION OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS
Trading Book Policy Statement

5.20 Islamic banking institutions must have a trading book policy statement with
clearly defined policies and procedures for determining which exposures to
include in, and to exclude from, the trading book for purposes of
calculating regulatory capital. Board and senior management of Islamic
banking institutions should ensure compliance with the criteria for trading
book set forth in this part taking into account the Islamic banking
institutions risk management capabilities and practices. In addition,
compliance with these policies and procedures must be fully documented
and subject to periodic internal audit. This policy statement and material
changes to it would be subject to the Banks review.
5.21 These policies and procedures should, at a minimum, address the

following general considerations:
(i) Activities Islamic banking institutions consider as trading and what

constitute part of the trading book for regulatory capital purposes;
(ii) The extent to which an exposure can be marked-to-market daily by

reference to an active, liquid two-way market;
(iii) For exposures that are marked-to-model, the extent to which the
Islamic banking institutions can:
(a) identify the material risks of the exposure;
(b) hedge the material risks of the exposure and the extent to which
hedging instruments would have an active, liquid two-way
market; and

(c) derive reliable estimates used in the model based on reasonable

assumptions and acceptable parameters.
(iv) The extent to which banking institution can and is required to

generate valuations for exposure that can be validated externally in a
consistent manner;
(v) The extent to which legal restrictions or other operational

requirements would impede Islamic banking institutions ability to
effect an immediate liquidation of the exposure;
(vi) The extent to which the Islamic banking institutions are required to,
and can, actively risk manage the exposure within its trading
operation; and
(vii) The extent to which the Islamic banking institutions may transfer risk
or exposures between the banking and trading books and criteria for
such transfers.
5.22 The above considerations, however, should not be treated as an

exhaustive and rigid set of tests that a product or group of related products
must pass for eligibility in the trading book. Rather, the list should serve as
minimum or most fundamental areas for considerations for overall
management of an Islamic banking institutions trading book. It should also
be supported by detailed policies and procedures.
Definition of Trading Book

5.23 The trading book consists of positions in financial instruments and
commodities held either with trading intent or to hedge other elements of
the trading book. To be eligible for trading book capital treatment, financial
instruments must either:
(i) be free of any restrictive covenants on tradability; or
(ii) be able to be hedged.
In addition,

(i) positions should be frequently and reliably valued; and
(ii) portfolio is actively managed.
5.24 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. These positions may
include for example, proprietary positions, positions arising from client
servicing and market making.
Financial Instruments
A financial instrument is a contract that gives rise to both a financial asset of one
entity and a financial liability or equity instrument of another entity. Financial
instruments include both primary financial instruments (or cash instruments) and
derivative financial instruments.
A financial asset is any asset that is cash, the right to receive cash or another
financial asset; or the contractual right to exchange financial assets on potentially
favourable terms; or an equity instrument. A financial liability is the contractual
obligation to deliver cash or another financial asset or to exchange financial
liabilities under conditions that are potentially unfavourable.
5.25 The following are the basic eligibility requirements for positions to receive
trading book capital treatment:
(i) Clearly documented overall trading strategy for positions/portfolios

contained within the trading book as approved by senior management
(which would include expected holding horizon etc.).
(ii) Clearly defined policies and procedures for active management of the
positions, which must include requirements for:
(a) management of positions by a trading desk;

(b) setting and monitoring of position limits to ensure

appropriateness;
(c) dealers to be given the autonomy to enter into or manage the

position within agreed limits and according to the agreed
strategy;
(d) marking-to-market of positions at least daily and when marking-

to-model, relevant parameters (for example volatility inputs,
market risk factors, etc.) to be assessed on a regular basis;
(e) reporting of positions to senior management as an integral part

of the Islamic banking institutions risk management process;
and
(f) actively monitoring of positions with references to market

information sources (assessment should be made of market
liquidity or the ability to hedge positions or the portfolio risk
profiles). This would include assessing the quality and
availability of market inputs for the valuation process, level of
market turnover, size of positions traded in the market, etc.
(iii) Clearly defined policies and procedures to monitor the positions

against Islamic banking institutions trading strategy including the
monitoring of turnover and stale position in the trading book.
5.26 All other exposures that are not defined as trading book positions should
be classified as exposures in the banking book. This will include both on-
and off-balance sheet positions.
Classification of Specific Financial Instruments

5.27 Equity investments called for by the Federal Government of Malaysia,
Bank Negara Malaysia, Association of Banks in Malaysia, Association of
Islamic Banking Institutions in Malaysia, or Malaysian Investment Banking
Association shall be treated as banking book positions where the capital
requirement is set forth in paragraph 2.51, 3.4(iii) and 3.179.

5.28 All defaulted financial instruments will be treated as banking book

positions and hence are subjected to the capital requirement of the
Framework.
5.29 In general, all derivative instruments should be classified under the trading
book except for derivatives that qualify as hedges for banking book
positions. However, certain derivative instruments and structured
investments may be classified as banking book positions particularly those
that are held for long term investments which are illiquid and/or has
significant credit risk elements.
5.30 The classification of the SBBA and reverse SBBA transactions shall be
assessed based on the trading book definition outlined in paragraphs 5.23
to 5.26.
D.1.3 TREATMENT OF MONEY MARKET INSTRUMENTS IN TRADING BOOK
5.31 Money market transactions such as the issuance and acquisition of Islamic
negotiable instruments, Islamic treasury bills, Islamic accepted bills,
Islamic commercial papers and Islamic interbank acceptances and
investments that fulfil the requirements set forth in paragraphs 5.23 to 5.26
may be recognised under the trading book position. In addition, these
transactions should be undertaken based on market price and
appropriately identified170 by the trading desk at deal inception as a
transaction undertaken with trading intent consistent with the definition in
paragraph 5.24. Customer deposits, investments and financing do not
qualify for this treatment since these products fall outside the definition of
money market instruments.
170
The identified money market transactions may be entered with either a third party or with the
banking book desk (internal deals). In addition to the requirements set in paragraph 5.35 internal
deals must be institutionalised and documented in banking institutions policies and procedures and
should be supported by a robust fund transfer pricing (FTP) system.

Controls to Prevent Regulatory Capital Arbitrage

5.32 Regulatory capital arbitrage arises when a position attracts different
regulatory capital requirements depending on its classification. Therefore,
the Bank expects Islamic banking institutions compliance officers, risk
manager and/or internal auditors to ensure that proper procedures are
followed through and adhered to when the items are classified into either
the trading or banking books.
5.33 Islamic banking institutions must ensure that classification of financial

instruments are determined up front and clear audit trails are created at
the time transactions are entered into, to facilitate monitoring of
compliance. These audit trails and documentation should be made
available to the Banks supervisors upon request.
5.34 To ensure that financial instruments held for trading are not included in the
banking book, financial instruments in the banking book shall not be sold
without prior approval of the Board. In this regard, the Board shall ensure
that the selling of banking book positions shall not be based on the
intention to trade. Each Islamic banking institution shall include this
requirement in their trading book policy statement.
5.35 Authority to sell banking book instruments may be delegated to Asset and
Liability Committee (ALCO) or Risk Management Committee (RMC) or any
Board-appointed signatories provided that the Board spells out the specific
policies under which such delegation may be applicable. The policy should
include at a minimum the following parameters:
(i) The sale does not tantamount to a trading position; and
(ii) The Board be informed of the sale of the banking book instruments
soonest possible.
5.36 Supervisory intervention involving remedial actions will be instituted if

there is evidence that Islamic banking institutions undermined the capital

adequacy requirements through improper classification of financial

instruments between their trading and banking books. The Bank may, for
instance, require Islamic banking institutions to reclassify banking book
positions into the trading book in the event that a regular trading pattern is
observed on the former classification and vice versa.
Treatment of Hedging Positions

5.37 In general, a hedge can be defined as a position that materially or entirely
offsets the component risk elements of another position or portfolio.
5.38 Islamic banking institutions are required to have board-approved written

policies which document the criteria of a hedge position and its
effectiveness171. Islamic banking institutions are required to identify hedge
positions at the time the hedging positions are created and to monitor and
document the subsequent performance of the positions with clear audit
trails.
5.39 Trading book positions entered with a third party to hedge banking book
positions are carved out and not subject to market risk capital charge
provided the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) Approval of ALCO/RMC or any authorities delegated by the board is

obtained with endorsement that the positions comply with internal
hedge policies;
(ii) At the inception of the hedge, there is proper documentation of the

hedge relationship and the Islamic banking institutions risk
management objectives and strategy for undertaking the hedge. This
documentation should include:
(a) the description of the hedge and financial instruments

designated as hedging instruments and their values;
171
The Bank does not expect the standards for hedging requirements for purpose of the Framework to
be identical to that required under the accounting standards.

(b) the nature of the risk being hedged and demonstrate how the
risk is being reduced by the hedge;
(c) the definition of an acceptable level of hedging effectiveness

and requirement to conduct periodical assessment on the
effectiveness of hedging instruments in offsetting the risk of the
underlying exposure; and
(d) the treatment of the hedging instrument and underlying

exposure in the event that the hedge ceases to be effective.
(iii) The identification and tagging of the underlying hedged portfolio/

transaction and hedge instrument are done upfront; and
(iv) The hedge shall be materially effective in offsetting the risk element
of the hedged exposure. Hence, the actual performance of the hedge
should be back tested against the expected performance as
documented at the inception. The hedging relationship should be
derecognised and the hedge instrument is reclassified as trading
book positions in the event that the hedge position ceases to be
effective or when the underlying banking book position ceases.
5.40 When internal hedging transactions are entered into between the trading
and banking book to hedge banking book market risk exposures, the
trading book leg of the transaction shall be subject to market risk capital
charge provided that the internal hedging transaction complies with the
requirements set in paragraph 5.39.
D.1.4 TREATMENT OF COUNTERPARTY CREDIT RISK IN THE TRADING

BOOK
5.41 Islamic banking institutions will be required to calculate the counterparty

credit risk charge for over the counter (OTC) derivatives, SBBA and other
transactions classified in the trading book, in addition to capital charge for

general market risk and specific risk.172 The calculation of the counterparty
credit risk charge will be based on the approaches as prescribed in the
credit component of the Framework. Islamic banking institutions using the
standardised approach in the banking book will use the standardised
approach risk weights in the trading book, and Islamic banking institutions
using the IRB approach in the banking book will use the IRB risk weights
in the trading book in a manner consistent with the IRB roll out plan for
portfolio in the banking book.
D.2 THE STANDARDISED MARKET RISK APPROACH
D.2.1 BENCHMARK RATE RISKS
5.42 This part describes the standardised framework for measuring the risk of
holding or taking positions in Islamic securities/Sukk and other
benchmark rate related financial instruments under the trading book, which
includes the followings:
(i) Fixed and floating rate Sukk and instruments that have similar
characteristics as Islamic debt securities/Sukk, which includes
non-convertible preference shares;
(ii) Benchmark rate risk exposures arising from forward foreign exchange
transactions, derivatives and forward sales and purchases of
securities.173; and
(iii) Convertible sukk, that is debt issues or preference shares that are
convertible into common shares of the issuer, will be treated as debt
securities/sukk if the instruments trade like debt securities/sukk or
as equities.
172
The treatment for unsettled FX and securities trades are set forth in the credit risk component of this
framework.
173
This includes primary issuance or underwriting of debt securities where rates have been fixed
upfront for which the position would be treated as a bond forward or bond option transaction. Refer
to Treatment of Options Underlying Position Approach for capital charge calculation

5.43 The market price of financial instruments is normally affected by general

changes in the market benchmark rate and factors related to a specific
issuer, especially issuers credit quality. These risks are also known as
general risk and specific risk respectively.
5.44 The summation of capital charges arising from exposure to the following
risks shall represent minimum capital requirement to cover the benchmark
rate risk:
(i) Specific risk of each security/Sukk, whether it is a short or a long

position; and
(ii) General market risk where long and short positions in different
securities/Sukk or instruments may be offset.
Specific Risk
5.45 The capital requirement for specific risk is designed to protect against
adverse movements in the price of an individual security due to the factors
with respect to the issuer. In measuring the risk, offsetting will be restricted
to matched positions in the identical issue. Offsetting is not permitted
between different issues even for the same issuer given that the prices of
the Sukk may diverge in the short run due to the differences in the profit
rates, liquidity, call features, etc.
Specific Risk Capital Charges for Issuer Risk

5.46 Table 2 provides the applicable capital charges in respect of specific risk
associated with the issuers of the benchmark rate related financial
instruments from G10174 and non-G10 countries.
5.47 The specific risk charges arising from the holding of benchmark rate
related financial instruments issued by banking institutions shall be based
174
The Group of Ten (G10) is made up of eleven industrial countries namely Belgium, Canada,
France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the
United States.

on the external ratings175 of the banking institutions while the specific risk
charges for the holding of benchmark rate related financial instruments
issued by foreign sovereigns will be based on the external ratings of the
foreign sovereigns. For example, the specific risk charge will be 1.6% as
provided in Table 2 in the event the Islamic banking institution holds a 5-
year sovereign Sukk which has a sovereign rating of A. In the case of
benchmark rate related financial instruments issued by corporations, the
country of establishment (i.e. G10 or non-G10) is also a factor that
determines the measurement of specific risk charges as an addition to
maturity and ratings. For example, the holding of AA rated Malaysian
corporate Sukuk with a maturity of 3 years will attract a specific risk charge
of 2.0%.
Table 2: Specific Risk Charges for Benchmark Rate Related Financial

Instruments
Remaining Maturity
<= 6 mths > 6m to 1 yr > 1 to 2 yrs > 2 to 5 yrs > 5 yrs
G10 Non G10 Non G10 Non G10 Non G10 Non
(%) G10 (%) G10 (%) G10 (%) G10 (%) G10
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Corporates &
Securitisations

P1 to P3 0.25 0.25 1.00 1.00

AAA to A- 0.25 0.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.60 2.00 1.60 3.00
BBB+ to BBB- 0.25 0.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.60 3.50 1.60 4.50
BB+ to B- 8.00
Below B- 12.00
Unrated 8.00
Banking
Institutions^
AAA to A- 0.25 1.00 1.00 1.60 1.60
BBB+ to BBB- 0.25 1.00 2.00 2.00 3.00
175
As illustrated in Table 2 or the equivalent standard rating category as specified in the credit
component of the Framework.

BB+ to B- 8.00
Below B- 12.00
Unrated 0.25 1.00 2.00 2.00 3.00
Public Sector
0.25 1.00 1.00 1.60 1.60
Entities (PSE)*
Malaysian
0
Government#
Foreign
Sovereigns
AAA to AA- 0
A+ to BBB- 0.25 1.00 1.00 1.60 1.60
BB+ to B- 8.00
Below B- 12.00
Unrated 8.00
A specific risk charge of 100% would apply for securitisation exposures held in the trading book if that
exposure is subject to a 1250% risk weight in the banking book.
^ Including benchmark rate related financial instruments issued and guaranteed by licensed banking
institutions and licensed development financial institutions as well as Multilateral Development
Banking institutions (MDBs) which do not qualify for preferential risk weight described in paragraph
2.27.
* Refer to the credit risk component of the Framework for the criteria of PSE.
# Including benchmark rate related financial instruments issued or guaranteed by the Malaysian
Government or the Bank, as well as securities issued through special purpose vehicles established by
the Bank e.g. Bank Negara Malaysia Sukuk Ijarah and BNMNi-Murabahah issued through BNM
Sukuk Berhad. However, banking institutions shall apply the look-through approach as specified
under Appendix XXI for BNM Mudarabah certificate (BMC).
Including exposures to highly-rated Multilateral Development Banking institutions (MDBs) that qualify
for the preferential risk weight as described in paragraph 2.27, and ringgit-denominated bonds issued
by non-resident quasi-sovereign agencies described in paragraph 2.52(viii).
Also applicable for exposures to IILM Sukuk.
5.48 There may be certain cases where specific risk is considerably

underestimated for Sukuk which have a high yield to redemption relative to
government Sukuk. In this instance, the Bank may:
(i) require Islamic banking institutions to apply a higher specific risk

charge to such instruments; and/or
(ii) disallow the offsetting between such instruments and other financial
instruments for the purpose of determining the capital charge due to
general market risk.

5.49 Securitisation exposures held in the trading book shall be subject to the
capital requirements in the market risk component of the Framework. The
specific risk charges for securitisation exposures shall be treated as
exposures to corporates as per Table 2. Securitisation exposures
subjected to a risk weight of 1250% under Part F of the Framework must
similarly be subjected to a 100% capital charge if they are held in the
trading book. As an exception, the treatment specified in paragraph 7.11
need not apply for such securitisation exposures retained in the trading
book during the first 90 days from the date of issuance.
General Benchmark Rate Risk

5.50 The capital requirements for general risk are designed to capture the risk
of losses arising from changes in market benchmark rates. Under the
standardised approach, Islamic banking institutions are given the options
to apply either the maturity method or duration method. Upon adoption
of a method, Islamic banking institutions are not allowed to switch between
methods without prior approval from the Bank. Under both methods,
positions are allocated across a maturity ladder template of time bands
and the capital charge is then calculated based on the summation of the
following components:
(i) the net short or long weighted position across the entire time
bands176;
(ii) the smaller proportion of the matched positions in each time band to
capture basis risk (the vertical disallowance);
(iii) the larger proportion of the matched positions across different time
bands to capture yield curve risk (the horizontal disallowance); and
(iv) a net charge for positions in options, where appropriate (refer to Part
D.2.6 Treatment of Options).
176
Positions include delta-weighted option position in the case where the institution decides to use the
Delta-plus Method for the treatment of options.

5.51 Separate maturity ladder templates should be used for positions that are
exposed to different currency benchmark rate risk. Non-Ringgit positions
must be translated into Ringgit equivalent based on spot foreign exchange
rates of the reporting date. Capital charges for general risk should be
calculated separately for each currency and then aggregated with no
offsetting between positions of different currencies. Two sets of risk
weights (Table 3) and changes in yields (Table 5) shall be applicable to
measure the exposures associated with the profit rate related financial
instruments to a G10 or non-G10 currency. Zero-coupon sukuk and deep-
discount sukuk (defined as sukuk with a coupon less than 3%) should be
slotted according to the time bands set out in the third column of Table 3.
Offsetting of Matched Positions

5.52 In calculating general risk, Islamic banking institutions may exclude all long
and short positions (both actual and notional) of identical instruments with
the same issuer, profit rate, currency and maturity. No offsetting will be
allowed between positions in different currencies; the separate legs of
cross-currency swaps or forward foreign exchange deals are to be treated
as notional positions and to be included in the appropriate calculation for
each currency benchmark rate risk.
Maturity Method
5.53 Under the maturity method, the market value of long or short positions in
Sukuk and other financial instruments that are exposed to risk of profit
rate, including derivative instruments, are slotted into the relevant time
bands as specified in Table 3. Fixed-rate instruments shall be allocated
according to the residual term to maturity and floating-rate instruments
according to the residual term to the next repricing date.
5.54 The first step in the calculation of the capital charge is to weight the
positions in each time band based on the risk weight that is formulated to
reflect the price sensitivity of those positions given the changes in
benchmark rates. For each time band, different risk weights shall be

assigned to the instruments denominated in currencies of either G10 or

non-G10 countries as set out in Table 3. The net short or long position
arising from the offsetting of the long and short position under each time
band is then multiplied with the respective risk weight to arrive at the net
short or long weighted position.
Table 3: General Benchmark Rate Risk Weights for Financial Instruments

Exposed to G10 or Non-G10 Currency
G10 Non-G10
Time Bands Time Bands Risk Risk
Zone
(Profit rate 3% or more) (Profit rate less than 3%) Weight Weight
(%) (%)
1 month or less 1 month or less 0.00 0.00
>1 month and up to 3 months >1 month and up to 3 months 0.20 0.20
1
>3 month and up to 6 months >3 months and up to 6 months 0.40 0.50
>6 month and up to 12 months >6 months and up to 12 months 0.70 0.80
>1 year and up to 2 years >1.0 year and up to 1.9 years 1.25 1.30
2 >2 years and up to 3 years >1.9 years and up to 2.8 years 1.75 1.90
>3 years and up to 4 years >2.8 years and up to 3.6 years 2.25 2.70
>7 years and up to 10 years > 5.7 years and up to 7.3 years 3.75 4.60
3
> 20 years > 10.6 years and up to 12 years 6.00 8.00
>12 years and up to 20 years 8.00 10.40
>20 years 12.50 16.40
Vertical Disallowance
5.55 The next step in the calculation is to offset the weighted long and short
positions within each time band that will result in a single short or long
position for each band.
5.56 In view that each band would include different instruments and maturities,
hence a 10% capital charge will be levied on the smaller of the resultant
offsetting positions (i.e. the matched position), be it long or short, under
each time band to reflect basis risk and gap risk. For instance, if the sum

of the weighted longs in a time band is RM100 million and the sum of the
weighted shorts is RM90 million, the so-called vertical disallowance for
that time band shall be 10% of RM90 million (i.e. RM9 million).
Horizontal Disallowance
5.57 Two sets of net long or short weighted positions under each time band
shall be produced as a consequence to the above calculation. The
maturity ladder is then divided into three zones. Zone one, two and three
covers the maturity time band of less than a year, more than one year to
four years and more than four years respectively. Islamic banking
institutions will then have to conduct two further rounds of offsetting, firstly
between the net time band positions within each zone and secondly
between the net positions across the three different zones (i.e. between
adjacent zones and non-adjacent zones). The residual net position in each
zone may be carried over and offset against opposite positions in other
zones when calculating net positions between zones 2 and 3, and 1 and 3.
The offsetting will be subject to a scale of disallowances expressed as a
fraction of the matched positions, as set out in Table 4.

Table 4: Horizontal Disallowances

Between
Zones Time Band Within the Between
Adjacent
Zone Zones 1 and 3
Zones
0 1 month
>1 3 months 40%
Zone 1
>3 6 months
>6 12 months
40%
>1 2 years
Zone 2 >2 3 years 30% 100%
>3 4 years
40%
>4 5 years
>5 7 years
Zone 3 >7 10 years
>10 15 years 30%
>15 20 years
> 20 years
5.58 The general risk capital requirement will be the sum of:
Net Position Net Short or Long Weighted Positions 100%
Vertical Matched Weighted Positions177 in all Maturity Bands 10%

Disallowances
Matched Weighted Positions within Zone 1 40%

Horizontal
Disallowances Matched Weighted Positions Between Zones 1 & 2 40%
Matched Weighted Positions Between Zones 2 & 3 40%
Matched Weighted Positions Between Zones 1 & 3 100%
177
The smaller of the absolute value of the short and long positions within each time band.

An example of the calculation of general benchmark rate risk using

maturity method is set out in Example 1.
Duration Method
5.59 Islamic banking institutions may adopt the duration method if they have the
necessary capability to measure their general risk by calculating the price
sensitivity of each position separately. This method should be consistently
used upon adoption. The mechanics of this method are as follows:
(i) Calculate the price sensitivity of each instrument in terms of a change

in benchmark rates of between 0.8 and 1.5 percentage points for
instruments denominated in non G10 countries currencies and
between 0.6 and 1.0 percentage point for instruments denominated in
G10 countries currencies (refer to Table 5) depending on the
maturity of the instrument;
(ii) Slot the resulting sensitivity measures into a duration-based ladder in

the thirteen time bands as set out in the second column of Table 5
and obtain the net position;
(iii) long and short positions in each time band are subjected to a 5%
vertical disallowance to capture basis risk in the same manner as per
paragraph 5.56; and
(iv) carry forward the net positions in each time band for horizontal
offsetting subject to the disallowances set out in Table 4 in the same
manner as per paragraph 5.57.
The market risk capital charge will be the aggregation of the three charges
described in paragraph 5.58.

Table 5: Changes in Yield for Financial Instruments Exposed to

G10 and Non-G10 Currency Benchmark Rate Risk
G10 Non-G10
Time Bands Time Bands Changes Changes
Zone
(Profit rate 3% or more) (Profit rate less than 3%) in Yield in Yield
(%) (%)
1 month or less 1 month or less 1.00 1.50
>1 month and up to 3 months >1 month and up to 3 months 1.00 1.50
1
>3 months and up to 6 months >3 months and up to 6 months 1.00 1.40
>6 months and up to 12 months >6 months and up to 12 months 1.00 1.20
>1 year and up to 2 years >1.0 year and up to 1.9 years 0.90 1.00
2 >2 years and up to 3 years >1.9 years and up to 2.8 years 0.80 0.90
> 3 years and up to 4 years >2.8 years and up to 3.6 years 0.75 0.90
> 7 years and up to 10 years > 5.7 years and up to 7.3 years 0.65 0.80
3
>20 years >10.6 years and up to 12 years 0.60 0.80
>12 years and up to 20 years 0.60 0.80
>20 years 0.60 0.80
Treatment of Profit Rate Derivatives, Sell and Buy Back Agreement (SBBA)
and Reverse SBBA Transactions
5.60 The measurement system should include all profit rate derivatives, off-
balance sheet instruments, SBBA and reverse SBBA transactions in the
trading book which would react to changes in benchmark rates (for
example forward rate agreements (FRAs), other forward contracts, profit
rate and cross currency swaps and forward foreign exchange positions).
Options can be treated in a variety of ways as described in Part D.2.6
Treatment of Options.

5.61 Derivatives should be converted into positions under the relevant

underlying and subject to general risk charges. To determine the capital
charge under the standardised method described above, the amount
reported should be the market value of the principal amount of the
underlying or of the notional underlying. Treatment of the benchmark rate
derivative positions by product class is described in Box 1. A summary on
the treatment for profit rate derivatives is set out in Table 6.
Table 6: Summary of Treatment of Benchmark Rate Derivatives,

SBBA and Reverse SBBAs under the Standardised Market Risk Approach
Specific
Instrument General Risk
Risk*
OTC Forwards
- Malaysian Government debt security No Yes, as two positions +
- Foreign sovereigns debt security Yes^ Yes, as two positions +
- Corporate debt security Yes Yes, as two positions +
- Index on benchmark rates No Yes, as two positions +
FRAs, Swaps No Yes, as two positions +
Forward Foreign Exchange No Yes, as one position in each currency +
Options Either
- Malaysian Government debt security No (a) Simplified Approach:
- Foreign sovereigns debt security Yes^ Carve out together with the associated
hedging positions for general risk only and
- Corporate debt security Yes
reflect under Part D.2.6;
- Index on benchmark rates No or
- FRAs, Swaps No (b) Delta-Plus Method:
Include the delta weighted option position
into the respective time bands according to
its underlying. (Gamma and Vega risk
should each receive a separate capital
charge and calculated under Part D.2.6);
or
(c) Scenario Approach:
Carve out together with the associated
hedging positions for general risk only and
reflect under Part D.2.6;
or
(d) Internal Models Approach (Part D.3)
SBBA No Yes, as 1 position +
Reverse SBBA No Yes, as 1 position +

* This refers to the specific risk charge relating to the issuer of the financial instrument. There
remains a separate risk charge for counterparty credit risk which is set forth in the credit risk
component of the Framework.
^ The specific risk capital charge only applies to foreign sovereign debt securities that are rated
below AA-
+ Refer to Box 1 for more details on method of recording the position
5.62 Profit rate swaps, cross currency swaps, FRAs and forward foreign
exchange contracts will not be subject to a specific risk charge. They are,
however, subject to the counterparty credit risk which is set forth in the
credit risk component of the Framework. A specific risk charge will apply in
the case where the underlying of a contract is represented by a specific
Sukuk, or an index representing a basket of Sukuks.
5.63 General risk applies to all positions in derivative products in the same
manner as cash positions, with the exception of fully matched positions in
identical instruments. The various categories of instruments should be
slotted into the maturity ladder and treated according to the rules identified
earlier.
BOX 1
Forward Contracts
In the case of foreign currency forward contracts, either a long or a short

position in the market value of each underlying currency leg shall be recorded in
the respective maturity ladder templates capturing the relevant currency
benchmark rate risk.
Swaps
Swaps will be treated as two underlying positions in government securities with

relevant maturities. For example, a profit rate swap under which an Islamic
banking institution is receiving variable profit rate and paying fixed profit rate will
be treated as a long position in a variable profit rate instrument of maturity
equivalent to the period until the next profit fixing date and a short position in a
fixed-rate instrument of maturity equivalent to the residual life of the swap.

For swaps that pay or receive a fixed or variable profit rate against some other
reference price, for example an equity index, the profit rate component should
be slotted into the appropriate repricing maturity category, with the equity
component being included in the equity framework. The separate legs of
cross-currency swaps are to be reported at market value in the relevant maturity
ladders for the currencies concerned.
SBBA Transactions178
The risk exposure under SBBA transactions arises from selling of securities and
receiving cash with a promise to repurchase securities or repayment of cash at
the agreed future date. The classification of SBBA transactions should be
determined based on the trading book definition; hence it can be classified either
as a trading book SBBA (for example SBBA to fund trading book positions) or
banking book SBBA (for example SBBA to fund banking book positions).
Trading Book SBBA
General Risk
Arising from short cash position
Recording: short the value of the SBBA (cash leg) based on the remaining
maturity of the SBBA
Counterparty Credit Risk
The net exposure arising from the swapping of securities and cash with the
SBBA counterparty at maturity of the SBBA.
Recording: Treated as a credit risk under the credit risk component of the
Framework.
Risk of the Underlying Securities
178
Capital treatment for SBBA and reverse SBBA transaction is summarised in Appendix XVIII.

Irrespective of whether the underlying security is from the banking or trading

book, its respective credit or market risk shall remain.
Banking Book SBBA
The net exposure arising from the selling of securities in exchange for cash.
Recording: Treated as a banking book credit risk charge under the credit risk
component of the Framework for SBBA transactions
Risk of the Underlying Securities
Irrespective of whether the underlying security is from the banking or trading

book, its respective credit or market risk shall remain.
Reverse SBBA Transactions
The risk exposure under reverse SBBA transactions arises from buying of
securities in exchange for cash with a promise to resell securities or receive
cash at the agreed future date. The classification of reverse SBBA transactions
should be based on the trading book definition; hence it can be classified either
as a trading or banking book position.
Trading Book Reverse SBBA
General Risk
Arising from long cash position
Recording: long the value of the reverse SBBA based on the remaining
maturity of the reverse SBBA
The net exposure arising from the purchase of securities in exchange for cash
with the reverse SBBA counterparty at maturity of the reverse SBBA.

Recording: Treated as a credit risk under the credit risk component of the
Framework.
Banking Book Reverse SBBA
The net exposure arising from the exchange of cash for the purchase of
securities.
Recording: Treated as a banking book credit risk charge under the credit risk
component of the Framework for reverse SBBA style transactions.
Options
Three methods (Simplified Approach, Scenario Approach and Delta-Plus

Method) are available under Part D.2.6 Treatment of Options. Profit rate option
positions and the underlying transactions will be carved out and capital is
provided separately for general risk if Islamic banking institutions choose to use
the simplified and scenario approach. However, if the delta-plus method is
selected, the delta-weighted option position will be slotted into the respective
time bands according to its underlying together with the other profit rate related
instruments. Nevertheless, under the delta-plus method, the Gamma and Vega
risks will be separately calculated as described in Part D.2.6 Treatment of
Options. Islamic banking institutions are also allowed to use internal model
approach under Part D.3 subject to written approval from the Bank.

Example 1: Calculation of General Risk (Maturity Method) for Benchmark Rate

Related Financial Instruments
1. Assume that an Islamic banking institution has the following positions in its
trading book:
(i) A Malaysian fixed rate corporate Sukuk of RM13.33 million market value,
residual maturity 8 years;
(ii) A Malaysian government investment issues (GII) of RM75 million market
value, residual maturity 2 months;
(iii) An Islamic profit rate swap (IPRS) of RM150 million179, where the Islamic
banking institution receives floating profit rate and pays fixed, the next
profit fixing occurs after 9 months, residual life of the IPRS 8 years;
(iv) A GII of RM60 million market value with residual maturity of 3.5 years, sold
under SBBA for six months; and
(v) A Malaysian fixed profit rate trading book corporate Sukuk, RM50 million
market value, residual maturity of 5 years, sold under SBBA for 3 months.
2. Table A shows how these positions are slotted into the time bands and are
weighted according to the weights given in column 5 of Table 3 (Risk weight for
Non-G10 countries currency) of Part D.2.1 Benchmark Rate Risk. After
weighting the positions, the calculation should proceed as follows:
(i) The overall net position is -2.12 million (0.05-0.30+1.20+1.62+1.60-6.29

million) leading to a capital charge of RM2.12 million.
(ii) The vertical disallowance in time bands 1-3 months and 7-10 years has to
be calculated and the matched position in these time-bands (the lesser of
the absolute values of the added weighted long and added weighted short
positions in the same time-band) are 0.10 and 0.61 million respectively
resulting in a capital charge of 10% of 0.71 million = RM0.07million.
(iii) The horizontal disallowances within the zones have to be calculated. As
there are more than one position in zones 1 and 3, a horizontal
disallowance need only be calculated in these zones. In doing this, the
matched position is calculated as the lesser of the absolute values of the
added long and short positions in the same zone and is 0.30 and 1.60
million in zones 1 and 3 respectively. The capital charge for the horizontal
179
The position should be reported as the market value of the notional underlying. Depending on the
current benchmark rate, the market value of each leg of the swap (that is the 8 year Sukuk and the
9 month floater) can be either higher or lower than the notional amount. For simplicity, the example
assumes that the current benchmark rate is identical with the one the swap is based on, hence, the
market value for both legs are identical.

disallowance within zone 1 is 40% of 0.30 million = RM0.12 million and

30% of 1.60 million = RM0.48 million in zone 3. The remaining net
weighted positions in zones 1 and 3 are +0.95 and -4.69 million
respectively.
(iv) The horizontal disallowances between adjacent zones have to be
calculated. After calculating the net position within each zone the following
positions remain: zone 1: +0.95 million; zone 2: +1.62 million and zone 3:
-4.69 million. The matched position between zones 2 and 3 is 1.62 million
(the lesser of the absolute values of the long and short positions between
adjacent zones). The capital charge in this case is 40% of 1.62 million =
RM0.65 million.
(v) The horizontal disallowance between zones 1 and 3 has to be calculated.

The matched position between zones 1 and 3 is 0.95 million (the lesser of
the absolute values of the long and short positions between zones 1 and
3). The horizontal disallowance between the two zones is 100% of the
lower of the matched position which leads to a capital charge of 100% of
0.95 million = RM0.95 million.
3. The total capital charge (RM million) in this example is:
- overall net open position 2.12

- vertical disallowance 0.07
- horizontal disallowance in zone 1 0.12
- horizontal disallowance in zone 3 0.48
- horizontal disallowance between adjacent zones 0.65
- horizontal disallowance between zones 1 and 3 0.95
Total RM4.39 million

Table A: Maturity Method of Calculating General Risk of Profit Rate Related Financial Instruments (RM million)
Time-Band Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3
(months) (years) (years)
(Coupon 3% or > 10- > 15 - Over
> 1- 2 > 2- 3 > 3- 4 > 4- 5 > 5- 7 > 7- 10
more) Up to 15 20 20 Total
> 1-3 > 3-6 > 6-12
(Coupon less 1 > 1- > 1.9- >2.8- >3.6- >4.3- >7.3 - > 9.3 > 10.6- > 12- Over charges
>5.7- 7.3
than 3% 1.9 2.8 3.6 4.3 5.7 9.3 -10.6 12 20 20
50 13.33
75 150
Long 60 corporate corporate
GII IPRS
position GII (iv) Sukuk* Sukuk
(ii) (iii)
(v) (i)
50 60
150
Short SBBA SBBA
IPRS
position (Cash) (Cash)
(iii)
(v) (iv)
Assigned
0.00 0.20 0.50 0.80 1.30 1.90 2.70 3.20 4.10 4.60 6.00 7.00 8.00 10.40 16.40
Weight (%)
Overall Net
+0.05 -0.30 +1.20 +1.62 +1.60 -6.29 2.12
Open Position
0.10 x
Vertical 0.61 x 10%
10%= 0.07
Disallowance = 0.06
0.01
Horizontal
Disallowance 0.30 x 40% = 0.12 1.60 X 30% = 0.48 0.60
1
Horizontal
Disallowance 1.62 x 40% = 0.65 0.65
2
Horizontal
Disallowance 0.95x 100% = 0.95 0.95
3
Total General
4.39
Risk Charge

D.2.2 EQUITY POSITION RISK
5.64 This part sets out the minimum capital requirement to cover the risk of
equity positions in the trading book. It applies to long and short positions in
all instruments that exhibit market behaviour similar to equities. The
instruments include ordinary shares, whether voting or non-voting,
convertible securities that behave like equities, and commitments to buy or
sell equity securities. Non-convertible preference shares are to be
excluded from these calculations as they are covered under benchmark
rate risk requirement described in Part D.2.1 Benchmark Rate Risks.
Equity derivatives and off-balance sheet positions such as swaps and
options on individual equity or equity indices are also included.
Underwriting of equities180 should be included and regarded as an option
instrument.
Specific and General Risk

5.65 The minimum capital requirement for equities is expressed in terms of two
separate charges that represent the calculation for the specific and
general risk charges for holding a long or short equity position. The equity
positions must be calculated based on a market by market basis where a
separate calculation has to be carried out for each national market in
which the equities are traded.
Specific Risk
5.66 Specific risk is defined as a proportion of the Islamic banking institutions
sum of the absolute value of all net positions in each individual equity181. Matching
opposite position for the same equity issuer may be netted off. The capital charge
for specific risk is listed in Table 7182. The Bank however, reserves the right to
180
The underwriter is obliged to purchase equities at the issue price for unsubscribed equities which in
effect is equivalent to writing a put option and the issuer as the holder of the put option has the right
but not the obligation to sell the equities to the underwriter at the issue price.
181
Net position in each individual equity refers to the net of short and long exposure to an individual
company.
182
If the Delta-plus method or the Scenario approach is selected to estimate the general risk of equity
options, the specific risk of these positions will be calculated within this part as the multiplication of
the delta weighted option underlying position and the risk weight for specific risk as provided in

assign different risk weights to specific exposure in order to better reflect the risk
characteristics of the exposure.
General Risk
5.67 General risk will be assessed on the overall net equity positions (i.e. the
difference between the sum of the long positions and the sum of the short
positions of all equity position) in an equity market. The general risk capital
charge is as provided in Table 7.
Table 7. However, if the Underlying Position approach is adopted, both specific risk and general risk
of the equity option will be carved out and provided under paragraphs 5.122 and 5.123 of Part
D.2.6 Treatment of Options.

Table 7: Specific Risk and General Risk Charges for

Equities and Equity Derivatives
Instrument Specific risk General risk
Equity and/or Equity Derivative (except Options) Positions with the following as
Underlying:
KLCI equities 8% 8%
Equities of G10 countries market indices 4% 8%
Non-index equities of G10 stock exchanges 8% 8%
All other equities 14% 8%
Trust funds and Exchange Traded Funds 8% 8%
Shariah equities indices 2% 8%
Other market indices 2% 8%
Underwriting of Equity
Underlying Position Approach:
General and specific risk for underwriting initial public offering (IPO) and rights issue
are calculated by carving out the positions and reporting them based on the underlying
position approach under Part D.2.6 Treatment of Options
Equity Options
1. Simplified Approach:
i. This approach applies to limited range of purchase options only.
ii. Equity options and associated underlying cash positions are carved-out and
subject to separately calculated capital charges that incorporate both general
market risk and specific risk under Part D.2.6 Treatment of Options; or
2. Delta-Plus Method:
i. For both specific risk and general risk charge, the delta weighted option
position is multiplied with the relevant specific risk and general risk charge as
provided above.
ii. Gamma and Vega risk should each receive a separate capital charge
calculated as per Part D.2.6 Treatment of Options; or
3. Scenario Approach:
i. Specific risk is calculated by multiplying the delta weighted position of the
options underlying by the specific risk charge as provided above.
ii. General risk is calculated by carving out the options position together with its
associated hedging positions and reflected under Part D.2.6 Treatment of
Options; or
4. Internal Models Approach:
Subject to the Banks approval upon compliance with Part D.3

D.2.3 FOREIGN EXCHANGE RISK (INCLUDING GOLD AND SILVER

POSITIONS)
5.68 This sets out the minimum capital requirement to cover the risk of holding
or taking positions in foreign currencies including gold and silver. Taking
on foreign exchange positions may also expose an Islamic banking
institution to benchmark rate risk (for example, in forward foreign
exchange contracts). In this regard, the relevant benchmark rate positions
should be included in the calculation of benchmark rate risk described in
Part D.2.1 Benchmark Rate Risks.
5.69 Two steps are needed to calculate the capital requirement for foreign
exchange risk under the standardised approach. The first is to measure
the exposure in a single currency position (i.e. the net open position of a
single currency). The second is to measure the risks inherent in an Islamic
banking institution's mix of net long and short positions in different
currencies (i.e. the total net long and total net short position in foreign
currencies).
5.70 The 8% capital charge will be applied on the higher amount of the total net
long or total net short foreign currency position. For exposures in gold and
silver, the respective net position will be treated on a stand alone basis
and applied a capital charge of 8%.
5.71 An additional capital charge of 3% will be applied on the total gross long
and short position to account for execution risk, in the event that gold
and/or silver are physically traded.
The Treatment of Structural Positions

5.72 While matched foreign currency asset and liability positions will protect an
Islamic banking institution against loss from movements in exchange
rates, this will not necessarily protect its capital adequacy ratios. This is
due to higher RWA for its foreign assets arising from appreciation of

foreign exchange rate. By maintaining a structural net long position in the

foreign currency, the gain arising from revaluation of the net long position
will buffer the increase in RWA resulting from the rise in the value of
foreign currency assets.
5.73 Any structural foreign currency positions which was deliberately

undertaken by an Islamic banking institution to hedge partially or totally the
adverse effect of the exchange rate on its capital adequacy ratios may be
excluded from the calculation of net open currency positions, provided that
the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) the structural positions must be of non-dealing nature;
(ii) the structural positions do no more than protect the Islamic banking
institutions capital adequacy ratio; and
(iii) the exclusion of the positions are approved by ALCO/Risk

Committee, or other approving authority delegated by the board, and
must be applied consistently throughout the life of the assets.
Measuring the Exposure in a Single Currency

5.74 Islamic banking institutions net open position in each currency (excluding
gold and silver) shall be calculated by aggregating the following positions:
(i) the net on-balance sheet position183 (i.e. all foreign currency asset
items less all foreign currency liability items. For example, currency
and notes, trade bills, government and private debt papers, financing
and deposits, foreign currency accounts and accrued profit,
denominated in the foreign currency in question)184;
(ii) the net forward position (i.e. present value of all amounts to be
received less present value of all amounts to be paid under unsettled
183
Structural positions which fulfil conditions set out in Part D.2.3 Foreign Exchange Risk would be
excluded from the computation.
184
Profit, other income and expenses accrued (that is earned/expensed but not yet received/paid)
should be included as a position.

spot transactions, forward foreign exchange transactions, the

principal on currency swaps position and profit rate transaction such
as profit rate swap denominated in a foreign currency)185;
(iii) guarantees and contingencies (exclude underwriting of equity IPOs

which are captured as options and treated under Part D.2.6
Treatment of Options) that are certain to be called and are likely to
be irrecoverable;
(iv) any other item representing a profit or loss in foreign currencies; and
(v) the net delta-based equivalent of the total book of foreign currency
options186.
5.75 Currency pairs which are subject to a binding inter-governmental

agreement linking the two currencies may be treated as one currency 187.
5.76 Positions in gold and silver are measured in terms of the standard unit of
measurement which is then converted into Ringgit188 based on spot
exchange rate at reporting date.
The Treatment of Profit, Other Income and Expenses in Foreign Currency

5.77 Accrued profit and accrued expenses should be included as a position.
Unearned but expected future profit and anticipated expenses may be
185
Forward currency positions could be valued in the following ways:
(i) Present values of each forward foreign currency position using the benchmark rate of the
foreign currency and translated at current spot exchange rates to get the Ringgit equivalent; or
(ii) Use forward exchange rate to translate the forward currency leg into Ringgit equivalent before
discounting it by Ringgit benchmark rates; or
(iii) Multiply the foreign currency forward leg by current spot exchange rate without present valuing.
Treatment (i) and (ii) are preferred. Nevertheless, treatment (iii) which is a simplified but relatively
inaccurate method may be used by Islamic banking institutions with small foreign exchange
positions and do not possess the systems to conduct present value calculations.
186
Applicable to institutions which uses the Delta-plus method of treating options position. Subject to
separately calculated capital charges for Gamma and Vega as described in Part D.2.6 Treatment of
Options. Alternatively, options and their associated underlying may be subject to one of the other
methods described in Part D.2.6 Treatment of Options.
187
For example, inter-governmental agreements apply to Singapore and Brunei dollars.
188
Where gold/silver is part of a forward contract (the quantity of gold/silver to be received or to be
delivered), any benchmark rate or foreign currency exposure from the other leg of the contract
should be reported as set out in Part D.2.1 Benchmark Rate Risk.

excluded unless the amounts are certain and Islamic banking institutions
have taken the opportunity to hedge them. Any inclusion of future
income/expenses should be treated consistently, and should not be
restricted to select only those expected future flows that would reduce their
position.
Measuring the Foreign Exchange Risk in a Portfolio of Foreign Currency

Positions
5.78 Under the standardised method, the net position of the combined trading
and banking book in each foreign currency is converted into reporting
currencies (Malaysian Ringgit) at spot rates of the reporting dates. The
overall net open position is measured by aggregating:
(i) the sum of the net short positions or the sum of the net long positions,
whichever is the greater; with
(ii) the net position (short or long) in gold and silver, regardless of
whether it is positive or negative.
5.79 The capital charge will be 8% of the overall net open position (refer to the
example below).
Example of the Standard Measure of Foreign Exchange Risk
JPY HKD GBP SGD USD GOLD
Step 1 +50 +100 +150 -20 -180 -35
Step 2 +300 -200 35
The capital charge of 8% for foreign exchange risk shall be calculated based on
either the net long currency positions or the net short currency positions (300)
and the net position in gold (35) as follows:
Capital charge = (300 + 35) x 8%

= RM26.8.

D.2.4 COMMODITIES RISK
5.80 This part establishes a minimum capital requirement to cover the price risk
of holding or taking positions in commodities189, that includes precious
metals. However, the capital requirement does not apply to gold and silver
which are treated as a foreign currency according to the methodology set
out in Part D.2.3 Foreign Exchange Risk. A commodity is defined as a
physical product which is or traded on a secondary market, for example
agricultural products, minerals (including oil) and precious metals.
5.81 The price risk in commodities is often more complex and volatile than that
associated with currencies and profit rates. Commodity markets may also
be less liquid than those of profit rates and currencies. Hence, changes in
supply and demand may have a significant effect on price and volatility190.
These market characteristics signify the challenges to enable price
transparency and to effectively hedge the commodities risk.
5.82 Islamic banking institutions involved in commodity derivative contracts are

exposed to the following risks:
(i) directional risk (the risk arising from a change in the spot price);
(ii) basis risk (the risk that the relationship between the prices of similar
commodities be adjusted through time);
(iii) benchmark rate risk (the risk of a change in the carrying cost for
forward positions and options); and
(iv) forward gap risk (the risk that the forward price may change for
reasons other than a change in benchmark rates).
189
All commodity derivatives and off-balance-sheet positions which are affected by changes in
commodity prices should be included. This includes commodity risk arising from Salam contracts.
190
Islamic banking institutions also need to guard against the risk that arises when the short position
falls due before the long position. Owing to a shortage of liquidity in some markets it might be
difficult to close the short position and the Islamic banking institution might be squeezed by the
.
market.

5.83 In addition Islamic banking institutions are exposed to counterparty credit

risk on over-the-counter derivatives, but this is captured by the credit risk
component of the Framework. The funding of commodities positions may
expose Islamic banking institution to benchmark rate or foreign exchange
risks, whereby the relevant positions should be included in the
measurement of benchmark rate and foreign exchange risk as stipulated
under Part D.2.1 Benchmark Rate Risk and D.2.3 Foreign Exchange
Risk.191
5.84 Under the standardised approach, commodities position risk is measured

based on either one of the following approaches:
(i) Simplified approach; or
(ii) Maturity ladder approach
Both the Simplified Approach and the Maturity Ladder Approach are
appropriate only for Islamic banking institutions, which in relative terms,
conduct only a limited amount of commodities business. Major traders
would be expected over time to adopt the internal model approach subject
to the requirements set out in the Part D.3 Internal Models Approach.
5.85 Under the Simplified Approach and the Maturity Ladder Approach, long
and short positions in each commodity may be reported on a net basis
where the long and short positions in identical underlying commodity may
be excluded for the purpose of calculating the open positions. However,
positions in different types of commodities shall not be offset against each
other with the exception if that commodities:
191
Where a commodity is part of a forward contract (quantity of commodities to be received or to be
delivered), any benchmark rate or foreign currency exposure from the other leg of the contract
should be reported as set out in Part D.2.1 Benchmark Rate Risk and Part D.2.3 Foreign
Exchange Risk (Including Gold and Silver Positions). Positions which are purely stock financing
(that is a physical stock has been sold forward and the cost of funding has been locked in until the
date of the forward sale) may be omitted from the commodities risk calculation although they will be
subject to benchmark and counterparty risk requirements.

(i) similar192 in nature; and
(ii) have exhibit minimum correlation of 0.9 between price movements

over a minimum period of one year.
5.86 Islamic banking institutions that wish to apply the correlation factor as a
basis for the computation of capital charges are required to justify the
accuracy of the proposed methodology and to obtain prior approval from
the Bank.
Simplified Approach
5.87 For the purpose of calculating the capital charges for directional risk,
Islamic banking institutions are required to measure each commodity
position (spot plus forward) in terms of the standard unit of measurement
(barrels, kilos, grams etc.). The net position in each commodity will then be
converted at the current spot rates into Malaysian Ringgit. The capital
charge of 15% is imposed on net commodity position that is long or short
in each commodity.
5.88 Islamic banking institutions will also be subject to additional capital charge
of 3% of the gross commodity positions, long plus short in each
commodity, to cover the exposures against basis risk, benchmark rate risk
and forward gap risk for each type of commodity. The current spot price
should be used for the purpose of valuing the gross positions in
commodity derivatives.
Maturity Ladder Approach

5.89 Islamic banking institutions are required to measure each commodity
position (spot plus forward) in terms of the standard unit of measurement
(barrels, kilos, grams etc.) for the purpose of calculating the capital
charges for directional risk under this approach. The net position in each
192
For example, CBOT Mini-sized Gold vs. 100oz Gold; but not Mini-sized Silver vs. Mini-sized Gold.

commodity will then be converted at the current spot rates into Malaysian
Ringgit.
5.90 Subsequently for the purpose of capturing the forward gap and benchmark
rate risk within a time-band, (which together, are sometimes referred to as
curvature/ spread risk) the matched long and short positions in each time-
band will carry a capital charge. The methodology will be similar to that
used for profit rate related instruments as set out in Part D.2.1
Benchmark Rate Risk.
5.91 The calculation of the capital charge under the maturity ladder approach is
undertaken based on the following sequence:
(i) Firstly, the position in the separate commodities shall be measured

based on the standard unit of measurement and will be entered into a
maturity ladder while physical transactions should be allocated to the
first time-band. A separate maturity ladder will be used for each type
of commodity as defined in paragraph 5.85.193 For each time-band,
the sum of short and long total positions which are matched will be
multiplied by the appropriate spread rate (as set out in Table 8);
Table 8: Time-Bands and Spread Rates
Time-Band Spread Rate
0-1 month 1.5%
>1-3 months 1.5%
>3-6 months 1.5%
>6-12 months 1.5%
>1-2 years 1.5%
>2-3 years 1.5%
Over 3 years 1.5%
193
For markets which have daily delivery dates, any contracts maturing within ten days of one another
may be offset.

(ii) The residual net positions from nearer time-bands may then be
carried forward to offset exposures in time-bands that are further out.
However, recognising that such hedging of positions among different
time-bands is imperfect, a surcharge equal to 0.6% of the net position
carried forward will be added in respect of each time-band that the
net position is carried forward. The capital charge for each matched
amount created by carrying forward net positions is calculated in
accordance with sub paragraph 5.91; and
(iii) Finally, Islamic banking institution will have either a residual long or
short position only, to which a capital charge of 15% will apply.
5.92 All commodity derivatives and off-balance-sheet positions which are

affected by changes in commodity prices should be included under the
Framework. This includes commodity futures, commodity swaps, and
options where the delta plus method194 is used (see Part D.2.6
Treatment of Options). In order to calculate the risk, commodity
derivatives should be converted into notional commodities positions and
assigned to maturities as follows:
(i) futures and forward contracts relating to individual commodities

should be incorporated in the measurement system as notional
amounts of barrels, kilos, etc. and should be assigned maturity with
reference to expiry date;
(ii) commodity swaps where one leg is undertaken based on a fixed price
and the other on the current market price should be accounted as a
series of positions equal to the notional amount of the contract, with
one position corresponding with each payment on the swap and
slotted into the maturity ladder accordingly. Islamic banking institution
shall be in a long positions if the Islamic banking institution is paying
194
For Islamic banking institutions using other approaches to measure options risk, all options and the
associated underlyings should be excluded from both the maturity ladder approach and the
simplified approach.

fixed and receiving variable price, and short positions if it is receiving

fixed and paying variable price195; and
(iii) commodity swaps where the legs are in different commodities are
incorporated in the relevant maturity ladder.
5.93 An example on the application of maturity ladder approach for commodity

risk is provided in Example 3.
195
If one of the legs involves receiving/paying a fixed or variable profit rate, that exposure should be
slotted into the appropriate repricing maturity band in the maturity ladder covering benchmark rate
related instruments.

Models for Measuring Commodities Risk

5.94 Subject to the Banks written approval, Islamic banking institutions may
adopt the Internal Models Approach as set out in Part D.3. It is essential
that the models used capture material risks identified in paragraph 5.82. It
is also particularly important that models take into account of the market
characteristics notably delivery dates and the scope provided to traders
to close out positions.
5.95 Under the models approach Islamic banking institutions may offset long
and short positions in different commodities to a degree which is
determined by empirical correlations, in the same way as a limited degree
of offsetting is allowed, for instance, between profit rates in different
currencies.

Example 3: Maturity Ladder Approach for Commodities Risk
1. To provide examples on maturity ladder approach for commodities risk, all

positions are assumed to be in the same commodity as defined under
paragraph 5.85 and converted at current spot rates into Malaysian Ringgit.
Table B
Capital
Time Band Position (RM) Spread Rate Capital Calculation Charge
(RM)
0-1 month 1.5%
>1-3 months 1.5%
>3-6 months
800 long + 800 short
(matched) x 1.5% = 24.0
Long 800
1.5%
Short 1000
200 short carried forward
to 1-2 years, capital
charge: 200 x 2 x 0.6% = 2.4
>6-12 months 1.5% *

>1-2 years
(matched) x 1.5% = 6.0
Long 600 1.5%
400 long carried forward
to over 3 years, capital
=
charge: 400 x 2 x 0.6% 4.8
>2-3 years 1.5% *
>3 years
(matched) x 1.5% = 12.0
Short 600 1.5%
Net position: 200,
Capital charge: 200 x 15% = 30.0
Total Capital Charge 79.2
* The net position in the previous bucket is carried forward to the next bucket since no offsetting
could be done in this bucket.

2. Assume all positions are in crude palm oil (CPO):
(a) A short position on 10,000 tonne notional amount of CPO maturing in six
months time
(b) Swap position on 10,000 tonne notional amount of CPO, the Islamic
banking institution receives spot price and pays fixed price. The next
repayment date occurs in 2 months time (quarterly settlement) with
residual life of 11 months.
First Step:
Convert the positions at current spot rates (assuming current spot rate is RM2,500 per
tonne).
(i) 15,000 tonne X RM2,500 = RM37.5 million
(ii) 10,000 tonne X RM2,500 = RM25.0 million
Second Step:
Slot the position in Malaysian Ringgit into the maturity ladder accordingly:
(i) Forward contract in 3-6 months time-band as short position.
(ii) Swap position in several time-bands reflecting series of positions equal to

notional amount of the contract. Since the Islamic banking institution is paying
fixed and receiving spot, the position would be reported as a long position. The
payments occur (and is slotted accordingly in the respective time-bands) as
follows:
(a) First payment: month 2 (next payment date)
(b) Second payment: month 5
(c) Third payment: month 8
(d) Final payment : month 11 (end of life of the swap)

Table C
Capital
Position Spread
Time Band Capital Calculation Charge
(RM000) Rate
(RM000)
0-1 month 1.5%
1-3 months 25,000 long carried forward
Long 25,000 1.5% to 1-3 months, 1,500
capital charge: 25,000 x 0.6%
3-6 months
37,500 long + 37,500 short
(matched) x 1.5% = 1,125
Long 25,000
1.5%
Short 37,500
Balance of 12,500
capital charge: 12,500 x 15%
= 1,875
Long 25,000 Capital charge:

6-12 months 1.5%
Short 37,500 50,000 x 15% = 7,500
Total Capital Charge 12,000

D.2.5 INVENTORY RISK
5.96 This part sets out the inventory risk capital charge arising from the
exposure associated with the holding of the assets as inventories that are
held for resale under the Murabahah contract, unbilled work-in-progress
under Istisna` contract or leases under the Ijarah contract
Murabahah and Murabahah for Purchase Order (MPO)

5.97 A Murabahah contract refers to an agreement where Islamic banking
institution sells a specified asset that is in its possession to the obligor at a
mark-up price that represent the acquisition cost (purchase price plus
other direct costs) plus an agreed profit margin.
5.98 A Murabahah for Purchase Order (MPO) contract refers to an agreement

where the Islamic banking institution sells a specified asset that has been
purchased or acquired based on an agreement to purchase (AP) by the
obligor at a mark-up price. The AP can be structured based on a binding
or non-binding agreement. Under the MPO transaction, Islamic banking
institution anticipates that the orderer/obligor will subsequently purchase
the acquired asset.
5.99 An asset shall be treated as an inventory of the Islamic banking institution

in the event that it is acquired under a non-binding MPO transaction and
held for resale to the obligor. Therefore, Islamic banking institution is
exposed to the risk of changes in asset price. In terms of risk
measurement, the capital charge for a market risk exposure arising from
the holding of the inventory shall be 15% of the carrying value.
5.100 Assets in possession on a sale or return basis are treated as accounts

receivable from the vendor and as such shall be offset against the related
accounts payable to the vendor. If these accounts payable have been
settled, the assets shall attract a capital charge of 8%, subject to:

(i) the availability of documentation evidencing such an arrangement

with the vendor; and
(ii) the period for returning the assets to the vendor have not been
exceeded.
5.101 The obligor is obliged to undertake the delivery of an asset sold under the
binding MPO contract. Therefore, Islamic banking institution is not
exposed to price risk and is not subject to market risk capital charge.
5.102 The following table set out the capital charges arising from the holding of
asset as inventory under the Murabahah contract:
Islamic Contract Applicable Stage of the Contract Market Risk Capital Charge
Murabahah and Asset held for sale

15% capital charge
Non-binding MPO (asset on balance sheet)*
Binding MPO All stages Not applicable

* Includes asset that is held arising from the cancellation of AP by an obligor
Istisna
5.103 An Istisna` contract refers to an agreement to sell to or buy from an obligor
a non-existent asset which is to be manufactured or built based on the
specifications outlined by the ultimate buyers at an agreed predetermined
selling price and to be delivered on a specified future date. Islamic banking
institution that is the seller of the asset under an Istisna` contract has the
option to manufacture or build the asset on its own or to engage the
services of another supplier or subcontractor that is other than the Istisna`
ultimate buyer, by entering into a Parallel Istisna` contract.
5.104 In terms of exposure to market risk, Islamic banking institution that

undertakes to sell the underlying asset under an Istisna` contract is
expose to the price risk of the unbilled work-in-progress. Hence, Islamic

banking institution is required to set aside a capital charge of 1.6% to cater

for the market risk that it incurs from the date that the Istisna` contract is
entered. The market risk capital charge on the unbilled work-in-progress is
applicable throughout the period of the Istisna` contract.
5.105 Islamic banking institution may enter into a Parallel Istisna` with another
party to mitigate the exposure to price risk, particularly in respect of input
material or manufacturing costs. Hence, Istisna` with Parallel Istisna`
contract is not subject to a market risk capital charge. Any variation in a
Parallel Istisna` contract, which effectively transfer the whole price risk to
Istisna` obligor, is also eligible for this treatment.
5.106 The following table sets out the applicable type and stages of the contract
that attract market risk capital charges.
Islamic Contract Applicable Stage of the contract Market Risk Capital Charge
1.6% capital charge on

Istisna` * Unbilled work-in-progress
work-in-progress inventory
* There is no market risk capital charge for Istisna` with Parallel Istisna`, provided that there is
no provision under the Parallel Istisna` contract that allows the seller to increase or vary the
selling price.
Ijarah and Ijarah Muntahia Bittamleek (IMB)

5.107 Islamic banking institution that is the lessor under the Ijarah contract
(either operating Ijarah or IMB) maintains the ownership on the leased
asset. As an owner of the asset, the lessor assumes the liabilities and
risks pertaining to the leased asset. The lessor is exposed to the price risk
of the asset held under its possession prior entering into the lease
contract, except where the asset is acquired based on a binding
agreement to lease as described in paragraph (ii). In the case of IMB, the
lessee however bears the residual value risk of the leased assets at the
term of the contract.

5.108 Under an IMB contract, the lessor promises to transfer its ownership in the
leased asset to the lessee at the end of the contract as a gift or at a
specified consideration as stipulated under the contract.
5.109 Islamic banking institution that undertake to acquire or held an asset

based on the agreement to lease (AL) under the operating Ijarah and IMB,
may be considered to have entered into a binding AL provided that the
terms are clearly stipulated under the AL. Hence, an asset that is acquired
and held for the purpose of either operating Ijarah or IMB may be
categorised as follows:
(i) Non-binding AL
The asset acquired and held for the purpose of leasing will be treated
as inventory of the Islamic banking institution and therefore is
exposed to market risk. In this regard, the market risk exposure shall
be measured based on the simplified approach where the capital
charge of 15% is imposed on the market value of the asset.
(ii) Binding AL
Islamic banking institution that is the lessor under a binding AL is

exposed to risk that the lease orderers may default on its obligation
to lease the asset from the lessor. In the event that the lease orderer
defaulted on its AL, the lessor may either lease or dispose the asset
to a third party. In this regard the Islamic banking institution may have
recourse to the security deposit or collateral provided by the obligor,
and:
(a) may have the right to recoup any losses arising from the AL or
disposal of the asset after taking into account the security
deposit or collateral provided by the obligor; or
(b) may not have such right, depending on the agreed terms under
the AL.

5.110 In view of that the Islamic banking institution that is a lessor may have the
right to recoup any losses from the obligor as provided under paragraph
(ii)(a), thus the Islamic banking institution would not have the exposure to
price risk. On the contrary, Islamic banking institution that is the lessor will
have an exposure to market risk under the second case as stipulated
under paragraph (ii)(b) where the market risk exposure (similar to the case
on a non-binding AL) shall be calculated based on the cost of the asset to
the Islamic banking institution. However, this risk exposure may be
reduced by the amount of security deposit or collateral provided by the
obligor to the Islamic banking institution.
Operating Ijarah
5.111 The leased asset held under the operating Ijarah is also exposed to
market risk and therefore be subject to capital charges in accordance to
the stages of the contract as follows:
(i) The capital charge of 8% of the residual value 196 of the asset is
imposed during the lease period; and
(ii) Upon expiry of the lease contract, the carrying value of the leased
assets attracts a capital charge of 15% until the asset is leased or
disposed.
Ijarah Muntahia Bittamleek (IMB)

5.112 The lessor will be exposed to the price risk in terms residual value of the
leased asset after taking into consideration the refund of payments due to
the lessee in the event where the lessee exercises its right to cancel the
lease. However, the price risk shall have been reflected as a haircut that
is to be applied to the leased asset as the collateral value for the credit
risk. Therefore, the price risk, if any, is not applicable in the context of the
IMB.
196
Residual value of the leased asset under operating Ijarah is as per used for accounting purposes.


5.113 The following tables set out the applicable period of the contract that
attracts market capital charges.
Islamic
Applicable Stage of the Contract Market Risk Capital Charge
Contract
Asset available for lease 15% capital charge until
(prior to signing a lease contact) lessee undertake their right
under the leasing contract
Operating Upon consigning a leasing contract and 8% capital charge based on

Ijarah * the lease rental payments are due from the residual value of the
the lessee leased asset
Maturity of contract term and the 15% capital charge of the

leased asset is returned to the Islamic carrying value of the asset
banking institution
Asset available for lease 15% capital charge until

(prior to signing a lease contract) lessee undertakes their right
under the IMB contract
IMB*
Upon consigning a leasing contract Not applicable
and subsequent transfer of ownership
of the leased assets or sale to lessee
* Binding AL where Islamic banking institutions have the right to recoup any losses from the
obligor will not attract any capital charge

D.2.6 TREATMENT OF OPTIONS
5.114 Options risk that are derived from the underwriting business of the Islamic
banking institution shall be subject to options treatment under the
Underlying Positions Approach as detailed in this Part. Under this
approach, underwriting of equity and Sukuk are subject to separate
calculation of capital charges that incorporate both specific risk and
general risk. The amount of capital charges are then added to the capital
charges of other risk categories.
5.115 For activities involving options other than underwriting, there are four
approaches available for measuring options related risks as follows:
(i) simplified approach;
(ii) delta-plus approach;
(iii) scenario approach; and
(iv) Internal model approach
5.116 Islamic banking institutions which are exposed to a limited range of

purchased options are allowed to use the simplified approach. Islamic
banking institutions which also write options will be expected to use either
the delta-plus approach or scenario approach. The use of internal model
approaches would require Islamic banking institutions to obtain prior
approval from the Bank. Islamic banking institutions with significant options
trading activities will be expected to use a more sophisticated approach.
Underlying Position Approach

5.117 Islamic banking institutions may use the underlying position approach to
estimate the required capital charge for the option risk arising from the
underwriting of equity IPO, rights issues and Sukuks. The capital charges
for these transactions shall be estimated on a trade-by-trade basis, as
described in the following table:


Table 9: Underlying Position Approach: Capital Charges

Position Treatment
Underwriting of The capital charge will be calculated based on the committed
equity type amount of the equity as agreed under the underwriting agreement
instrument; IPO and and multiplied by the sum of specific risk and general risk weights
rights issue as defined in Table 7 of Part D.2.2 Equity Position Risk. The
resultant amount is then multiplied by 50% that is the conversion
factor which reflect the estimated pick-up probability. The
recognition period for the underwriting equity risk shall commence
from the date when the underwriting agreement is signed until the
date of issuance. Equity positions held post-issuance date shall be
treated as per Part D.2.2 Equity Position Risk.
Underwriting of The amount of Sukuk to be raised in the underwriting agreement
sukk in which the Islamic banking institution is committed to
underwrite197, multiplied by 50%, the conversion factor which
estimates the pick-up probability. The resultant figure will be
incorporated into Part D.2.1 Benchmark Rate Risk to calculate
the capital charge for general risk. For specific risk charge, the
same resultant figure is multiplied by the specific risk charge
stipulated in Table 2 in Part D.2.1 Benchmark Rate Risk. The
recognition period for the underwriting of Sukuks commences from
the date the underwriting agreement is signed until the date of
issuance198. Sukuk positions held post-issuance date shall be
treated as per Benchmark Rate Risk described in Part D.2.1.
197
Underwriting commitments can be netted off against sell down (back-to-back) arrangements
established with unrelated parties, where the arrangement is unconditional, legally binding and
irrevocable, and where the Islamic banking institutions has no residual obligation to pick up the
purported sell down portion.
198
In most cases of underwriting of short-term Sukuk such as Islamic commercial papers, given that
the returns are is usually based on the cost of funds/ expected returns to investors plus profit, where
the cost of funds/ expected returns to investor is determined one or two days before issuance, the
real exposure to the institutions arising from the underwriting agreement is more of the credit risk of
the issuer rather than on the fluctuation of the benchmark rate. As such, for specific risk, the
recognition period for underwriting of Islamic commercial paper/ Sukuks commence from the date
when the underwriting agreement is signed until the date of issuance. Whilst for general risk, the
recognition period for underwriting of Islamic commercial papers/ Sukuks commence from the date
a price is fixed until the date of issuance. In the event that market practice changes or in the case of
underwriting of Sukuks which assumes characteristics of profit rate options, these positions should

5.118 As an illustration to the calculation of the capital charges, assume that an

Islamic banking institution agreed to underwrite RM2 million in shares of a
non KLCI equity at issue price of RM2.00 each. The aggregate capital
requirement for a non KLCI equity is 22% of which 14% for specific risk
and 8% for general risk. Thus, the capital charge shall be RM 220,000
(RM 2 million x 22% x 50%).
Simplified Approach
5.119 Only Islamic banking institution that undertakes a limited range of
purchased options are allowed to apply the simplified approach as set out
in Table 10. As an example, assume a holder of 100 shares that is
currently valued at RM10 each holds an equivalent put option with a strike
price of RM11. The capital charge for KLCI equity shall be 16% (i.e. 8%
specific risk plus 8% general market risk) of the market value of the shares
or RM1,000, which is amounted to RM160, less the amount the option that
is in the money totalling to RM100 [(RM11 - RM10) x 100]. Hence, the
capital charge for the position of the options would be RM60. A similar
methodology applies for options where the underlying is a foreign
currency, a profit rate related instrument or a commodity.
be reflected accordingly. An illustration on the treatment for such underwriting exposures is

provided in Appendix XXVI.

Table 10: Simplified Approach : Capital Charges
Position Treatment
The capital charge will be the market value of the

Long cash and Long put
underlying security199 multiplied by the sum of
Or specific and general market risk charges200 for the
Short cash and Long call underlying less the amount the option is in the
money (if any) bounded at zero201
The capital charge will be the lesser of:

Long call i) the market value of the underlying security
Or multiplied by the sum of specific and general
market risk charges for the underlying; or
Long put
ii) the market value of the option202
199
In some cases such as foreign exchange, it may be unclear which side is the underlying security;
this should be taken to be the asset which would be received if the option were exercised. In
addition the nominal value should be used for items where the market value of the underlying
instrument could be zero, for example caps and floors, swaptions etc.
200
Some options (e.g. where the underlying is a currency or a commodity) bear no specific risk but
specific risk will be present in the case of options on certain benchmark rate related instruments
(e.g. options on a corporate Sukuk; see Table 2, Part D.2.1 Benchmark Rate Risk for the relevant
capital charges) and for options on equities (see Table 7, Part D.2.2 Equity Position Risk). The
capital charge for currency options will be 8% and for options on commodities will be 15%.
201
For options with a residual maturity of more than six months the strike price should be compared
with the forward, not current, price. An Islamic banking institution which is unable to do this must
take in the money amount to be zero.
202
Where the position does not fall within the trading book (i.e. options on certain foreign exchange or
commodities positions not belonging to the trading book), it may be acceptable to use the book
value instead.

Delta-Plus Method
5.120 Islamic banking institution that write options may be allowed to include
delta-weighted option positions within the standard method set out in Part
D.2203. Such options should be reported as a position equal to the sum of
the market values of the underlying multiplied by the sum of the absolute
values of the deltas. However, since delta does not cover all risks
associated with option positions, Islamic banking institution is also required
to measure Gamma (which measures the rate of change of delta) and
Vega (which measures the sensitivity of the value of an option with respect
to a change in volatility) in order to calculate the total capital charge.
5.121 Delta-weighted positions which the underlying financial instrument is

Sukuk or profit rate will be slotted into the profit rate time bands, as set out
in Part D.2.1 Benchmark Rate Risk. A two-legged approach that is
similar to other derivative transactions should be used where the first entry
shall be undertaken at the time the underlying contract takes effect and
second entry, at the time the underlying contract matures. For instance, a
bought call option on a June three month profit rate future will in April be
considered, on the basis of its delta-equivalent value, to be a long position
with a maturity of five months and a short position with a maturity of two
months204. The written option will be similarly slotted as a long position
with a maturity of two months and a short position with a maturity of five
months. Variable rate instruments with caps or floors will be treated as a
combination of variable rate securities and a series of European-style
options. For example, the holder of a three-year variable rate Sukuks
indexed to 6-month KLIBOR with a cap of 15 per cent will be treated as:
(i) Sukuks that reprices in six months; and
203
Delta measures the sensitivity of an options value to a change in the price of the underlying asset.
204
A two month call option on a bond future where delivery of the bond takes place in September
would be considered in April as being a long position in the bond and a short position in the five
months deposit, both positions being delta-weighted.

(ii) a series of five written call options on a FRA with a reference rate of
15%, each with a negative sign at the time the underlying FRA takes
effect and a positive sign at the time the underlying FRA matures
5.122 The capital charge for options with equities as the underlying assets are
based on the delta-weighted positions which will incorporate the measure
of market risk described in Part D.2.2 Equity Position Risk.
5.123 The capital charge for options on foreign exchange that is based on the
delta-weighted position which will incorporate the measurement of the
exposure for the respective currency position as described in Part D.2.3
Foreign Exchange Risk.
5.124 The capital charge for options on commodities that is based on the
simplified or the maturity ladder approach set out in D.2.4 Commodities
Risk. The delta-weighted positions will be incorporated in one of the
measures described in that part.
5.125 In addition to the above capital charge arising from delta risk, there will be
further capital charges for Gamma and for Vega risk. Islamic banking
institutions using the delta-plus method will be required to calculate the
Gamma and Vega for each option position separately.
5.126 The capital charges for Gamma risk should be calculated in the following
way:
2
Gamma impact = x Gamma (VU)
where VU denotes the variation in the price of the underlying of the
option.
VU will be calculated as follows:
(i) for profit rate options, the market value of the underlying should be
multiplied by the risk weights set out in Table 3 of D.2.1
Benchmark Rate Risk;

(ii) for options on equities and equity indices, the market value of the
underlying should be multiplied by the equity general risk charge set
out in Table 7 of Part D.2.2 Equity Position Risk;
(iii) for options on foreign exchange, the market value of the underlying
multiplied by 8%; and
(iv) for options on commodities, the market value of the underlying

should be multiplied by 15%.
5.127 For the purpose of calculating the Gamma impact the following should be
treated as the same underlying:
(i) for profit rates205, each time band as set out in Table 3 of Part D.2.1
Benchmark Rate Risk;
(ii) for equities and equity indices, each national market;
(iii) for foreign currencies, each currency pair; and
(iv) for commodities, each individual commodities.
5.128 Each option on the same underlying will have a Gamma impact that is
either positive or negative. These individual Gamma impacts will be
aggregated, resulting in a net Gamma impact for each underlying which is
either positive or negative. Only net Gamma impacts that are negative will
be included in the capital calculation.
5.129 The total Gamma capital charge will be the sum of the absolute value of
the net negative Gamma impacts as calculated above.
5.130 To calculate Vega risk, Islamic banking institutions must multiply the Vega
for each option by a 25% proportional shift of the option's current volatility.
The results are then summed across each underlying. The total capital
205
Positions have to be slotted into separate maturity ladders by currency.

charge for Vega risk is calculated as the sum of the absolute value of
Vega across each underlying.
5.131 An illustration of the use of the Delta-plus method is provided in Example

4.
Scenario Approach
5.132 Islamic banking institution may also measure the market risk capital
charge for options portfolios and associated hedging positions based on
the scenario matrix analysis. This approach will be accomplished by
specifying a fixed range of changes in the option portfolio's risk factors (i.e.
underlying price/rate and volatility) and calculating changes in the value of
the option portfolio and its associated hedging positions at various points
along this matrix. To calculate the capital charge, the Islamic banking
institution has to revalue the option portfolio using matrices for
simultaneous changes in the underlying price and volatility of the option
price. A different matrix will be set up for each individual underlying
position. In the case of profit rate options, an alternative method is
permitted for Islamic banking institutions to base the calculation on a
minimum of six sets of time bands. When using this method, not more than
three of the time bands (as defined in Table 5, Part D.2.1 Benchmark
Rate Risk) should be combined into any one set.
5.133 The options and related hedging positions will be evaluated over a
specified range of above and below the current value of the underlying that
defines the first dimension of the matrix. The range for changes in
benchmark rate is consistent with the assumed changes in yield in Table 5
of Part D.2.1 Benchmark Rate Risk. Islamic banking institution that use
the alternative method for profit rate options set out in the previous
paragraph should use the highest of the assumed changes in yield for
each set of the time bands that is applicable to the group to which the time

bands belong206. The other ranges for equity general risk charge as
stipulated in Table 7 for equities, and 8% for foreign exchange, gold and
silver, and 15% for commodities. For all risk categories, at least seven
price shifts (including the current observation) should be used to divide the
range into equally spaced intervals.
5.134 The second dimension of the matrix entails a change in the volatility of the
underlying rate or price. A single change in the volatility of the underlying
rate or price equal to a proportional shift in volatility of 25% is expected to
be sufficient in most cases. As circumstances warrant, however, the Bank
may require that a different change in volatility be used and/or that
intermediate points on the matrix be calculated.
5.135 After calculating the matrix, each cell should contain the net profit or loss
of the option and the underlying hedge instrument. The capital charge for
each underlying will then be calculated as the largest loss contained in the
matrix.
5.136 The application of the scenario approach by an Islamic banking institution

will be subject to supervisory consent, particularly with regard to the
accuracy of the analysis is constructed.
5.137 An illustration of the use of the Scenario Approach is provided in Example

5.
Example 4: Delta-Plus Methods for Options
A. A Single Stock Option

1. Assume an Islamic banking institution has a European short call option to sell
1000 units of a KLCI stock with an exercise price of RM45 and a market
206
If, for example, in the case of options involving G10 currency benchmark rate risk, where the time-
bands >3 to 4 years, >4 to 5 years and >5 to 7 years are combined, the highest assumed
change in yield of these three bands would be 0.75 percentage point.

value (spot price) of the underlying 12 months from the expiration of the
option at RM50; a risk-free profit rate at 8% per annum, and volatility at 20%.
The current unit delta for this position is according to the Black-Scholes
formula -0.848 (that is the price of the option changes by -0.848 if the price of
the underlying moves by RM1). The unit Gamma is -0.0235 (that is the delta
changes by -0.0235, from -0.848 to -0.872, if the price of the underlying
moves by RM1). The Gamma is (-0.0235 x 1,000) = -23.55. The current
value of the option is RM9.328 x 1,000 = RM9,328.
2. The market risk capital charge for the single stock option is the summation
of:
(i) Specific Risk and General Risk on delta-weighted position incorporated

in Part D.2.2 Equity Position Risk; and
(ii) Gamma and Vega risks charge provided under Part D.2.6 Treatment
of Options.
Specific Risk and General Risk on delta-weighted position of equity options

which will be incorporated in Part D.2.2 Equity Position Risk
3. To compute the specific risk and general risk on delta-weighted position of

the stock option position, the following steps should be taken:
a) The first step under the delta-plus method is to calculate the delta-
weighted option position. This is accomplished by multiplying the market
value of 1 unit of underlying or spot price, the number of units to be sold
and the value of the delta:
RM50 1,000 x (-0.848) = RM42, 400
The delta-weighted position then has to be incorporated into the

framework described in Part D.2.2 Equity Position Risk.

b) The specific risk for the stock option will be the multiplication of the delta-
weighted position and the specific risk weight of the underlying equity
(KLCI stock specific risk weight = 8%, refer to Table 7 of Part D.2.2
Equity Position Risk). Hence, the capital charge for specific risk will be:
-RM42,400 x 0.08 = RM3,392
c) The delta risk charge will be calculated by incorporating the delta-

weighted option position together with the other net equity positions
generated in Part D.2.2 Equity Position Risk. Assuming that no other
positions exist, the delta risk of the stock option is calculated as the
multiplication of the delta-weighted position and the 8% general risk
weight accorded to equities. Hence, the capital charge for general risk is
calculated as:
-RM42,400 0.08 = RM3,392
The total capital charge for specific risk and general risk on delta-
weighted position which should be reflected in Part D.2.2 Equity
Position Risk will be: RM6,784 (that is 3,392 + 3,392).
Gamma and Vega Risks carved out to be provided under Part D.2.5 Treatment
of Options
4. Under the delta-plus method, the capital charges for Gamma and Vega risk
will be calculated as follows:
a) The capital charge for Gamma, only negative gamma impact should be
included and has to be calculated according to the formula set out in
paragraph 5.126 in Part D.2.6 Treatment of Options:
2
Gamma x (market value of 1 unit of the underlying or spot price 0.08)
2
x (23.55) x (RM50 x 0.08) = RM188
b) The capital charge for Vega has to be calculated separately. The

assumed current (implied) volatility is 20%. As an increase in volatility
carries a risk of loss for a short call option, the volatility has to be
increased by a relative shift of 25%. This means that the Vega capital
charge has to be calculated on the basis of a change in volatility of

5 percentage points from 20% to 25% in this example. According to the

Black-Scholes formula used here the Unit Vega equals 11.77. Thus a 1%
or 0.01 increase in volatility increases the value of the option by 0.1177.
Accordingly, a change in volatility of 5 percentage points would increase
the value by:
5 0.1177 x 1,000 = RM589
which is the capital charge for Vega risk.
The total capital charge for Gamma and Vega risk which should be
disclosed in Part D.2.6 Treatment of Options under the Delta-plus
method will be RM777 (that is 188 + 589).
5. The total market risk capital charge for 1,000 units of a single stock call
option sold, with the stock price of RM45, is RM7,561 (that is 6,784 + 777).
B. A portfolio of Foreign Exchange Options
6. Assume an Islamic banking institution has a portfolio of options with the

following characteristics:
Market Value of 1 Market Value of 1 Market Value

Currency Nominal
Option unit of Underlying unit of Underlying of Underlying
Pair amount
(Spot Price) (RM) (RM)
1 USD/RM USD100,000 3.132 RM3.132 313,200
2 USD/RM USD600,000 3.132 RM3.132 1,879,200
3 USD/RM USD200,000 3.132 RM3.132 626,400
4 USD/RM USD300,000 3.132 RM3.132 939,600
5 GBP/JPY GBP100,000 131.806 GBP1 = JPY131.806 493,700
* 0.0374586968 =
RM4.937
6 GBP/JPY GBP50,000 131.806 RM4.937 246,850
7 GBP/JPY GBP75,000 131.806 RM4.937 370,275
Market Value of Assumed

Currency Ringgit
Option Underlying Delta Gamma Vega volatility
Pair Gamma
(RM) (%)
1 USD/RM 313,200 -0.803 0.18 56,376 0.0184 5
2 USD/RM 1,879,200 -0.519 -0.45 -845,640 -0.0387 20
3 USD/RM 626,400 0.182 -0.49 -306,936 -0.031 20
4 USD/RM 939,600 0.375 0.61 573,156 -0.0497 10
5 GBP/JPY 493,700 -0.425 0.0065 3,209 5.21 10
6 GBP/JPY 246,850 0.639 -0.0016 -395 -4.16 7

7 GBP/JPY 370,275 0.912 0.0068 2,518 3.15 5
7. The market risk capital charge for the portfolio of foreign exchange options is
the summation of:
(i) General Risk on delta-weighted position incorporated in Part D.2.3

Foreign Exchange Risk; and
(ii) Gamma and Vega risks charge provided under Part D.2.6 Treatment of
Options.
General Risk on delta-weighted position of currency options which will be

incorporated in Part D.2.3 Foreign Exchange Risk
8. To compute the general risk on delta-weighted position of the foreign

exchange option portfolio, the following steps should be taken:
(i) The first step under the delta-plus method is to calculate the delta-
weighted option position. This is accomplished by multiplying the value
of each option's delta by the market value of the underlying currency
position (see Table C, column 3). This leads to the following net delta-
weighted position in each currency:
Table C
Delta Market Value of
Option Currency Pair
Underlying
1 USD/RM -251,500
2 USD/RM -975,305
3 USD/RM 114,005
4 USD/RM 352,350
5 GBP/JPY -209,823
6 GBP/JPY 157,737
7 GBP/JPY 337,691
(ii) Assuming that the Islamic banking institution holds no other foreign
currency positions, inclusion of these positions into the framework set

out in Part A.3 Foreign Exchange Risk yields a net open delta-weighted
position of 1,046,055 (the larger of either the sum of the net short
positions or the sum of the net long positions across currency pairs)
and a capital charge of RM83,684 (1,046,055 0.08).
GBP USD JPY

+ 285,605 - 760,450 - 285,605
+ 285,605 - 1,046,055
Hence, the capital charge for general risk on delta-weighted position of

the foreign exchange option which should be reflected in Part D.2.3
Foreign Exchange Risk will be RM83,684.
Gamma and Vega Risks carved out to be provided under Part D.2.6 Treatment
of Options
9. Under the delta-plus method, the capital charges for Gamma and Vega risk
will be calculated as follows:
(i) The Gamma impact (see Table D, column 3) for each option is
calculated as:
2
Gamma (RM) (market value of 1 unit of underlying (RM) 0.08)
For each underlying, in this case currency pair, a net Gamma impact
is obtained:
USD/RM -164.18
GBP/JPY +415.92
Only the negative Gamma impacts are included in the capital
calculation, hence the Gamma charge here is RM164.
Table D
Gamma Impact Net Gamma
Option Currency Pair
(RM) Impact (RM)
1 USD/RM 17.70
2 USD/RM -265.45 -164.18
3 USD/RM -96.35
4 USD/RM 179.91
5 GBP/JPY 250.32
6 GBP/JPY -30.81 +415.92
7 GBP/JPY 196.41
(ii) The Vega capital charge is based on the assumed implied volatilities
for each option which are shown in Table E column 3. The 25 per cent

volatility shifts are shown in Table E column 5. Multiplying these shifts

with each option's Vega and the market value of underlying in RM,
yields the assumed price changes (shown in Table E column 6). These
are then summed up for each currency pair. The net Vega impact for
each currency pair is:
USD/RM -27,757.35
GBP/JPY +33,895.59
Since no netting of Vegas is permitted across currency pairs, the
capital charge is calculated as the sum of the absolute values obtained
for each currency pair: RM27,757 + RM33,896 = RM61,653
Table E
Volatility
Assumed Net Vega
Currency Shift Change in
Option Volatility Vega Impact
Pair (Percentage Value (RM)
(%) (RM)
Points)
1 USD/RM 5 1.84 1.25 7,203.60
2 USD/RM 20 -3.87 5.00 -90,906.30
-27,757.35
3 USD/RM 20 -0.31 5.00 -2,427.30
4 USD/RM 10 4.97 2.50 58,372.65
5 GBP/JPY 10 5.21 2.50 32,152.21
6 GBP/JPY 7 -4.16 1.75 -12,836.20 33,895.59
7 GBP/JPY 5 3.15 1.25 14,579.58
The total capital charge for Gamma and Vega risk arising from the
options portfolio which should be disclosed in Part D.2.6 Treatment of
Options under the Delta-plus method is RM61,817 (that is RM164 +
RM61,653)
10. The total market risk capital charge for the portfolio of foreign currency
options is RM145.501 (that is RM83,684.34 + RM61, 817)
Example 5: The Scenario Approach for Options

1. Consider an Islamic banking institution holding a portfolio of two KLCI
equities and two options on the same equities as set out below:
Equity
No of Shares Current Price (RM)
Long ABC 100 19.09

Short XYZ -50 1.79
Option
Time to Strike Current
No. of Option
Delta Expiry Price Volatility
Shares Type
(yrs) (RM) (%)
Long ABC 50 Call 0.43 0.45 20.00 15.0
Short XYZ 20 Put -0.76 0.36 2.25 42.0
(Assumed risk free rate: 5%)
2. The market risk capital charge for the portfolio is the summation of the:
(i) Specific Risk of the equities and delta-weighted positions of underlying
equities. This specific risk is incorporated in Part D.2.2 Equity
Position Risk of the framework; and
(ii) General Risk of the portfolio, which is carved out and subjected to
Scenario Approach in Part D.2.6 Treatment of Options of the
framework.
Specific Risk of the equities and delta-weighted positions of the underlying

equities to be incorporated in Part D.2.2 Equity Position Risk
3. To compute the specific risk for the equities and equity options, the following
steps should be taken:
(i) Calculate the delta-weighted positions of the underlying equities the
delta weighted option is calculated by multiplying the value of each
option's delta by the market value of the underlying equity (see Table
F, column 2). This leads to the following net delta-weighted position in
each equity:
Table F
Delta Market
Options Total Position
Value of Underlying Number of Shares
Position (RM)
(RM)
Option on ABC 8.115 50 405.75
Option on XYZ -1.363 20 -27.25
Market Value Total Position

Equity Position Number of Shares
(RM) (RM)

ABC 19.09 100 1,909.00

XYZ 1.79 - 50 -89.50
Assuming that the Islamic banking institution does not hold other equity
positions, the delta weighted positions of the options will be added to
the respective value of equities (ABC and XYZ) held. The net position
for each equity will be incorporated in Part D.2.2 Equity Position Risk
of the Framework and the values are as follows:
ABC = + 2,314.75 [405.75 + 1,909.00]
XYZ = - 116.75 [-27.25 - 89.50]
(ii) Calculate the specific risk charge by multiplying the specific risk weight
of the equities as listed in Table 7 of Part D.2.2 Equity Position Risk.
In this example, the specific risk weight is 8% for KLCI equities. Hence,
the total capital charge for specific risk to be reflected in Part D.2.2
Equity Position Risk will be RM194.52 [(2,314.75 x 0.08) + (116.75 x
0.08)].

General Risk is carved out and be subjected to the Scenario Approach in Part
D.2.6 Treatment of Options
4. To compute the general risk under the Scenario Approach, the following
procedures are taken:
(i) Apply the price movements over the range 8% to the equity positions.
The change in portfolio values is shown below:
Change in Value of Equity Positions
Assumed Price Change (%)
-8.00 -5.33 -2.67 0.00 2.67 5.33 8.00
ABC -152.72 -101.81 -50.91 0.00 50.97 101.74 152.72
XYZ 7.16 4.77 2.39 0.00 -2.39 -4.77 -7.16
(ii) Apply the matrix of price and volatility movements to the ABC call
options and the changes in the value of the options are shown below:
ABC Options - Change in Value

Assumed
Volatility
Change (%) -8.00 -5.33 -2.67 0.00 2.67 5.33 8.00
+25 -15.57 -9.21 -0.92 9.46 21.98 36.58 53.15
0 -21.46 -16.58 -9.53 0.00 12.17 26.95 44.15
-25 -25.82 -22.84 -17.58 -9.32 2.36 17.51 35.78
(iii) Holding of XYZ put options will be subjected to the same treatment as
per (b) above and the changes in the value of the options are shown
below:
XYZ Options - Change in Value

Assumed
Volatility
Change (%) -8.00 -5.33 -2.67 0.00 2.67 5.33 8.00
+25 +2.82 +2.20 +1.46 +0.75 +0.07 -0.58 -1.08
0 +2.26 +1.59 +0.78 0.00 -0.74 -1.45 -1.99
-25 +1.87 +1.13 +0.24 -0.63 -1.45 -2.24 -2.84
(iv) Summing the changes in the value for ABC and XYZ equities and the
equity options to arrive at the contingent loss matrix for the total
portfolio as shown below:

Total Portfolio - Change in Value

Assumed
Volatility
Change (%) -8.00 -5.33 -2.67 0.00 2.67 5.33 8.00
+25 -158.31 -104.05 -47.98 10.21 70.56 133.04 197.63
0 -164.76 -112.03 -57.27 0.00 59.95 122.54 187.72
-25 -169.52 -118.75 -65.86 -9.95 49.43 112.30 178.50
The general risk capital charge for the portfolio will be the largest loss arising
from changes in the price of the equities and volatility of the options as
shown in the matrix above - in this case is 169.52. This capital charge will be
reflected in Part D.2.6 Treatment of Option under the Scenario approach.
5. The total market risk capital charge for the portfolio is 364.04 (that is 169.52
+194.52).

D.3 INTERNAL MODELS APPROACH
Introduction
5.138 This part sets out the minimum standards and criteria that the Bank will
use in assessing the eligibility for Islamic banking institutions to adopt the
internal model approach in measuring market risk for the purpose of
capital adequacy. The internal model approach specified in this guideline
is based on the use of value-at-risk (VaR) technique.
5.139 The use of an internal model will be conditional upon explicit written
approval from the Bank. The Bank will recognise Islamic banking
institutions internal model for capital adequacy if all the standards set forth
in this part are met. Any approval will be conditional on continued
compliance with the requirements under the Framework, as modified from
time to time.
5.140 Further to the Banks initial recognition, Islamic banking institutions should
inform the Bank of any subsequent material change to the models,
including material change in methodology or scope to cover new products
and instruments. Islamic banking institutions are required to demonstrate
to the Bank that the models remain relevant for the purpose of
ascertaining market risk capital charge.
D.3.1 COMBINATION OF INTERNAL MODELS AND THE STANDARDISED

MARKET RISK MEASUREMENT APPROACH
5.141 Islamic banking institutions have the option to use a combination of the
standardised market risk measurement approach and the internal models
approach to measure market risks across broad risk categories (i.e. profit
rates, exchange rates, equity prices, commodity and inventory prices, with
related options volatilities being included in each risk factor category). In
doing so, Islamic banking institution should ensure no element of market
risk shall escape measurement.

5.142 Depending on the significance and complexity of the Islamic banking

institutions trading activities, the Bank may require Islamic banking
institution to adopt an internal model approach that is sufficiently
comprehensive to capture all broad risk categories.
5.143 Notwithstanding paragraph 5.141, as a general rule, a combination of the

standardised market risk measurement approach and internal models
approach will not be permitted within the same risk category or across
Islamic banking institutions different entities for the same risk category207.
However, Islamic banking institutions may incur risks in positions which
are not captured by the adopted models, for example, in minor currencies,
negligible business areas or exposures in risk types that are not easily
modelled such as underwriting risk. Such risks may be separately
measured according to the standardised market risk measurement
approach, subject to the Banks approval. Table 11 and Table 12 illustrate
examples of situations where the combination of the standardised market
risk measurement approach and internal model approach are permitted.
Table 11: Combination of Internal Models and the Standardised Market

Risk Approach
Broad Risk Categories

(that is benchmark rates, exchange rates, equity prices
and commodities prices, with related options volatilities
Combinations of Approaches included in their respective risk factor category)
Within a Risk Category Across Risk Categories
Combination of different internal

Permitted Permitted
models
Combination of SMRA and IMA Not Permitted Permitted
207
With the exception of specific risk when capital requirement will be assessed based on the
standardised market risk measurement approach, unless it meets the modelling requirement in Part
D.3.

Table 12: Examples on the Combination of Approaches
Broad Risk Categories Are the

Combinations
combinations of
of Benchmark Foreign
Equity approaches
Approaches Rate Exchange Commodity permitted?
SMRA and
IMA across
IMA IMA SMRA Yes
broad risk SMRA
categories
The use of a
combination of
IMA and SMRA
approaches is
Spot, forwards
not permitted
SMRA and and swaps:
within foreign
IMA within a IMA
IMA IMA exchange risk
broad risk SMRA
category.
category Options:
FX risk should
SMRA
be measured in
its entirety
using IMA or
SMRA
Spot, forwards
Different IMA
and swap: IMA
approaches
IMA (Variance-
within and IMA (Monte IMA
(Historical covariance) Yes
across broad Carlo) (Historical
simulation)
risk simulation)
Options: IMA
categories
(Monte Carlo)
SMRA Standardised Market Risk Approach
IMA Internal Models Approach
5.144 In addition, Islamic banking institutions may use a combination of different

internal models within a risk category, or across broad risk categories.
5.145 Islamic banking institutions that have had their internal models approved
by the Bank, are not allowed to revert to measuring risks using the
standardised market risk measurement approach unless the Bank
withdraws approval for the internal model or with specific permission from
the Bank.

5.146 Where capital charges are assessed under the standardised market risk
measurement approach and the models approach within a same broad
risk category, the applicable capital charges should be aggregated
according to the simple aggregation method. Similarly, capital charges
assessed using different models within and across each broad risk
category should also be aggregated using the simple aggregation method.
5.147 In principle, Islamic banking institutions which adopt the modelling

alternative for any single risk category will be expected over time to move
towards a comprehensive model (that is one that captures all market risk
categories).
D.3.2 QUALITATIVE STANDARDS
5.148 Islamic banking institutions must ensure that models adopted are
supported by market risk management systems that are conceptually
sound. Islamic banking institution must satisfy certain criteria before
adoption of model-based approach for the purpose of regulatory capital
adequacy calculation. The adherence to the qualitative criteria will
determine the multiplication factor in paragraph 5.149((x).
(i) Islamic banking institution should have an independent risk control

unit that is responsible for the design and implementation of the
Islamic banking institutions risk management system. The unit is
responsible for producing and analysing daily reports on the output of
Islamic banking institutions risk measurement model, including
evaluation of limit utilisation. This unit must be independent from
business trading and other risk taking units and should report directly
to senior management of the Islamic banking institution.
(ii) The unit should conduct a regular (at least on a quarterly basis) back
testing program, that is an ex-post comparison of the risk measure
generated by the model against actual daily changes in portfolio
value over longer periods of time, as well as hypothetical changes

based on static positions. Detailed discussion of back testing is

provided in Part D.3.9 Framework for the Use of Back Testing.
(iii) The unit should also conduct the initial and ongoing validation of the
internal model208.
(iv) While the board retains oversight role, senior management are
expected to be actively involved in the risk control process and regard
risk control as an essential aspect of the business to which significant
resources need to be devoted. In this regard, the daily reports
prepared by the independent risk control unit must be reviewed by a
level of management with sufficient seniority and authority to enforce
both reductions of positions taken by individual traders and
reductions in the Islamic banking institutions overall risk exposure.
(v) The internal risk measurement model must be closely integrated into
the day-to-day risk management process of the Islamic banking
institution. Accordingly, the output of the model should be an integral
part of the process of planning, monitoring and controlling of the
Islamic banking institutions market risk profile.
(vi) The risk measurement system should be used in conjunction with

internal trading and exposure limits. Trading limits should be related
to the Islamic banking institutions VaR measurement model in a
manner that is consistent over time and that is well understood by
both traders and senior management.
(vii) A routine and rigorous program of stress testing should be in place as

a supplement to the risk analysis based on the day-to-day output of
the Islamic banking institutions risk measurement model. The results
of stress testing exercises should be reflected in the policies and
limits set by management and the board. The results of stress testing
should be routinely communicated to senior management and,
periodically, to the Islamic banking institutions board.
208
Further guidance regarding the standards found in Part D.3.7 Model Validation Standards.

(viii) Islamic banking institutions should establish a process to ensure

continuous compliance with internal policies, controls and procedures
relating to the operation of the risk measurement system. Islamic
banking institutions risk measurement system must be well
documented, for example, through a risk management manual that
describes the basic principles of the risk management system and
provides an explanation of the empirical techniques used to measure
market risk.
(ix) An independent review of the risk measurement system should be

carried out on a regular basis as part of the Islamic banking
institutions own internal process. This review should include both the
activities of the business trading units and the independent risk
control unit. A review of the overall risk management process should
take place at regular intervals (ideally not less than once a year) and
should specifically address, at a minimum:
(a) The adequacy of the documentation of the risk management

system and process;
(b) The organisation of the risk control unit;
(c) The approval process for risk pricing models and valuation
systems used by front and back-office personnel;
(d) The validation of any significant change in the risk measurement

process;
(e) The scope of market risks captured by the risk measurement

model;
(f) The integrity of the management information system;
(g) The accuracy and completeness of position data;
(h) The verification of the consistency, timeliness and reliability of

data sources used to run internal models, including the
independence of such data sources;

(i) The accuracy and appropriateness of volatility and correlation

assumptions;
(j) The accuracy of valuation and risk transformation calculations;
(k) The verification of the models accuracy through frequent back

testing as described in paragraph 5.148((ii) and in Part D.3.9
Framework for the Use of Back Testing.
D.3.3 QUANTITATIVE STANDARDS
5.149 Islamic banking institutions are given the flexibility to devise an internal
model, but the following minimum standards will apply for the purpose of
calculating their capital charge:
(i) VaR should be computed on a daily basis at the close of the trading
day.
(ii) In calculating the VaR, a 99th percentile, one-tailed confidence

interval should be used.
(iii) In calculating VaR, an instantaneous price shock equivalent to a ten-

day movement in prices should be used (since the minimum holding
period is ten trading days). Islamic banking institutions with illiquid
trading exposure should make appropriate adjustments to the holding
period. For positions that display linear price characteristics (but not
options), Islamic banking institutions may use VaR numbers
calculated according to shorter holding periods, scaled up to the
requisite holding period by the square root of time (for the treatment
of options, also see (h) below).
(iv) The historical observation period (sample period) for calculating VaR
will be constrained to a minimum length of one year. For Islamic
banking institutions that use a weighting scheme or other methods for
the historical observation period, the effective observation period
must be at least one year that is the weighted average time lag of
individual observations should be no less than 6 months.

(v) Islamic banking institutions should update data sets no less

frequently than once every three months and should also reassess
the data whenever market prices are subject to material changes.
The Bank may also require Islamic banking institution to calculate its
VaR using a shorter observation period if, in the Banks judgement, is
justifiable because of a significant upsurge in price volatility.
(vi) No particular type of model is prescribed. Islamic banking institutions

are free to use models based on variance-covariance matrices,
historical simulations, or Monte Carlo simulations, so long as each
model used captures all the material risks run by the institution as set
out in Part D.3.4 Specification of Market Risk Factors.
(vii) Islamic banking institutions are given the discretion to recognise

empirical correlations within broad risk categories (for example
benchmark rates, exchange rates, equity prices and commodity
prices, including related options volatilities in each risk factor
category). The Bank may also recognise empirical correlations across
broad risk factor categories, provided the Bank is satisfied that the
institution's system for measuring correlations is sound and
implemented with integrity.
(viii) Islamic banking institutions models must accurately capture the

unique risks associated with options within each of the broad risk
categories. The following criteria apply to the measurement of options
risks:
(a) Islamic banking institutions models must capture the non-linear

price characteristics of options positions;
(b) Islamic banking institutions are expected to ultimately move

towards the application of a full 10-day price shock to options
positions or positions that display option-like characteristics. In
the interim, the Bank may require Islamic banking institutions to
adjust their capital measure for options risk through other
methods for example, periodic simulation or stress testing; and

(c) Each Islamic banking institution's risk measurement system

must have a set of risk factors that captures the volatilities of the
rates and prices underlying option positions, that is, vega risk.
Islamic banking institutions with relatively large and/or complex
options portfolios should have detailed specifications of the
relevant volatilities. This means that institutions should measure
the volatilities of the options positions broken down by different
maturities.
(ix) Each Islamic banking institution must meet, on a daily basis, a capital
requirement expressed as the higher of:
(a) the previous day's VaR number measured according to the

parameters specified in this part; or
(b) an average of the daily VaR measures on each of the preceding

60 business days multiplied by the multiplication factor.
(x) The minimum multiplication factor is set at 3. The Bank reserve the
right to increase the multiplier by an add-on based on any
shortcomings in the qualitative criteria. In addition, the Bank will
require Islamic banking institutions to add to this factor a plus
directly related to the ex-post performance of the model. The plus
will range from 0 to 1 based on the outcome of back testing. The
Part D.3.9 Framework for the Use of Back Testing presents in
detail the approach to be applied for back testing. Islamic banking
institutions should perform backtesting on both hypothetical trading
outcomes (that is using changes in portfolio value that would occur if
end-of-day positions were to remain unchanged) and actual trading
outcomes (that is excluding fees, commissions, net profit income and
other income not attributable to outright position taking).
(xi) Islamic banking institutions using models will be subjected to a

separate capital charge to cover the specific risk of profit rate related
instruments and equity securities, as defined under the standardised

approach for market risk. The options for calculating the specific risk
capital charge are set out in Part D.3.5 Modelling of Specific Risk.
D.3.4 SPECIFICATION OF MARKET RISK FACTORS
5.150 An important part of a Islamic banking institutions internal market risk

measurement system is the specification of an appropriate set of market
risk factors, that is the market rates and prices that affect the value of the
Islamic banking institutions market-related positions. The risk factors
contained in a market risk measurement system should be sufficient to
capture the risks inherent in the Islamic banking institutions portfolio of on-
and off-balance sheet trading positions. Although Islamic banking
institutions are given discretion in specifying the risk factors for internal
models, all requirements under this part (paragraphs 5.151 to 5.159)
should be met.
Benchmark Rates209
5.151 There must be a set of risk factors corresponding to profit rates in each
currency in which the Islamic banking institution has benchmark rate
sensitive on- or off-balance sheet trading book positions.
5.152 The risk measurement system should model the yield curve using one of a
number of generally accepted approaches, for example, by estimating
zero-coupon yields. The yield curve should be divided into various maturity
segments in order to capture variation in the volatility of rates along the
yield curve; there will typically be one risk factor corresponding to each
maturity segment. For material exposures to benchmark rate movements
in the major currencies and markets, Islamic banking institution must
model the yield curve using a minimum of six risk factors. Ultimately, the
number of risk factors used should be driven by the nature of the Islamic
banking institution trading strategies. For instance, Islamic banking
209
Measurement of risks for Islamic principle-based instruments such as sukk that are exposed to
benchmark rate risk would be subjected to the same requirements described in paragraphs 5.152 to
5.153.

institution with a portfolio of various types of securities across many points

of the yield curve, and that engages in complex arbitrage strategies, would
require a greater number of risk factors to capture benchmark rate risk
accurately.
5.153 The risk measurement system should incorporate separate risk factors to
capture basis risk (for example, between sukk and swaps). A variety of
approaches may be used to capture the basis risk arising from less than
perfectly correlated movements between government and other fixed-
income profit rates, such as specifying a completely separate yield curve
for non-government fixed income instruments (for example, swaps or
municipal securities) or estimating the spread over government rates at
various points along the yield curve. For countries where benchmark rates
may be less responsive to market forces, Islamic banking institutions
should appropriately reflect in their internal models the effects on
benchmark rate conditions as a result of actual or anticipated benchmark
rate management regime shifts, where relevant.
Equity Prices
5.154 There should be risk factors corresponding to each of the equity markets
to which Islamic banking institution holds significant exposure.
(i) At a minimum, there should be a risk factor designed to capture

market-wide movements in equity prices (for example, a market
index). Positions in individual securities or in sector indices could be
expressed in beta-equivalents210 relative to the market-wide index.
(ii) Another detailed approach is to incorporate risk factors corresponding

to various sectors of the overall equity market (for example, industry
sectors or cyclical and non-cyclical sectors). As above, positions in
individual shares within each sector could be expressed in beta-
equivalents relative to the sector index.
210
A beta-equivalent position would be calculated from a market model of equity price returns (such
as the CAPM model) by regressing the return on the individual stock or sector index on the risk-free
rate of return and the return on the market index.

(iii) The most extensive approach would be to incorporate risk factors

corresponding to the volatility of individual equity issue.
5.155 The sophistication and nature of the modelling technique for a given
market should correspond to the Islamic banking institutions exposure to
the overall market and as its concentration in individual equity issues in
that market.
Exchange Rates (including Gold and Silver)

5.156 The risk measurement system should incorporate risk factors
corresponding to the individual foreign currencies in which Islamic banking
institutions positions are denominated. Since the VaR figure calculated by
the risk measurement system will be expressed in Malaysian ringgit, any
net position denominated in a foreign currency will introduce a foreign
exchange risk. Thus, there must be risk factors corresponding to the
exchange rate between the domestic currency and each foreign currency
in which Islamic banking institution has significant exposure. For
currencies where the exchange rate regime may be fixed, pegged, or
otherwise constrained, Islamic banking institutions should appropriately
reflect actual or expected effects of exchange rate regime shifts in the
internal models through adjustments of a currencys volatilities and
correlations, where relevant.
Commodity/Inventory Prices
5.157 There should be risk factors corresponding to each of the commodity
markets in which Islamic banking institution holds significant positions.
5.158 For Islamic banking institutions with relatively limited positions in

commodity-based instruments, a straightforward specification of risk
factors would be acceptable. Such specification would likely entail one risk
factor for each commodity price to which the Islamic banking institution is
exposed. In cases where the aggregate positions are quite small, it might

be acceptable to use a single risk factor for a relatively broad sub-category

of commodities (for instance, a single risk factor for all types of oil).
5.159 The model must also take into account variation in the convenience
yield211 between derivatives positions, such as forwards and swaps, and
cash positions in the commodity.
D.3.5 MODELLING OF SPECIFIC RISK
5.160 Islamic banking institutions using internal models are permitted to base
specific risk capital charge on modelled estimates if the VaR measure
incorporates specific risk and meet all qualitative and quantitative
requirements for general market risk models as detailed in Part D.3.2
Qualitative Standards and Part D.3.3 Quantitative Standards and the
additional criteria set out in this part.
5.161 Islamic banking institutions which are unable to meet these additional
criteria are required to calculate the full amount of specific risk capital
charge based on the standardised market risk approach.
5.162 The criteria for supervisory recognition of Islamic banking institutions
modelling of specific risk requires that Islamic banking institutions model
must capture all material components of price risk and be responsive to
changes in market conditions and composition of portfolios. In particular,
the model should:
(i) Explain the historical price variation within the portfolio212;
211
The convenience yield reflects the benefits from direct ownership of the physical commodity (for
example, the ability to profit from temporary market shortages) and is affected both by market
conditions and by factors such as physical storage costs.
212
The key ex-ante measures of model quality are goodness-of-fit measures which address the
question of how much of the historical variation in price value is explained by the risk factors
included within the model. One measure of this type which can often be used is an R-squared
measure from regression methodology. If this measure is to be used, the risk factors included in the
Islamic banking institutions model would be expected to be able to explain a high percentage, such
as 90%, of the historical price variation or the model should explicitly include estimates of the
residual variability not captured in the factors included in this regression. For some types of models,
it may not be feasible to calculate a goodness-of-fit measure. In such instance, an Islamic banking

(ii) Capture concentrations (magnitude and changes in composition)213;
(iii) Robust to an adverse environment214;
(iv) Capture name-related basis risk215;
(v) Capture event risk216; and
(vi) Validated through back-testing aimed at assessing whether specific

risk is being captured adequately.
5.163 Where an Islamic banking institution is subjected to event risk that is not
reflected in its VaR measure because it is beyond the ten-day holding
period and 99th percentile confidence interval (i.e. low probability and high
severity events), the impact of such events must be factored into its
internal capital assessment, for example, through stress testing.
5.164 An Islamic banking institutions model should conservatively assess the
risk arising from less liquid positions and positions with limited price
transparency under realistic market scenarios. In addition, the model
should meet the minimum data standards set out under paragraph
5.149(iv). Proxies may be used only where available data are insufficient
or not reflective of the true volatility of a particular position or portfolio, and
should be conservatively used.
institution is expected to work with the Bank to define an acceptable alternative measure which
would meet this regulatory objective.
213
Islamic banking institutions would be expected to demonstrate that the model is sensitive to
changes in portfolio construction and that higher capital charges are attracted for portfolios that
have increasing concentrations in particular names or sectors.
214
Islamic banking institutions should be able to demonstrate that the model will signal rising risk in an
adverse environment. This could be achieved by incorporating in the historical estimation period of
the model at least one full credit cycle and ensuring that the model would not have been inaccurate
in the downward portion of the cycle. Another approach for demonstrating this is through simulation
of historical or plausible worst-case environments.
215
Islamic banking institutions should be able to demonstrate that the model is sensitive to material
idiosyncratic differences between similar but not identical positions, for example debt positions with
different levels of subordination, maturity mismatches, or credit derivatives with different default
events.
216
For debt positions, this should include migration risk. For equity positions, events that are reflected
in large changes or jumps in prices must be captured, for example merger break-ups/takeovers. In
particular, firms must consider issues related to survivorship bias.

5.165 As techniques and best practices evolve, Islamic banking institutions

should keep abreast of these advances.
5.166 Islamic banking institutions should also have an approach in place to

capture in their regulatory capital the default risk of the trading book
positions that is incremental to the risk captured by the VaR-based
calculation as specified in paragraph 5.162. To avoid double counting, an
Islamic banking institution may, when calculating incremental charge for
default risk, take into account the extent to which the default risk has
already been incorporated into the VaR calculation, especially for risk
positions that could be closed within ten days in the event of adverse
market conditions or other indications of deterioration in the credit
environment.
5.167 No specific approach for capturing incremental default risk is prescribed.

The approach may be part of an Islamic banking institutions internal
model or a surcharge from a separate calculation. Where an Islamic
banking institution captures its incremental risk through a surcharge, the
surcharge will not be subjected to a multiplication factor or regulatory
back-testing, although Islamic banking institution should be able to
demonstrate that the surcharge meets its objectives (i.e. providing
sufficient capital to cover default risk).
5.168 Whichever approach is used, an Islamic banking institution should

demonstrate that it meets the standards of soundness comparable to
those of internal-ratings based (IRB) approach for credit risk as set forth
under the credit risk component of the Framework, based on the
assumption of constant level of risk, and adjusted where appropriate to
reflect the impact of liquidity, concentrations, hedging and optionality. An
Islamic banking institution that does not capture the incremental default
risk through an internally developed approach must use the fallback of

calculating the surcharge through an approach consistent with that for

credit risk as set forth in the credit risk component of the Framework217.
5.169 Whichever approach is used, exposures that are subjected to a 1250%

risk weight, are subjected to a capital treatment that is no less than that set
forth under the credit risk component of the Framework.
5.170 An exception to this treatment could be afforded to an Islamic banking

institution that is a dealer in the above exposures where it can
demonstrate, in addition to trading intent that a liquid two-way market
exists for the securitisation exposures or, for the securitisation exposures
themselves or all the constituents risk components. For the purposes of
this part, a two-way market is deemed to exist where there are
independent bona fide offers to buy and sell with prices being reasonably
related to the last sale price or where current bona fide competitive bid and
offer quotations can be determined within one day and settled at such
price within a relatively short time for the trade to be confirmed. In addition,
for an Islamic banking institution to apply this exception, it must have
sufficient market data to ensure that it fully captures the concentrated
default risk of these exposures in its internal approach for measuring the
incremental default risk in accordance with the standards set forth above.
5.171 Islamic banking institutions which apply modelled estimates of specific risk
are required to conduct back testing aimed at assessing whether specific
risk is being accurately captured. The methodology that an Islamic banking
institution should use to validate its specific risk estimates is to perform
separate back tests on sub-portfolios, using daily data on sub-portfolios
subject to specific risk. The key sub-portfolios for this purpose are traded-
debt and equity positions. However, if Islamic banking institution
decomposes its trading portfolio into finer categories (for example
emerging markets, traded corporate debt, etc.), it is appropriate to keep
217
Approaches premised upon internal-rating based models will not be allowed for specific risk
measurement unless explicitly approved by the Bank.

these distinctions for sub-portfolio back testing purposes. Islamic banking

institutions are required to commit to a sub-portfolio structure and
continuously apply it unless it can be demonstrated to the Bank that it is
reasonable to change the structure.
5.172 Islamic banking institutions are required to have in place a process to

analyse exceptions identified through the back testing of specific risk. This
process is intended to serve as the fundamental way in which Islamic
banking institutions correct internal models of specific risk in the event it
becomes inaccurate. There will be a presumption where models that
incorporate specific risk are unacceptable if the results at the sub-portfolio
level produce a number of exceptions commensurate with the Red Zone
as defined in Part D.3.9 Framework for the Use of Back Testing. Islamic
banking institutions with unacceptable specific risk models are expected
to take immediate remedial action to correct the model and ensure
sufficient capital buffer to absorb the risk identified by the back test.
D.3.6 STRESS TESTING
5.173 Islamic banking institutions that use the internal models approach for
meeting market risk capital requirements must have in place a rigorous
and comprehensive stress testing program. Stress testing to identify
events or influences that could greatly impact Islamic banking institutions
is a key component of an institution's assessment of its capital position.
5.174 Islamic banking institutions' stress scenarios need to cover a range of

factors that can create extraordinary losses or gains in the trading books,
or make the control of risk in those books very difficult. These factors
include low-probability events in all major types of risks, including the
various components of market, credit, and operational risks. Stress
scenarios need to shed light on the impact of such events on positions that
display both linear and non-linear price characteristics (i.e. options and
instruments that have options-like characteristics).

5.175 Islamic banking institutions' stress tests should be both of a quantitative

and qualitative in nature, incorporating both market risk and liquidity
aspects of market disturbances. Quantitative criteria should identify
plausible stress scenarios to which institutions could be exposed.
Qualitative criteria should emphasise on two aspects of stress testing; to
evaluate the capacity of the institution's capital to absorb potential large
losses and to identify steps the institution can take to reduce risk and
conserve capital. This assessment is integral to setting and evaluating the
institution's management strategy and the results of stress testing should
be routinely communicated to senior management and, periodically, to the
Islamic banking institution's board.
5.176 Islamic banking institutions should combine the use of supervisory stress
scenarios with internal stress tests developed by institutions to reflect
specific risk characteristics. In particular, the Bank will require Islamic
banking institutions to provide information on stress testing in three broad
areas as part of the monthly statistical submission to the Bank:
(i) Supervisory scenarios requiring no simulations by the

institution
Islamic banking institutions should provide information on five largest
daily losses experienced during the reporting period. The loss
information could be compared to the level of capital that results from
an institution's internal measurement system. This would provide a
picture of how many days of peak day losses could be covered by the
reported capital, based on the Islamic banking institutions value-at-
risk estimate.
(ii) Scenarios requiring a simulation by Islamic banking institution

Portfolios of Islamic banking institutions are subjected to a series of
simulated stress scenarios.

(a) These scenarios should include testing the current portfolio

against past periods of significant disturbance, for example the
1987 equity crash, the ERM crisis of 1992 and 1993 or the fall
in bond markets in the first quarter of 1994, or the Asian
financial crisis of 1997 and 1998, incorporating both large price
movements and the sharp reduction in liquidity associated with
these events.
(b) A second type of scenario would evaluate the sensitivity of the

Islamic banking institution's market risk exposure to changes
in the assumptions about volatilities and correlations. Applying
this test would require an evaluation of the historical range of
variation for volatilities and correlations and evaluation of the
institution's current positions against the extreme values of the
historical range. Due consideration should be given to sharp
variation that at times occurred in a matter of days in periods
of market disturbance. Several of the historical examples
highlighted in paragraph 5.176(ii)(a) above involved
correlations within risk factors approaching the extreme values
of 1 or -1 for several days at the height of the disturbance.
(c) The Bank will normally not prescribe the simulated scenarios
for use in stress testing, although it may do so in the event of a
particular market circumstances.
(iii) Scenarios developed by the institution itself to capture the

specific characteristics of its portfolio
In addition to the scenarios described in paragraph 5.176(i) and (ii)
above, Islamic banking institution should also develop its own stress
tests which it identifies as the most adverse based on the
characteristics of its portfolio (for example, problems in a key region
of the world combined with a sharp move in oil prices). Islamic
banking institutions should provide the Bank with a description of the

methodology used to identify and carry out the scenarios as well as a

description of the results derived from these scenarios.
5.177 The stress test results should be reviewed periodically by senior
management and reflected in the policies and limits set by the board.
Moreover, if the testing reveals a particular vulnerability to a given set of
circumstances, the Bank would expect the institution concerned to take
prompt steps to remedy those risks appropriately (for example, by hedging
against the adverse outcome or reducing the size of exposures).
D.3.7 MODEL VALIDATION STANDARDS
5.178 Islamic banking institutions should have processes in place to ensure that
internal models have been suitably validated by qualified and independent
parties with relevant and sufficient expertise and experience, separate
from the development process to ensure that models are conceptually
sound and capture all material risks.
5.179 Model validation should be independent of model development to the

extent feasible. Where complete independence is not achievable, risk
policies should provide for effective reporting of validation party to an
independent management and board risk committees. This internal model
validation process and its results should also be reviewed by internal and
external auditors.
5.180 The validation should be conducted when the model is initially developed
and when significant changes are made to the model. The validation
should also be conducted on a periodic basis especially when there are
significant structural changes in the market or changes to the composition
of the portfolio which might lead to the model no longer being relevant
5.181 Where specific risk is also modelled, it is important for Islamic banking
institutions to conduct more extensive model validation and demonstrate

that the models satisfy the criteria for specific risk modelling as set out in
Part D.3.5 Modelling of Specific Risk.
5.182 Model validation should not be limited to back-testing, but should, at a

minimum, also include the following:
(i) Tests to demonstrate that any assumptions made within the internal
model are appropriate and do not underestimate risk. This may
include assumption of normal distribution, the use of square root of
time to scale from a one-day holding period to a ten-day holding
period or where extrapolation or interpolation techniques are used, or
pricing models.
(ii) Further to the regulatory back-testing programmes, testing for model

validation should be carried out using additional tests, which may
include, for instance:
(a) Testing carried out for longer periods than required for the
regular back-testing programme (for example three years),
except where the VaR model or market conditions have
changed to the extent that historical data are no longer relevant;
(b) Testing carried out using confidence intervals other than the
99% interval required under the quantitative standards;
(c) Testing of sub-portfolios; and
(d) Comparing predicted trading outcomes against actual and

hypothetical profit and loss.
(iii) The use of hypothetical portfolios to ensure that the model is able to
account for particular structural features that may arise, for example:
(a) Where the data history for a particular instrument does not meet
the quantitative standards in paragraph 5.149(iv) of Part D.3.
Quantitative Standards and where the Islamic banking
institution has to map these positions to proxies, Islamic banking

institution should ensure that proxies used produce conservative

results under relevant market scenarios;
(b) Islamic banking institution should ensure that material basis

risks are adequately captured. This may include mismatches
between long and short positions by maturity or by issuer; and
(c) Islamic banking institution should also ensure that the model
adopted captures concentration risk that may arise in a portfolio
that is not diversified.
D.3.8 MODEL REVIEW
5.183 In reviewing Islamic banking institution's internal model, the Bank will also
require assurance that:
(i) The internal validation processes described in Part D.3.7 Model
Validation Standards are operating in a satisfactory manner.
(ii) The formulae used in the calculation process and for pricing of
options and other complex instruments are validated by a qualified
unit, which in all cases should be independent from the trading area.
(iii) The structure of internal models is adequate with respect to the

institution's activities and geographical coverage.
(iv) The results of the institutions' back-testing of its internal

measurement system (i.e. comparing VaR estimates with actual
profits and losses) ensure that the model provides a reliable measure
of potential losses over time. The results and the underlying inputs to
the VaR calculations should be available to the Bank and external
auditors on request.
(v) Data flows and processes associated with the risk measurement
system are transparent and accessible. In particular, it is necessary
that auditors or the Bank have easy access to data and information,
whenever it is necessary and reasonable under appropriate
procedures, to the models' specifications and parameters.

D.3.9 FRAMEWORK FOR THE USE OF BACK TESTING
5.184 This part presents the framework for incorporating back testing into the
internal model approach to market risk capital requirements. It represents
an elaboration of paragraph 5.148(ii).
5.185 Back testing programs consist of a periodic comparison of Islamic banking
institutions daily VaR measure with its daily profit or loss (trading
outcome), to gauge the quality and accuracy of an Islamic banking
institutions risk measurement systems. The VaR measures are intended
to be larger than all but a certain fraction of the trading losses, where that
fraction is determined by the confidence level of the VaR measurement.
Comparing the risk measures with the trading outcomes simply means that
Islamic banking institution counts the number of times that trading losses
were larger than the risk measures. The fraction of greater than expected
losses to total outcomes can then be compared with the intended level of
coverage to gauge the performance of the Islamic banking institutions risk
model. If the comparison yields close results, the back test raises no
issues regarding the quality of the risk measurement model. In some
cases, however, the comparison may uncover sufficient differences to
indicate that problems almost certainly exist, either with the model or with
the assumptions of the back test. In between these two cases is a grey
area where the test results are, on their own, inconclusive.
Back Testing for Capital Adequacy Purposes

5.186 The back tests carried out for capital adequacy purposes compare
whether the observed percentage of outcomes covered by the VaR
measure is consistent with a 99 per cent level of confidence. That is, the
tests attempt to determine if Islamic banking institutions 99th percentile
risk-measures truly measure 99 per cent of the Islamic banking institutions
trading outcomes.

5.187 In addition, the back testing framework requires the comparison of daily
trading outcomes with a VaR measurement based on a one day holding
period. This requirement is to reduce the contamination arising from
changes in portfolio composition during the holding period which is
reflected in actual profit and loss outcomes but not in VaR numbers which
are calculated on a static end-of-day portfolio.
5.188 The same concerns about contamination of the trading outcomes

continue to be relevant, even for one day trading outcomes. The back test
against an overall one day actual profit or loss on its own may not be
adequate because it might reflect the effects of fee income and other
income not attributable to outright position taking. A more sophisticated
approach would involve a detailed attribution of income by source,
including fees, spreads and market movements. In such a case the VaR
results can be compared with the actual trading outcomes arising from
market movements alone (i.e. back test is performed using a measure of
actual profit and loss adjusted for fees, commissions and other income not
attributable to outright position taking.
5.189 In addition, the back test most closely aligned to the VaR calculation would
be the one based on the hypothetical changes in portfolio value that might
occur if end-of-day positions were to remain unchanged. That is, instead of
looking at a days actual profit or loss, the hypothetical profit or loss
obtained from applying the days price movements to the previous days
end-of-day portfolio is calculated. This hypothetical profit or loss result can
then be compared against the VaR based on the same, static, end-of-day
portfolio.
5.190 Islamic banking institutions are expected to perform back tests using both
hypothetical and actual trading outcomes. In combination, the two
approaches are likely to provide a strong understanding of the relation
between calculated risk measures and trading outcomes.

5.191 The back testing framework entails a formal testing and evaluation of
exceptions on a quarterly basis using the most recent twelve months (or
250 trading days) of VaR and profit data. Islamic banking institution must
calculate the number of times that the trading outcomes are not covered
by the risk measures (termed exceptions) using the most recent twelve
months of data yields approximately 250 daily observations. The Bank will
use the higher of the number of exceptions (out of 250 observations)
based on the hypothetical and actual trading outcomes generated by an
Islamic banking institutions model as the basis for a supervisory response.
Based on the back testing results, the Bank may initiate a dialogue with
Islamic banking institution to determine possible problem with Islamic
banking institutions model. In more serious cases, the Bank may impose
an increase in an Islamic banking institutions capital requirement or
disallow use of internal model (see paragraphs 5.207 to 5.209 for more
details).
5.192 The formal implementation of the back testing programme should begin on
the date the internal models for measuring became effective.
Notwithstanding this, Islamic banking institution applying to the Bank for
recognition of an internal model should provide evidence that the models
back test results are based on the standards described in this part falls
into the green zone as described in paragraph 5.195 at the time of
application.
Interpretation of Back Testing Results

5.193 With the statistical limitations of back testing in mind, supervisory
interpretation of back testing results encompasses a range of possible
responses, depending on the strength of the signals generated from the
back test. These responses are classified into three zones, distinguished
by colours into hierarchy of responses.

(i) The green zone corresponds to back testing results that do not
themselves suggest a problem with the quality or accuracy of Islamic
banking institutions model.
(ii) The yellow zone encompasses results that do raise questions, but
whose conclusion is not definitive. The back testing results could be
consistent with either accurate or inaccurate models, and the Bank
will require Islamic banking institution to present additional
information about its model before any action is taken.
(iii) The red zone indicates a back testing result that almost certainly
indicates a problem with Islamic banking institutions risk model and
the Bank will require some remedial actions to be initiated.
5.194 Table 13 below sets out the boundaries for these zones and the
presumptive supervisory response for each back testing outcome, based
on a sample of 250 observations. Where back testing indicates
weaknesses in Islamic banking institutions model, a plus factor will be
added to the multiplication factor mentioned in paragraph 5.149(x).
Table 13: Plus factor applicable to the internal models capital requirement
resulting from backtesting results
No of Exceptions Out of
Zones Plus Factor
250 Daily Observations
Green Zone 4 or less 0.00
5 0.40
6 0.50
Yellow Zone 7 0.65
8 0.75
9 0.85
Red Zone 10+ 1.00
5.195 Islamic banking institutions must apply the plus factor indicated in Table
13 in determining its capital charge for market risk until it obtains the next
quarters back testing results, unless the Bank determines that a different
adjustment or other action is appropriate.

The Green Zone

5.196 Since a model that truly provides 99 per cent coverage would be quite
likely to produce as many as four exceptions in a sample of 250 outcomes,
there is little reason for concern raised by back testing results that fall in
this range. In such a case, the multiplication factor will not be increased
(the plus factor will be zero), and no further action from Islamic banking
institution is required.
The Yellow Zone

5.197 The range from five to nine exceptions constitutes the yellow zone.
Outcomes in this range are plausible for both accurate and inaccurate
models, although generally more likely for inaccurate than for accurate
models. Moreover, the presumption that the model is inaccurate should
grow as the number of exceptions increases in the range from five to nine.
5.198 Within the yellow zone, the number of exceptions should generally guide
the size of potential supervisory increases in an Islamic banking
institutions capital requirement. Table 13 sets out the plus factors
applicable to the internal models capital requirement, resulting from back
testing results in the yellow zone.
5.199 It is important to emphasise that these increases are not meant to be

purely automatic. Back testing results in the yellow zone should generally
be presumed to imply an increase in the multiplication factor unless
Islamic banking institution can demonstrate that such increase is not
warranted.
5.200 There are many different types of additional information that might be
relevant to assess Islamic banking institutions model. For example, it
would be particularly valuable to see the results of back tests covering
disaggregated subsets of Islamic banking institutions overall trading
activities. Many Islamic banking institutions that engage in regular back

testing programs break up the overall trading portfolio into trading units
organised around risk factors or product categories. Disaggregating risks
into categories could allow the tracking of problems that surfaced at the
aggregate level back to its source either at the level of specific trading unit
or risk model.
5.201 Islamic banking institutions should also document all exceptions generated
from on-going back testing program, including an explanation for the
exceptions. This documentation is important in determining an appropriate
supervisory response to a back testing that resulted in yellow zone. Islamic
banking institutions may also implement back testing for confidence
intervals other than the 99th percentile, or may perform other statistical
tests not considered here.
5.202 In practice, there are several possible explanations for a back testing
exception, some of which might lead to the basic integrity of the model, an
under-specified or low-quality model, or poor intra-day trading results.
Each of these problems is considered below. Classifying the exceptions
generated by Islamic banking institutions model into the following
categories can be a useful exercise.
(i) Basic integrity of the model
(a) Islamic banking institutions systems simply are not capturing

the risk of the positions themselves (for example, the positions
of an overseas office are being reported incorrectly).
(b) Model volatilities and correlations are calculated incorrectly.
(ii) Defects on models accuracy
(a) The risk measurement model is not assessing the risk of some
instruments with sufficient precision (for example, too few
maturity buckets or an omitted spread).

(iii) Abnormal markets movements unanticipated by the model
(a) Random chance (a very low-probability event).
(b) Markets move more than the model predicted (that is, volatility
was significantly higher than expected).
(c) Markets did not move together as expected (that is, correlations
were significantly different than what was assumed by the
model).
(iv) Intra-day trading
(a) Large (and money-losing) and unusual change in Islamic

banking institutions positions or some other income event
between the end of the first day (when the risk estimate was
calculated) and the end of the second day (when trading results
were tabulated).
5.203 The first category of problems highlighted in paragraph 5.202(i) relating to

the basic integrity of the risk measurement model is potentially the most
serious. If there are exceptions attributed to this category for a particular
trading unit, the plus factor set out in Table 13 will apply. . In addition, the
model may necessitate review and/or adjustment, and the Bank will
require the Islamic banking institution to make the appropriate corrections.
5.204 The second category of problem highlighted in paragraph 5.202(ii) is one
that can be expected to occur at least some of the time with most risk
measurement models. All models involve some amount of approximation.
If, however, a particular Islamic banking institutions model appears more
prone to this type of problem than others, the Bank may impose the plus
factor and require the Islamic banking institution to improve its risk
measurement techniques.
5.205 The third category of problem highlighted in paragraph 5.202(iii) should

also be expected to occur at least some of the time with VaR models. The

behaviour of the markets may shift so that previous estimates of volatility

and correlation are less appropriate. No VaR model will be immune to this
type of problem; it is inherent in the reliance on past market behaviour as a
means of gauging the risk of future market movements. Exceptions for
such reasons do not suggest a problem. However, if the shifts in volatilities
and/or correlations are deemed to be permanent, the Bank may require
Islamic banking institution to recalculate its VaR using volatilities and
correlations based on a shorter historical observation period.
5.206 Finally, depending on the definition of trading outcomes employed for the
purpose of back testing, exceptions could also be generated by intra-day
trading results or an unusual event in trading income other than from
positioning. Although exceptions for these reasons would not necessarily
suggest problem with Islamic banking institutions VaR model, it could still
be a cause for concern and the imposition of the plus factor might be
considered.
5.207 The extent to which trading outcome exceeds the risk measure is another
relevant piece of information. Exceptions generated by trading outcomes
far in excess of the risk measure are a matter of greater concern, than
outcomes slightly larger than the risk measure.
The Red Zone

5.208 In contrast to the yellow zone, where the Bank may exercise judgement in
interpreting the back testing results, outcomes in the red zone (ten or more
exceptions) will generally lead to an automatic presumption that a problem
exists with Islamic banking institutions model. This is because it is
extremely unlikely that an accurate model would independently generate
ten or more exceptions from a sample of 250 trading outcomes.
5.209 In general, therefore, if an Islamic banking institutions model falls into the
red zone, the Bank will automatically increase the scaling factor applicable
to the model by one. The Bank will also investigate the reasons why

Islamic banking institutions model produced such a large number of

exceptions, and will require the Islamic banking institution to begin work on
improving its internal model immediately. Finally, in the case of severe
problems with the basic integrity of the model, the Bank may disallow the
use of the Islamic banking institutions model for capital adequacy
purposes.
5.210 Although ten exceptions is a very high number for 250 observations, there
may, on very rare occasions, be a valid reason why an accurate model will
produce so many exceptions. In particular, when financial markets are
subjected to a major regime shift, much volatility and correlations can be
expected to shift as well, perhaps substantially. Such a regime shift could
generate a number of exceptions in a short period of time. One possible
response in this instance may be to simply require Islamic banking
institutions model to take account of the regime shift as quickly as it can
while maintaining the integrity of its procedures for updating the model.
This exception will be allowed only under the most extraordinary
circumstances.

PART E LARGE EXPOSURE RISK REQUIREMENTS
E.1 LERR FOR ISLAMIC BANKING INSTITUTIONS
6.1 An Islamic banking institution shall compute its Large Exposure Risk
Requirement (LERR) in relation to its holding of equities (excluding the
holdings of units of unit trust funds).
6.2 The LERR for a single equity capital charge will be imposed on an ongoing
basis if an exposure to a single equity exceeds the threshold of 15% of the
Islamic banking institutions Total Capital or 10% of the issuers paid-up
capital, whichever is lower. For equity positions held in the trading book, the
capital charge is determined by multiplying the market value of the equity
position in excess of the threshold, with the sum of the corresponding
general and specific risk weights outlined in the market risk component of the
Framework. For positions held in the banking book, the capital charge is
determined by multiplying the value in excess of the threshold with the
corresponding risk weight (i.e. 100%). For trading book exposures, the LERR
capital charge shall be multiplied by a factor of 12.5 to arrive at a risk-
weighted asset equivalent. An illustration for the calculation of LERR is given
in Appendix XVII.
6.3 Shares and interest-in-shares that are acquired as a result of underwriting

commitments, debt satisfaction and debt-equity conversions shall be subject
to the LERR capital charge only if the shares and interest-in-shares remain
with the Islamic banking institution after 12 months from the date of
acquisition or conversion.

PART F SECURITISATION FRAMEWORK
F.1 INTRODUCTION
7.1 The Securitisation Framework outlines:

(a) the approaches in determining regulatory capital requirements on
exposures arising from traditional securitisations held in the banking
book; and
(b) the operational requirements for allowing regulatory capital relief for
originating Islamic banking institutions.
7.2 All Islamic banking institutions, whether acting as originators or as third-party

investors, must hold regulatory capital against all securitisation exposures
(on- or off-balance sheet) in the banking book218 arising from traditional
securitisations, hereinafter referred to as securitisation exposures. Such
securitisation exposures may arise from an Islamic banks:
(a) investments in any securitisation issue, including retention or
repurchase of one or more own securitisation positions;
(b) provision of credit risk mitigants or credit enhancement to parties to
securitisation transactions;
(c) provision of liquidity facilities or other similar facilities;
(d) obligations due to early amortisation features in a securitisation; or
(e) entitlements to future income generated by a securitisation through
various forms of arrangements such as deferred purchase price, excess
servicing income, gain-on-sale, future margin income, cash collateral
accounts or other similar arrangements.
7.3 General descriptions of terms used in the Securitisation Framework are

provided in Appendix XXVII.
218
Securitisation exposures held in the trading book are subject to benchmark rate risk charges
(specific and general risks) as outlined in the market risk component of this Framework.

F.2 OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CAPITAL RELIEF
7.4 Regulatory capital relief is granted based on the assessment of whether risks
under a securitisation transaction have been effectively and significantly
transferred. The extent to which securitisation exposures are retained
through arrangements during the life of the transaction such as the provision
of unconditional liquidity facilities will also be considered. The operational
requirements for such capital relief are detailed in paragraph 7.7. An
originating Islamic bank may, upon receiving written approval for capital relief
from the Bank219, exclude the underlying assets that have been securitised
(securitised exposures), whether from the banking book or trading book, from
the calculation of risk-weighted assets. Originating Islamic banking
institutions must still hold regulatory capital for any securitisation exposures
retained.
7.5 Islamic banking institutions must hold regulatory capital for all of the
underlying securitised exposures in the case of failure to meet any of the
operational requirements referred to in paragraph 7.7, as if the underlying
exposures had not been securitised. In this case, originating Islamic banking
institutions need not hold additional regulatory capital for the securitisation
exposures retained.
7.6 Notwithstanding any capital relief granted, an originating Islamic bank is

required to monitor and control risks arising from the continued retention of
the securitised exposures (e.g. as provider of liquidity facility). This should
include the continuing assessment of any change in the risk profile of the
transaction and the resulting impact on capital arising from the Islamic banks
role in the transaction. Corresponding contingency plans to deal with the risk
and capital impact must be put in place.
219
Applications for capital relief should be submitted to the Bank in accordance with the requirements
outlined in Appendix XXVIII Application for Capital Relief.

7.7 An originating Islamic banking institution may exclude an underlying pool of

exposures from the calculation of capital requirements, if all of the following
requirements are met on an ongoing basis:
(a) significant credit risk associated with the securitised exposures has
been transferred to third parties220;
(b) the originating Islamic banking institution does not maintain effective or
indirect control over the transferred exposures. The assets are legally
isolated221 from the originating Islamic banking institution in a manner
(e.g. through the sale of assets or through sub-participation) that the
exposures are beyond the reach of the originating Islamic banking
institution and its creditors, even in bankruptcy or receivership. These
conditions must be supported by an opinion provided by a qualified
legal counsel222. The originating Islamic banking institution is deemed to
have maintained effective or indirect control over the transferred credit
risk exposures if it is:
i. able to repurchase from the transferee (i.e. SPV) the previously
transferred exposures in order to realise their benefits; or
ii. obligated to retain the risk of the transferred exposures. The
originating Islamic banking institutions retention of servicing
rights to the exposures will not necessarily constitute indirect
control of the exposures;
(c) the sukuk issued are not obligations of the originating Islamic banking
institution. Thus, investors who purchase the securities have recourse
only to the underlying pool of exposures;
220
For the purpose of the Securitisation Framework, with the exception of SPVs, entities in which the
consolidated treatment is applied for capital adequacy purposes, as outlined in Capital Adequacy
Framework for Islamic Banks (General Requirements and Capital Components) are not included
within the definition of a third-party.
221
Examples of methods of legal transfer normally adopted in traditional securitisation transaction are
provided in Appendix XXIX.
222
For this purpose, both internal and external legal counsels are acceptable. Nevertheless, the Bank
may, at its discretion require an additional legal opinion from an independent counsel where a
second opinion is appropriate.

(d) the transferee is a special purpose vehicle (SPV) and the holders of the
beneficial interests in that entity have the right to pledge or exchange
the interests without restriction;
(e) the securitisation does not contain clauses that:
i. require the originating Islamic banking institution to alter
systematically the underlying exposures to improve the credit
quality of the pool;
ii. allow for increases in a retained first loss position or credit
enhancement provided by the originating Islamic banking
institution after the inception of the transaction; or
iii. increase the yield payable to parties other than the originating
Islamic banking institution, such as investors and third-party
providers of credit enhancements, in response to a deterioration
in the credit quality of the underlying pool; and
(f) clean-up calls, if any, satisfy the conditions set out in paragraph 7.27.
F.3 STANDARDISED APPROACH FOR SECURITISATION EXPOSURES
F.3.1 REQUIREMENTS OF USE OF EXTERNAL RATINGS
7.8 For risk-weighting of rated securitisation exposures, Islamic banking

institutions are only allowed to use external ratings provided by External
Credit Assessment Institutions (ECAI) recognised by the Bank. In addition,
Islamic banking institutions must ensure that the use of external ratings for
risk-weighted capital adequacy purposes meets the following conditions:
(a) the external rating shall incorporate features of underlying Shariah
contract that give rise to different risk profile in its credit assessment;
(b) the external rating is made publicly available i.e. a rating must be
published in an accessible form. Credit ratings that are made available
only to the parties to a securitisation transaction (e.g. rating on a
particular securitisation exposure made available upon request by

parties to the transaction) are not considered as a public rating for

purposes of the Securitisation Framework;
(c) the external rating is reflective of the entire amount of the Islamic
banking institutions credit risk exposure with regard to all payments
owed to it. For example, if an Islamic banking institution is owed both
principal and profit, the assessment must fully take into account and
reflect the credit risk associated with timely repayment of both principal
and profit;
(d) external ratings provided by the ECAIs are applied consistently across a
given type of securitisation exposure. In particular, Islamic banking
institutions are not allowed to use an ECAIs credit rating for one or
more tranches and another ECAIs rating for other tranches within the
same securitisation structure that may or may not be rated by the first
ECAI. In cases where a securitisation exposure is rated by more than
one ECAI, the requirements in paragraph 2.12 of the credit risk
component of CAFIB shall apply;
(e) if credit risk mitigation (CRM) is provided directly to an SPV by an
eligible guarantor (i.e. eligible credit protection) and is reflected in the
external rating assigned to a securitisation exposure, the risk weight
associated with that external rating should be used. However, if the
CRM provider is not an eligible guarantor, the rating for the guaranteed
securitisation exposure should not be recognised and the exposure
should be treated as unrated (except for securitisation exposures
mentioned in paragraph 7.13); and
(f) in the situation where CRM is applied to a specific securitisation
exposure within a given structure (e.g. hedging a senior tranche
exposure), Islamic banking institution shall disregard the rating attached
to the exposure and use the CRM treatment instead, as outlined in Part
B.2.5 of the credit risk component of CAFIB in order to recognise the
hedge. However, if the CRM becomes ineligible, the rating attached to

the securitisation exposure should be used for risk-weighting

purposes223.
7.9 While CAFIB primarily relies on external credit assessments, Islamic banking
institutions must exercise prudence to ensure that the external credit
assessments do not substitute for the Islamic banks own due diligence in the
credit assessment process. In order to use external ratings under the
Securitisation Framework, an Islamic banking institution must have the
following:
(a) a comprehensive understanding of the risk characteristics of its
individual securitisation exposures, whether on balance sheet or off-
balance sheet, as well as the risk characteristics of the pools underlying
the securitisation exposures. As part of their investment due diligence
process, Islamic banking institution should also consider the extent to
which the originator or sponsor of the securitisation shares a similar
economic interest as that of investors (for example, as indicated by the
proportion of underlying exposures retained by the originator);
(b) a thorough understanding of all structural features of a securitisation
transaction that would materially impact the nature of the Islamic
banking institutions exposures to the transaction, such as the
contractual waterfall and waterfall-related triggers, credit
enhancements, the Shariah contract applied, liquidity enhancements,
market value triggers, and deal-specific definitions of default; and
(c) access to performance information on the underlying pools on an
ongoing basis in a timely manner. Such information may include, as
appropriate: exposure type; percentage of financing 30, 60 and 90 days
past due; default rates; prepayment rates; financings in foreclosure;
property type; occupancy; average credit score or other measures of
credit worthiness; progress of underlying project, average financing-to-
223
For example, when an Islamic bank is investing in a BBB- rated securitisation tranche and
subsequently hedges the investment using a guarantee with an eligible guarantor under the
framework, the rating-based risk weight for the securitisation tranche shall be disapplied and the
CRM treatment shall be used instead. However, if the CRM provider is ineligible under the
framework, the Islamic bank shall fall back to the rating-based capital treatment.

value ratio; and industry and geographic diversification. For re-

securitisations, Islamic banking institutions should have information not
only on the underlying securitisation tranches, such as the issuer name
and credit quality, but also on the characteristics and performance of
the pools underlying the securitisation tranches.
F.3.2 TREATMENT OF ON-BALANCE SHEET SECURITISATION EXPOSURES
7.10 The risk-weighted asset amount of an on-balance sheet securitisation

exposure is computed by multiplying the amount of the securitisation
exposure by the appropriate risk weight provided in tables Securitisation
(Long Term Ratings) and Securitisation (Short term ratings) below. Some
exposures, as indicated in the following tables, would require capital
deduction.
Securitisation (Long Term Ratings)
Rating Risk
S&P Moodys Fitch RAM MARC
Category Weight
AAA to AAA to AAA to AAA to
1 Aaa to A 20%
AA- AA- AA3 AA-
2 A+ to A- A1 to A3 A+ to A- A1 to A3 A+ to A- 50%
BBB+ to Baa1 to BBB+ to BBB1 to BBB+ to
3 100%
BBB- Baa3 BBB- BBB3 BBB-
BB+ to Ba1 to BB+ to BB1 to BB+ to
4 350%
BB- Ba3 BB- BB3 BB-
B+ and B1 and B+ and B1 and B+ and
5 1250%
below below below below below
Unrated 1250%
Securitisation (Short Term Ratings)
Rating Risk
S&P Moodys Fitch RAM MARC
Category Weight
1 A-1 P-1 F1+, F1 P-1 MARC-1 20%
2 A-2 P-2 F2 P-2 MARC-2 50%
3 A-3 P-3 F3 P-3 MARC-3 100%
4 Others or Others or Others or NP MARC-4 1250%

unrated unrated unrated
7.11 Originating Islamic banking institutions that retain their own-originated

securitisation positions rated below investment grade must apply a 1250%
risk weight on all of such exposures. Holdings of non-investment grade
securitisation exposures, however, will not be subject to the 1250% risk
weight if the originating Islamic banking institution does not also retain the
first loss position (in whole or in part) of its own securitisation. In this case,
the corresponding risk weight as provided in the tables mentioned in
paragraph 7.11 shall be used.
7.12 The 1250% risk weighting imposed on unrated securitisation exposures will
not apply in the following circumstances:
(a) Unrated most senior securitisation exposures
Where an Islamic banking institution that holds or guarantees the most
senior exposure in a securitisation applies the look-through approach
in determining the average risk weight of the underlying exposure, the
unrated exposures should be subject to the average risk weight224.
However, if the resulting weighted average risk weight is higher than the
risk weight of the securitisation exposure below it, then the risk weight
of the latter shall apply.
(b) Unrated securitisation exposures in a second loss or better

position under an Asset-backed Commercial Papers (ABCP)
programme
Unrated securitisation exposures held by an Islamic banking institution
to an ABCP programme will be subject to a risk weight which is the
higher of 100% or the highest risk weight assigned to any of the
underlying individual exposures covered by the facility, subject to the
following requirements:
224
Islamic banking institutions must be able to demonstrate that the composition of the underlying pool
and the relevant risk weight of each individual exposure within the pool are quantifiable at all times.

i. the exposure is economically in a second loss position or better

and the first loss position provides significant credit protection225
to the second loss position;
ii. the associated credit risk is the equivalent of investment grade or
better226; and
iii. the Islamic banking institution holding such unrated securitisation
exposure does not also retain the first loss position in the ABCP
program.
F.3.3 TREATMENT OF OFF-BALANCE SHEET SECURITISATION

EXPOSURES
7.13 Off-balance sheet securitisation exposures must be translated into an on-

balance sheet exposure equivalent amount by multiplying the exposure with
a credit conversion factor (CCF). The resulting amount is then weighted
according to the relevant risk weights.
7.14 The CCFs, which are determined based on whether the off-balance sheet
securitisation exposure qualifies as an eligible liquidity facility, an eligible
servicer cash advance facility or eligible underwriting facility according to
the eligibility criteria specified in Appendix XXXI, are as follows:
CCF Risk Weight

Treatment of Eligible Liquidity Facilities
a) Externally rated eligible liquidity facility that Rating-based risk
meets the requirements for use of external 100% weight in paragraph
rating in paragraph 7.9. 7.11
b) Non-externally rated eligible liquidity facility Highest risk weight
50%
with an original maturity of more than 1 year. assigned to any of the
c) Non-externally rated eligible liquidity facility underlying individual
with an original maturity of 1 year or less. exposures covered by
20% the facility.
Treatment of Eligible Servicer Cash Advance Facilities

a) Eligible servicer cash advance facility that 0% Not applicable
225
As may be demonstrated by models and simulation techniques.
226
As may be evidenced by an indicative rating provided by an internal model.

meets the operational requirements in

paragraph 2 of Appendix XXXI.
Treatment of Eligible Underwriting Facility
a) Eligible underwriting facility that meets the Highest risk weight
operational requirements in paragraph 3 of assigned to any
Appendix XXXI. tranche of the
50%
securitisation
exposure
underwritten
Others
a) All other off-balance sheet securitisation Highest risk weight
exposures (including ineligible facilities), assigned to any
unless otherwise specified by the Bank. 100% tranche of the
securitisation
exposure
F.3.4 TREATMENT OF OVERLAPPING EXPOSURES
7.15 An Islamic banking institution may provide several types of facilities (e.g.
provision of a liquidity facility and a credit enhancement) in a securitisation
transaction that can be drawn under various terms and conditions which may
overlap with each other. Under circumstances where there is an explicit limit
on the draw of more than one facility at a time for the overlapping exposure,
capital should be provided as though the institution had only provided one
facility for the overlapping exposures227. If the overlapping facilities are
subject to different capital treatments, the treatment that results in the highest
capital charge should be applied on the overlapping portion.
7.16 The treatment above does not apply in cases where the overlapping facilities
are provided by two different Islamic banking institutions and capital is
allocated by each individual institution.
227
For example, if an Islamic bank provides a credit enhancement covering 10% of the underlying
asset pool in an ABCP programme and a liquidity facility covering 100% of the same underlying
asset pool, the Islamic bank would be required to hold capital against 10% of the underlying asset
pool for the credit enhancement it is providing and 90% of the liquidity facility provided to the
underlying asset pool. Effectively, the overlapping portion between the credit enhancement portion
and the liquidity facility portion would be subject to a capital treatment which results in the highest
capital charges.

F.3.5 TREATMENT OF COUNTERPARTY CREDIT RISK FOR

SECURITISATION EXPOSURES
7.17 When a profit rate swap or currency swap is provided to a securitisation

transaction and where the counterparty is an SPV, the credit equivalent
amount is computed based on the current exposure method specified in
Appendix VI of CAFIB on counterparty credit risk and current exposure
method. The highest risk weight of the underlying assets in the pool shall be
applied to the resultant exposure amount in determining the counterparty
credit risk.
F.3.6 TREATMENT OF SECURITISATION OF REVOLVING UNDERLYING

EXPOSURES228 WITH EARLY AMORTISATION PROVISIONS
7.18 Early amortisation provisions are mechanisms that, once triggered, allow
investors to be paid out prior to the maturity of the sukuk subject to the terms
of the securitisation transaction. Generally, early amortisation provisions are
triggered based upon the performance or selected risk indicators of the
underlying exposures, such as the excess spread level. The existence of an
early amortisation feature229 in a securitisation transaction exposes an
originating Islamic banking institution to liquidity risk if the sukuk issued are
required to be prepaid early, for example where there is a significant reliance
on securitisation to meet funding requirements.
7.19 Accordingly, originating Islamic banking institutions must hold capital against
the risk exposure arising from the securitisation of revolving underlying
exposures that contains an early amortisation feature. The specific capital
treatment varies according to the type of early amortisation provision (i.e.
controlled or non-controlled early amortisation) and type of underlying
228
Revolving exposures refer to credit exposures where the borrower is permitted to vary the drawn
amount and repayments within an agreed limit under a line of credit (e.g. credit card receivables
and corporate financing commitments).
229
A clean-up call feature is distinguished from an early amortisation feature in this framework, where
a clean-up call is exercised only under the conditions specified in paragraph 7.27. This supports
the differentiated capital treatment for early amortisation and clean-up call features.

securitised exposures (i.e. committed or non-committed and retail or non-

retail) as provided in Appendix XXXII.
F.3.7 TREATMENT OF CREDIT RISK MITIGATION FOR SECURITISATION

EXPOSURES
7.20 The requirements outlined in this section provide the treatment for Islamic
banking institutions that:
(a) obtain credit risk mitigants such as guarantees, collateral and on-
balance sheet netting to cover the credit risk of a securitisation
exposure (e.g. an asset-backed sukuk tranche); and
(b) provide such credit risk mitigation to a securitisation exposure.
7.21 When an Islamic banking institution other than an originating Islamic banking
institution provides credit protection to a securitisation exposure, it must
calculate the capital requirement on the covered exposure as if it were an
investor in that securitisation. For example, if protection is provided to an
unrated first loss position, a capital deduction shall be applied accordingly to
such credit protection.
Guarantees
7.22 Where guarantees are provided by eligible entities230, Islamic banking
institutions may take into account such credit protection in calculating capital
requirements for their securitisation exposures in accordance to CRM
treatments specified in paragraphs 2.144 to 2.152 of the credit risk component
of CAFIB.
Eligible collateral
230
Eligible guarantors are defined in paragraph 2.146 of the credit risk component of the CAFIB.
Islamic banking institutions may not recognise SPVs as eligible guarantors in the securitisation
framework.

7.23 Eligible collateral is limited to those recognised under paragraph 2.121 in the
credit risk component of CAFIB, including collateral that may be pledged by an
SPV.
Maturity Mismatches
7.24 Where a maturity mismatch exists in any credit risk mitigation for securitisation
exposures, the capital requirement for the maturity mismatch as outlined in
paragraphs 2.153 to 2.156 of the credit risk component of CAFIB shall be
applied. When the exposures being hedged have different maturities, the
longest maturity must be used.
F.3.8 OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND TREATMENT OF CLEAN-UP

CALLS
7.25 Certain securitisation transactions may incorporate a clean-up call feature. A

clean-up call is an option that permits the securitisation exposures to be called
before all of the underlying exposures or securitisation exposures have been
repaid. In the case of traditional securitisation, this is generally accomplished
by repurchasing the remaining securitisation exposures once the pool balance
or outstanding sukuk have fallen below some specified level that renders the
securitisation uneconomical to continue.
7.26 In general, originating Islamic banking institutions are not required to set aside
regulatory capital for the existence of a clean-up call, provided that all the
following conditions are fully met:
(a) the exercise of the clean-up call is not mandatory, in form or in
substance, but rather is at the sole discretion of the originating Islamic
banking institution;
(b) the clean-up call is not structured to avoid allocating losses to credit
enhancements or positions held by investors, or otherwise structured to
provide a credit enhancement; and
(c) the clean-up call is only exercisable when 10% or less of the original
underlying portfolio or securities issued remains.

7.27 For clean-up call that does not meet all of the requirements above, hereinafter
referred to as non-eligible clean-up call, the underlying exposures must be
treated as if the exposures were not securitised. Islamic banking institutions
must not recognise any gain-on-sale as regulatory capital.
F.3.9 TREATMENT FOR IMPLICIT SUPPORT
7.28 Implicit support arises when an Islamic banking institution provides support to
a securitisation beyond its predetermined contractual obligations. This implicit
support increases market expectations that the Islamic banking institution
might continue to provide future support to the securitisation, thereby
understating the degree of risk transfer and the required level of regulatory
capital by the Islamic banking institution.

PART G REQUIREMENTS FOR APPROVED FINANCIAL HOLDING COMPANIES
G.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
8.1 Except for the requirements in paragraph 1.10(i), all other requirements in
this policy document231 shall be applicable to financial holding companies
that hold investment directly or indirectly in corporations that are engaged
predominantly in banking business.
8.2 References to Islamic banking institution(s) in this document shall also refer
to approved financial holding company (-ies), as the case may be.
G.2 Regulatory approval process for the adoption of an advanced approach
8.3 A financial holding company is required to obtain the Banks written approval
prior to adopting any of the following advanced approaches:
i) Internal Ratings-based Approach for credit risk;
ii) Internal Model Approach for market risk; and
iii) The Standardised Approach or Alternative Standardised Approach for
operational risk.
8.4 Where a Malaysian licensed Islamic banking institution within a financial

group adopts an advanced approach for the computation of risk-weighted
assets of a risk type, the financial holding company shall apply a similar
approach for the computation of the group risk-weighted assets of that risk
type232,233. This will ensure a consistent measurement approach applied for
similar exposures across the group.
8.5 For the purpose of submitting an application to adopt the Internal Ratings-
Based Approach for credit risk:
231
This includes the reporting templates and reporting manual.
232
For credit risk, the adoption of the advanced approach can be done based on an asset class or a
sub-class, and for market risk, the adoption of the advanced approach can be done based on a
broad risk category.
233
For clarity, the other banking subsidiaries do not necessarily have to adopt the similar approach for
their entity level reporting.

i) for a financial group where the Malaysian licensed Islamic banking

institution within the group has adopted the Internal Ratings-Based
Approach prior to 23 October 2014234:
a. the group must fully comply with all minimum requirements of the
approach on a consolidated basis by 1 January 2019;
b. the group must submit the application, accompanied by all
required information, to the Bank by 1 January 2017235;
c. the Bank will inform its decision on the application and the
commencement of observation period236 by 31 December 2017;
and
d. the Bank will inform its final decision on the migration to the
approach before 1 January 2019.
ii) for a financial group where the Malaysian licensed Islamic banking
institution within the group is planning to migrate to the Internal Rating-
Based Approach for credit risk after 23 October 2014:
a. the group shall formally notify the Bank of its intention to migrate
at least 3 years before the intended implementation date;
b. the group must submit the application, accompanied by all
required information, to the Bank at least 2 years before the
intended implementation date;
c. the group shall comply with all minimum requirements of the
approach except in relation to the use of internal ratings, at the
time of submission to the Bank under (b) above. In the case of the
requirements on the use of internal ratings, the group shall
demonstrate a credible track record showing that the rating
systems which comply with the minimum requirements have been
used for at least 1 year prior to the submission. The group may
utilise the time allocated for the review period by the Bank and the
234
Discussion paper on Capital Adequacy Framework for Financial Holding Companies (Banking
groups) issued on 23 October 2014.
235
For clarity, compliance with the minimum requirements of the approach is not required at the time of
submission of the required information to the Bank. The group may utilise the time allocated for the
review period by the Bank and the observation period to fully meet the minimum requirements by 1
January 2019.
236
The observation period is intended to ensure that the models developed comply with the minimum
requirements.

observation period to fully meet the use of internal ratings

requirements237;
d. the Bank will inform its decision on the application and whether the
group can commence observation period within 1 year from the
receipt of the submission of the required information under (b)
above; and
e. in the case where the Bank has agreed for the group to
commence observation period, the Bank will inform its final
decision on the migration to the approach by the end of the
observation period.
237
As required in paragraph 3.357.

APPENDICES
Appendix I Eligibility Criteria for External Credit Assessment Institution (ECAI)

Recognition
Criterion 1: Objectivity of credit assessment methodology and process

The methodology and process for assigning credit ratings must be rigorous and
systematic. Before being recognised by the Bank, an assessment methodology for
the broad asset class for which recognition is sought must have been established
for at least one year and preferably three years.
1. The objectivity of an ECAIs credit assessment methodology can be assessed

on the following parameters:
(i) Any credit assessment methodology adopted by an ECAI must produce

an informed and sound opinion of the creditworthiness of rated entities.
The credit assessments must be based on all relevant information that is
available at the time the assessments are issued;
(ii) All qualitative and quantitative factors known to be relevant in

determining the creditworthiness of the rated entities must be
incorporated in the methodology;
(iii) The ECAIs credit assessment methodologies and processes should

provide a sufficient level of consistency and discrimination to provide the
basis for capital requirements under the Standardised Approach for
credit risk; and
(iv) Processes to ensure that consistent application of any credit assessment

methodology should be in place such that equivalent credit assessments
are given to identical rated entities or issuances, and that different
analysts or rating committees working independently within the ECAI
shall assign equivalent credit ratings to a particular entity or issuance.
2. With regard to Islamic debt securities, the Bank expects that the ECAI has a
documented methodology to identify and assess the inherent risk drivers

peculiar to Islamic debt securities. Processes should also be in place to ensure

consistency in the application of credit assessment methodologies of Islamic
entities and issuances.
Criterion 2: Ongoing review of credit assessment methodology

The methodology for assigning credit ratings must be validated by the ECAI based
on its historical experience. Before being recognised by the Bank, rigorous
backtesting must have been established for at least one year and preferably three
years.
3. The review process of the credit assessment methodology can be assessed on

the following parameters:
(i) The process of validating the methodologies is based on historical

experience. Quantitative validation will need to be based on the ECAI's
credit assessments (the outputs of the methodology) rather than on the
methodology itself;
(ii) The quantitative assessment should confirm the stability of credit

assessments as well as the discriminatory power and the stability of
discriminatory power of credit assessments over time;
(iii) Procedures should be in place to ensure that systematic rating errors

highlighted by backtesting will be incorporated into credit assessment
methodologies and rectified; and
(iv) If sufficient data is available, the ECAI should undertake separate

backtesting for each of the broad asset classes for which an ECAI is
seeking recognition.
Criterion 3: Ongoing review of individual credit assessments

ECAIs are expected to conduct an ongoing review of the credit assessments. Such
reviews shall take place after any material event in a rated entity or at least
annually.

4. The ECAI must ensure that credit assessments remain consistent and robust
over time and market conditions.
5. The ECAI must ensure that reliable processes that are able to detect changes
in conditions surrounding a rated entity that are sufficiently material to alter its
credit assessments are in place.
6. The ECAI must ensure that a credit assessment is indeed revised when the
change in operating conditions is material enough to warrant a revision.
Notwithstanding this, individual credit assessments must be reviewed at least
annually.
Criterion 4: Independence
The ECAI should be independent and should not be subject to any pressures that
may influence the rating. The assessment process should be as free as possible
from any constraints that could arise in situations where the composition of the
board or the shareholder structure of the assessment institution may be seen as
creating a conflict of interest.
7. The rating methodologies and process of an ECAI must be free from any
influence, which may affect its ability to conduct credit assessments.
8. There must also be procedures to ensure that its methodologies are free from
any influences or constraints that may influence the credit assessments.
9. The ECAI must ensure that:
(i) it has adopted, monitored, and successfully applied internal procedures to

ensure that all credit assessments are formulated in a consistent and
objective manner, particularly in situations where conflicts of interest may
arise and could threaten its objectivity; and
(ii) it has mechanisms in place to identify actual and potential conflicts of

interest and take reasonable measures to prevent, manage and eliminate

them, so that they do not impair the production of independent, objective

and high quality credit assessments.
10. Where an ECAI has additional business with rated entities (for example
advisory services, data services, consulting services), the ECAI should also
disclose to the Bank the nature of the services and the general nature of the
compensation arrangements for the provision of these services.
11. The ECAI should maintain and document strict fire-walls on information sharing
between their rating assignment teams and other business lines.
12. ECAIs should disclose any significant business relationships between ECAI
employees and the rated entities.
Criterion 5: International access and transparency

The individual assessments should be available to both domestic and foreign
institutions with legitimate interests and at equivalent terms. In addition, the general
methodology used by the ECAI should be publicly available to allow all potential
users to decide whether they are derived in a reasonable way.
13. This criterion is intended to create a level playing field by ensuring that all
institutions having a legitimate interest in an ECAI's credit assessments, in
whatever jurisdiction, have equal and timely access to them.
14. ECAIs that wish to be recognised as eligible must make their credit
assessments accessible at least to all institutions having a legitimate interest.
Institutions having a legitimate interest are those institutions that need to
calculate their regulatory capital requirements, and that intend to use the credit
assessments of the respective ECAI for risk weighting purposes.

15. At equivalent terms means that under the same economic circumstances,
access to credit assessments should be provided on identical terms, without
any undue price discrimination.
Criterion 6: Disclosure
An ECAI should use appropriate methods of disclosure to ensure public access to
all material information. This is to allow all potential users to decide whether the
assessments are derived in a reasonable way.
16. At a minimum, ECAIs should disclose the following to the public:
(i) the methodologies (these include the definition of default, the time horizon
and the meaning of each rating);
(ii) as promptly as possible, any material changes in methodology referred;
(iii) the validation results on their methodology (these include the actual
default rates experienced in each assessment category and the transitions
of the assessments); and
(iv) whether a credit assessment is unsolicited.
17. An ECAI should use appropriate methods of disclosure to ensure public access
to the abovementioned information.
Criterion 7: 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. Such assessments should be based on methodologies
combining qualitative and quantitative approaches.
18. In terms of staffing and expertise, an ECAI should ensure that its staff has the
levels of skills and experience necessary to perform the tasks required of them,
competently and thoroughly.

19. The ECAI should also have sufficient resources to carry out consistent
assessments and have frequent contacts with the rated companies.
20. In addition, analysts at ECAIs that rate Islamic issues need to have undergone
sufficient training to develop the requisite understanding in rating Islamic issues
and the specific risks contained in these issues.
Criterion 8: Credibility
The Bank shall verify that the ECAI's individual credit assessments are recognised
in the market as credible and reliable by the users of such credit assessments.
21. The Bank shall assess the ECAIs credibility according to factors such as the
following:
(i) the extent to which it meets the overall recognition criteria;
(ii) the extent to which independent parties (investors, insurers, trading

partners) rely on ECAI's assessment; and
(iii) the extent to which market prices of rated securities are differentiated
according to the ECAIs ratings.

BNM/RH/GL 007-21 Islamic Banking and Capital Adequacy Framework Page
Takaful Department for Islamic Banks (Risk- 376 / 469
Weighted Assets)
Appendix II Summary of Risk Weights for Financing Secured by Residential

Real Estate (RRE) Properties
Risk Weight
Criteria
Performing Non-Performing*
Subject to meeting the criteria
under paragraph 2.38 and:
FTV Ratio < 80% 35% 100%
FTV Ratio 80% - 90% 50% 100%
Does not meet criteria in

paragraph 2.38 or FTV Ratio >
90% (approved and disbursed Treated as per paragraph 150%
before 1 February 2011 ) 2.36
All financings with financing-to-

value > 90% approved and
100% 150%
disbursed on or after 1 February
2011
Financing to priority sector238:
FTV Ratio < 80% 35% 100%
FTV Ratio 80% 50% 100%
FTV ratio > 90% approved and

disbursed on or after 1
75% 150%
February 2011
RRE financing combined

with overdraft facilities:
RRE financing Based on the specified criteria & FTV Ratio
Personal financing facility# 75% subject to meeting

150%
retail portfolio criteria
RRE financing on abandoned
150%
projects
* Risk weights could be lower depending on level of provisioning as per paragraphs 2.47
and 2.48.
#
Refer to paragraph 2.41.
238
As per the Banks Guidelines on Lending/Financing to Priority Sectors.
Appendix III Definition of Default
1. A default is considered to have occurred when:
(i) The Islamic banking institution considers that an obligor is unlikely to

repay in full its credit obligations, without recourse by the Islamic
banking institution to actions such as realising security; or
(ii) The obligor has breached its contractual repayment schedule and is past
due for more than 90 days239 on any material credit obligation to the
Islamic banking group.
(a) The Framework will apply the definition of default on obligors that
are past due for more than 120 days under the Hire-Purchase Act
1967 and default for RRE financing past due for more than 180
days.
(b) A default for securities is recognised immediately upon the breach

of contractual repayment schedule.
(c) For overdrafts, a default occurs when the obligor has breached the
approved limits for more than 90 days.
(d) Where periodic repayments are scheduled on three months or

longer, a default occurs immediately upon the breach of contractual
repayment schedule.
However, Islamic banking institutions which adopt a more stringent

definition of default internally are required to apply such internal definition
for regulatory capital purposes.
2. Elements to be taken as an indication of unlikeliness to repay:
(i) The Islamic banking institution ceases to accrue all or partially, revenue
due from a credit obligation in accordance with the terms of the contract.
239
Islamic banking institutions may apply a more stringent definition of default based on their own
internal policies.

(ii) The Islamic banking institution is uncertain about the collectability of a

credit obligation which has already been recognised as revenue and then
treats the uncollectible amount as an expense.
(iii) The Islamic banking institution makes a charge off or an account-specific

provision or impairment resulting from a significant perceived decline in
credit quality subsequent to the Islamic banking institution taking on the
exposure. (Provisions on equity exposures set aside for price risk does
not signal default).
(iv) The Islamic banking institution sells the credit obligation at a material
credit related economic loss. (For securities financing, when collateral is
liquidated not due to the deterioration of an obligors creditworthiness but
due to a fall in the value of collateral to restore an agreed collateral
coverage ratio and has been disclosed to the obligor in writing at the
inception of the facility should not be recorded as a default).
(v) The Islamic banking institution consents to a restructuring240 of the credit

obligation where this is likely to reduce the financial obligation due to the
material forgiveness or postponement of principal, profit or (where
relevant) fees. This constitutes a granting of a concession that the
Islamic banking institution shall not otherwise consider
(vi) The default of a related obligor. Islamic banking institution must review
all related obligors in the same group to determine if that default is an
indication of unlikeliness to repay by any other related obligor. Islamic
banking institution must judge the degree of economic interdependence
of the obligor towards its related entities.
(vii) Acceleration of an obligation.
(viii) An obligor is in significant financial difficulty. The financial difficulty may

be indicated by a significant downgrade of an obligors credit rating.
(ix) Default by the obligor on credit obligations to other financial creditors,

e.g. financial institutions or sukuk holders.
240
Shall also include rescheduling of facilities.

(x) The Islamic banking institution has filed for the obligors bankruptcy or a
similar order in respect of the obligors credit obligation to the Islamic
banking group.
(xi) The obligor has sought or has been placed in bankruptcy or similar
protection where this shall avoid or delay repayment of the credit
obligation to the Islamic banking group.
Default at Facility Level

3. For retail exposures, Islamic banking institutions are allowed to apply the
definition of default at facility level, rather than at obligor level. For example,
an obligor might default on a credit card obligation and not on other retail
obligations. However, Islamic banking institutions should be vigilant and
consider cross-default of facilities of an obligor if it is representative of his
incapacity to fulfill other obligations.
4. A default by a corporate obligor shall trigger a default on all of its other

exposures.
Re-Ageing
5. Re-ageing is a process by which Islamic banking institutions adjust the
delinquency status of exposures based on subsequent repayment of arrears
or restructuring. This is done when all or some of the arrears under the
original repayment schedule have been paid off or repackaged into a new
repayment structure.
6. At a minimum, the re-ageing policy of Islamic banking institutions must

include:
(i) appropriate approving authority and reporting requirements;
(ii) minimum age of a facility before it is eligible for re-ageing;
(iii) delinquency levels of facilities that are eligible for re-ageing
(iv) maximum number of re-ageing per facility; and

(v) re-assessment of the obligors capacity to repay.
7. Re-ageing is allowed for both defaulted and delinquent exposures. However,

the exposure shall not be immediately re-aged if the restructuring causes a
diminished financial obligation or material economic loss or it is assessed that
the obligor does not have the capacity to repay under the new repayment
structure. In the case of defaulted exposures, re-ageing is permitted after the
obligation has been serviced promptly for 6 consecutive months. For
exposures with repayments scheduled at three months or longer, re-ageing is
only permitted after the obligation has been serviced promptly for two
consecutive payments. A diagrammatic illustration of re-ageing is given in
Appendix IIIa.

Appendix IIIa Diagrammatic Illustration of Re-ageing via Restructuring
Re-ageing
Before default After default
Restructuring Restructuring
Material Economic Loss Subsequent payment

of 6 months
consecutively?
Yes No Yes No
Not re-aged. No Re-aged. Month in

reduction of month in arrears reduced. Re-aged. Month in Not re-aged. Month in
arrears and exposure arrears reduced. arrears not reduced.
defaults.
Subsequent payment
of 6 months
No consecutively? Yes

Appendix IV Illustration on Risk-Weighted asset (RWA) Calculation for

Defaulted Exposures and Exposures Risk-Weighted at 150%
Example 1: Term financing

Defaulted financing to unrated corporate amounting to RM1,000,000 secured by
eligible collateral (Haircut: 25%). The Islamic banking institution has already set
aside specific provisions of RM50,000 for this financing.
Since specific provisions is only 5% of outstanding financing amount [i.e.

RM50,000/RM1,000,000], the applicable risk weight charge is 150%. The
computation of the RWA is as follows:
Collateral amount = RM500,000 x (100%-25%)

= RM375,000
RWA = 150% x unsecured portion of outstanding financing net of

specific provisions
= 150% x (RM1,000,000 RM375,000 RM50,000)
= 150% x RM575,000
= RM862,500
Example 2: Qualifying and non-qualifying RRE financing

RRE financing A amounting to RM95,000, with current value of property at
RM100,000. The Islamic banking institution has already set aside specific
provisions of RM10,000 for this financing.
RRE financing B amounting to RM75,000, with current value of property at

RM100,000. The Islamic banking institution has already set aside specific
provisions amounting to RM20,000 for this financing.
For financing A, the FTV ratio is 95%, thus would be deemed as non-qualifying.
For financing B, as the FTV ratio is 75%, this category would fall under the
qualifying RRE financing category.

For qualifying RRE financing portion:

As specific provisions over total outstanding financing amount exceeds 20%
(20,000/75,000 = 26.67%), the exposure would be eligible for the preferential risk
weight of 50%.
RWA = 50% x outstanding amount net of specific provisions
= 50% x (RM75,000 RM20,000)
= 50% x RM55,000
= RM27,500
For non-qualifying RRE financing portion:

As specific provisions over total outstanding financing amount is less than 20%
(10,000/95,000 = 10.53%, the exposure would be accorded a risk weight of 150%.
RWA = 150% x outstanding amount net of specific provisions
= 150% x (RM95,000 RM10,000)
= 150% x RM85,000
= RM127,500

Appendix V Minimum Requirements on Supervisory Slotting Criteria Method
Introduction
1. For the purpose of Istisna`, Musharakah and Mudarabah contracts in the

structuring of specialised financing and investment, Islamic banking
institutions are allowed to adopt the supervisory slotting criteria method as
an alternative to calculate the credit risk-weighted assets for these Islamic
contracts instead of assigning 100% or 150% risk weights. Under the
supervisory slotting criteria method, Islamic banking institutions are required
to map their internal rating to a set of supervisory criteria outlined in
Appendix Va in order to determine the appropriate risk weight associated
with the respective supervisory category. Once the supervisory slotting
criteria method is adopted to compute credit risk-weighted asset for any or
all of sub-classes under specialised financing, the method must be applied
throughout, Istisna`, Musharakah and Mudarabah contracts consistently.
2. Islamic banking institutions are required to fulfill the minimum requirements

as set out in the following parts before they can adopt the supervisory
slotting criteria method to derive credit risk-weighted assets for Istisna`,
Musharakah and Mudarabah contracts.
Definition of Specialised Financing and Investment
3. Specialised financing under the, Istisna` Musharakah and/or Mudarabah

contracts shall be divided into five sub-classes, namely project finance (PF),
object finance (OF), commodities finance (CF) and income-producing real
estate (IPRE). To be classified as specialised financing, the exposures must
meet the following general and specific criteria:
General Criteria
4. All specialised financing and investment shall possess the following
characteristics, either in legal form or economic substance:

(iii) The exposure is typically to an entity (often a special purpose entity

(SPE)) which was created specifically to finance and/or operate
physical assets. In specific, the SPE must have legal ownership of
the assets;
(iv) The obligor 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;
(v) The terms of the obligation give the lender a substantial degree of
control over the asset(s) and the income that it generates; and
(vi) 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.
Specific Criteria
5. In addition to the four general criteria, Islamic banking institutions are

required to classify their exposures into one of the five sub-classes of
specialised financing based on the following broadly defined criteria:
(i) Project finance
(a) Project finance (PF) is a method of funding in which Islamic

banking institutions as the financier look 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.

(b) In such transactions, the financier are usually paid solely or

almost exclusively out of the money generated by the contracts for
the facilitys output, such as the electricity sold by a power plant.
The obligor is usually an SPE that is not permitted to perform any
function other than developing, owning, and operating the
installation.
(ii) Object finance
Object finance (OF) refers to a method of funding the acquisition of

physical assets (for example 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 financiers. A primary source of these cash
flows might be rental or lease contracts with one or several third
parties.
(iii) Commodities finance
Commodities finance (CF) refers to structured short-term financing of

reserves, inventories, or receivables of exchange-traded commodities
(for example crude oil, metals, or crops), where the exposure will be
repaid from the proceeds of the sale of the commodity and the obligor
has no independent capacity to repay the exposure. This is the case
when the obligor 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 obligor. The exposures
rating reflects its self-liquidating nature and the financiers skill in
structuring the transaction rather than the credit quality of the obligor.
(iv) Income-producing real estate
Income-producing real estate (IPRE) refers to a method of providing

funding to real estate (such as, office buildings to let, retail space,
residential houses, 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
obligor 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 collateralised 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.
6. Islamic banking institutions are required to put in place comprehensive

policies and procedures to facilitate the differentiation process and ensure
the consistent classification of specialised financing and its sub-classes.
Minimum Requirements for the Use of Supervisory Slotting Criteria
7. Islamic banking institutions intending to adopt the supervisory slotting

criteria for the computation of capital requirements for specialised financing
must also fulfill the following requirements:
(i) Rating system and dimension
Islamic banking institutions must use at least single rating dimension

that reflects obligor strength and loss severity considerations.
(ii) Rating structure
The rating system must have at least four internal grades for non-
defaulted obligors, and one for defaulted obligors.
(iii) Rating criteria
(a) Specialised financing and investment exposures must be

assigned to internal rating grades based on the banking
institutions own criteria, systems and processes. The internal
rating grades must then be mapped into five supervisory

categories (Strong to Default) using the supervisory slotting

criteria provided in Appendix Va. The mapping must be
conducted separately for each sub-class of specialised financing
exposures.
(b) The Bank recognises that the criteria used by Islamic banking
institutions to assign exposures to their internal rating grades may
not be perfectly aligned with criteria that are used to define the
supervisory categories. However, the mapping process must
result in an alignment of the internal rating grades consistent with
the predominant characteristics in the respective supervisory
category. Banking institutions should ensure that any overrides of
their internal criteria do not result in the mapping process being
ineffective.
(c) Specifically, if an Islamic banking institutions internal rating grade

maps specialised financing exposure into two supervisory
categories, the exposure should be assigned to the riskier
supervisory category. For example, if the internal rating system
produces one rating that describes criteria than can be slotted into
both the supervisory strong and fair categories, the exposures
should be slotted into the fair category.
(iv) Re-rating frequency and policy
Islamic banking institutions must conduct re-rating of exposures on a

frequent basis and at minimum once per year. For this purpose, Islamic
banking institutions must establish written policies and procedures on
re-rating, including the trigger criteria for re-rating and its frequency.
(v) Data maintenance
Islamic banking institutions are expected to collect and retain the

relevant data used to derive the internal rating grades, for example,
data on realised losses to facilitate the future review of the specialised
financing portfolio.

Risk weights under Supervisory Categories
8. The following tables specify the risk weights for the supervisory categories
of the specialised financing sub-classes:

70% 90% 115% 250% 400%

Appendix Va Supervisory Slotting Criteria for Specialised Financing Exposures
Project Finance Exposure

No. Criteria Strong Good Satisfactory Weak
1. Financial strength
a. Market conditions Few competing Few competing Project has no Project has
suppliers or suppliers or better advantage in worsened than
substantial and than average location, cost, or average location,
durable advantage location, cost, or technology. cost, or technology.
in location, cost, or technology but this Demand is Demand is weak
technology. situation may not adequate and and declining
Demand is strong last. Demand is stable
and growing strong and stable
b. Financial ratios (for example debt Strong financial Strong to Standard financial Aggressive financial
service ratios considering acceptable financial ratios considering ratios considering
coverage ratio (DSCR), financing the level of project ratios considering the level of project the level of project
life risk; very robust the level of project risk risk
coverage ratio (FLCR), project life economic risk; robust project
coverage ratio (PLCR), and debt-to assumptions economic
equity ratio) assumptions
c. Stress analysis The project can The project can The project is The project is likely
meet its financial meet its financial vulnerable to to default unless
obligations under obligations under stresses that are conditions improve
sustained, severely normal stressed not uncommon soon
stressed economic economic or through an
or sectoral sectoral conditions. economic cycle,
conditions The project is only and may default in
likely to default a normal downturn
under severe


economic
conditions
d. Financial structure Useful life of the Useful life of the Useful life of the Useful life of the
Duration of the credit compared to project significantly project exceeds project exceeds project may not
the duration of the project exceeds tenor of tenor of the tenor of the exceed tenor of the
the financing financing financing financing
e. Financial structure Amortising Amortising Amortising Bullet repayment or

Financing repayment / investment exposure exposure repayments with amortising
amortisation schedule limited bullet repayments with
payment high bullet
repayment
2. Political and legal environment
a. Political risk, including transfer risk, Very low exposure; Low exposure; Moderate exposure; High exposure; no
considering project type and strong mitigation satisfactory fair mitigation or weak mitigation
mitigants instruments, if mitigation instruments instruments
needed instruments, if
needed
b. Force majeure risk (war, civil unrest, Low exposure Acceptable Standard protection Significant risks, not
etc.), exposure fully mitigated
c. Government support and projects Project of strategic Project considered Project may not be Project not key to
importance for the country over the importance for the important for the strategic but brings the country. No or
long-term country (preferably country. Good level unquestionable weak support from
export-oriented). of support from benefits for the Government
Strong support from Government country. Support
Government from Government
may not be explicit


d. Stability of legal and regulatory Favourable and Favourable and Regulatory changes Current or future
environment (risk of change in law) stable regulatory stable regulatory can be predicted regulatory issues
environment over environment over with a fair level of may affect the
the long-term the medium-term certainty project
e. Acquisition of all necessary Strong Satisfactory Fair Weak

supports and approvals for such
relief from local content laws
f. Enforceability of contracts, collateral Contracts, collateral Contracts, collateral Contracts, collateral There are
and security and security are and security are and security are unresolved
enforceable enforceable considered key issues in
enforceable even if respect if actual
certain non-key enforcement of
issues may exist contracts, collateral
and security
3. Transaction characteristics
a. Design and technology risk Fully proven Fully proven Proven technology Unproven
technology and technology and and design start- technology and
design design up issues are design; technology
mitigated by a issues exist and/or
strong completion complex design
package
b. Construction risk All permits have Some permits are Some permits are Key permits still
Permitting and siting been obtained still outstanding but still outstanding but need to be obtained
their receipt is the permitting and are not
considered very process is well considered routine.
likely defined and they Significant


are considered conditions may be
routine attached
c. Construction risk Fixed-price date- Fixed-price date- Fixed-price date- No or partial fixed-
Type of construction contract certain turnkey certain turnkey certain turnkey price turnkey
construction EPC construction EPC construction contract and/or
(engineering and contract with one or interfacing issues
procurement several contractors with multiple
contract) contractors
d. Completion guarantees Substantial Significant Adequate liquidated Inadequate

liquidated damages liquidated damages supported liquidated damages
supported by damages supported by financial or not supported by
financial substance by financial substance and/or financial substance
and/or strong substance and/or completion or weak completion
completion completion guarantee from guarantees
guarantee from guarantee from sponsors with good
sponsors with sponsors with good financial standing
excellent financial financial standing
standing
e. Track record and financial strength Strong Good Satisfactory Weak

of contractor in constructing similar
projects.
f. Operating risk Strong long-term Long-term O&M Limited O&M No O&M contract:
Scope and nature of operations and O&M contract, contract, and/or contract or O&M risk of high
maintenance (O & M) contracts preferably with O&M reserve reserve account operational cost
contractual accounts overruns beyond
performance mitigants
incentives, and/or


O&M reserve
accounts
g. Operating risk Very strong, or Strong Acceptable Limited/weak, or
Operators expertise, track record, committed technical local operator
and financial strength assistance of the dependent on local
sponsors authorities
h. Off-take risk Excellent Good Acceptable financial Weak off-taker;
If there is a take-or-pay or fixed- creditworthiness of creditworthiness standing of off- weak termination
price off-take contract: offtaker; strong of off-taker; strong taker; clauses; tenor of
termination clauses; termination clauses; normal termination contract does not
tenor of contract tenor of contract clauses; tenor of exceed the maturity
comfortably exceeds the contract generally of the debt
exceeds the maturity of the debt matches the
maturity of the debt maturity of the debt
i. Off-take risk Project produces Project produces Commodity is sold Project output is
If there is no take-or-pay or fixed- essential services essential services on a limited market demanded by only
price off-take contract: or a commodity or a commodity that may absorb it one or a few buyers
sold widely on a sold widely on a only at lower than or is not generally
world market; regional market that projected prices sold on an
output can readily will absorb it at organised market
be absorbed at projected prices at
projected prices historical growth
even at lower than rates
historic market
growth rates
j. Supply risk Long-term supply Long-term supply Long-term supply Short-term supply
Price, volume and transportation contract with contract with contract with contract or long-
risk of feed-stocks; suppliers track supplier of excellent supplier of good supplier of good term supply
record and financial strength financial financial standing financial standing contract with
standing a degree of price financially weak


risk may remain supplier a degree
of price risk
definitely remains
k. Supply risk Independently Independently Proven reserves Project relies to
Reserve risks (for example natural audited, proven and audited, proven and can some extent on
resource development) developed reserves developed reserves supply the project potential and
well in excess of in excess of adequately through undeveloped
requirements over requirements over the maturity of the reserves
lifetime of the lifetime of the debt
project project
4. Strength of Sponsor
a. Sponsors track record, financial Strong sponsor with Good sponsor with Adequate sponsor Weak sponsor with
strength, and country/sector excellent track satisfactory track with adequate track no or questionable
experience record and high record and good record and good track record and/or
financial standing financial standing financial standing financial
weaknesses
b. Sponsor support, as evidenced by Strong. Project is Good. Project is Acceptable. Project Limited. Project is
equity, ownership clause and highly strategic for strategic for the is considered not key to sponsors
incentive to inject additional cash if the sponsor (core sponsor (core important for the long-term strategy
necessary business long- business long- sponsor (core or core business
term term business)
strategy) strategy)
5. Security Package
a. Assignment of contracts and Fully Comprehensive Satisfactory Weak
accounts comprehensive
b. Pledge of assets, taking into First perfected Perfected security Acceptable security Little security or
account quality, value and liquidity security interest in interest in all project interest in all project collateral for
of assets all project assets, assets, contracts, assets, contracts, lenders;


contracts, permits permits and permits and weak negative
and accounts accounts accounts necessary pledge
necessary to run necessary to run to run the project clause
the the
project project
c. Lenders control over cash flow (for Strong Satisfactory Fair Weak
example cash sweeps, independent
escrow accounts)
d. Strength of the covenant package Covenant package Covenant package Covenant package Covenant package
(mandatory prepayments, payment is strong for this is satisfactory for is fair for this type is Insufficient for
deferrals, payment cascade, type of project. this type of project. of project. Project this type of project.
dividend restrictions) Project may issue Project may issue may issue limited Project may issue
no additional debt extremely limited additional debt unlimited additional
additional debt debt
e. Reserve funds (debt service, O&M, Longer than Average coverage Average coverage Shorter than
renewal and replacement, average period, all reserve period, all reserve average coverage
unforeseen events, etc) coverage period, all funds fully funded funds fully funded period, reserve
reserve funds fully funds funded from
funded in cash or operating cash
letters of credit from flows
highly rated bank
Income-Producing Real Estate

a. Market conditions The supply and The supply and Market conditions Market conditions
demand for the demand for the are roughly in are weak. It is
projects type and projects type and equilibrium. uncertain when
location are location are Competitive conditions will


currently in currently in properties are improve and return
equilibrium. The equilibrium. The coming on the to equilibrium. The
number of number of market and others project is losing
competitive competitive are in the planning tenants at lease
properties coming properties coming stages. The expiration. New
to market is equal to market is roughly projects design and lease terms are
or lower than equal to forecasted capabilities may not less favourable
forecasted demand demand be state of the art compared to those
compared to new expiring
projects
b. Financial ratios and advance rate The propertys debt The DSCR (not The propertys The propertys
service coverage relevant for DSCR has DSCR has
ratio (DSCR) is development real deteriorated and its deteriorated
considered strong estate) and value has fallen, significantly and its
(DSCR is not financing-to-value increasing its financing-to-value is
relevant for the are satisfactory. financing-to-value well above
construction phase) Where a secondary underwriting
and its financing-to- market standards for new
value ratio is exists, the financing
considered low transaction is
given its property underwritten to
type. Where a market standards
secondary market
exists, the
transaction is
underwritten to
market standards
c. Stress analysis The propertys The property can During an economic The propertys
resources, meet its financial downturn, the financial condition
contingencies and obligations under a property would is strained and is


liability structure sustained period of suffer a decline in likely to default
allow it to meet its financial stress (for revenue unless
financial obligationsexample that would limit its conditions improve
during a period of benchmark rates, ability to fund in the near term
severe financial economic growth). capital expenditures
stress (for example The property is and significantly
benchmark rates, likely to default only increase the risk of
economic growth) under default
severe economic
conditions
d. Cash-flow predictability The propertys Most of the Most of the The propertys
(a) For complete and stabilised leases are long- propertys leases propertys leases leases are of
property. term with are long-term, with are medium rather various terms with
creditworthy tenants tenants that range than long-term with tenants that range
and their maturity in creditworthiness. tenants that range in creditworthiness.
dates are scattered. The property in creditworthiness. The property
The property has a experiences a The property experiences a very
track record of normal level of experiences a high level of tenant
tenant retention tenant turnover moderate level of turnover upon lease
upon lease upon lease tenant turnover expiration. Its
expiration. Its expiration. Its upon lease vacancy rate is
vacancy rate is low. vacancy rate is low. expiration. Its high. Significant
Expenses Expenses are vacancy rate is expenses are
(maintenance, predictable moderate. incurred preparing
insurance, security, Expenses are space for new
and property taxes) relatively tenants
are predictable predictable but vary
in relation to
revenue


e. Cash-flow predictability Leasing activity Leasing activity Most leasing Market rents do not
(b) For complete but not stabilised meets or exceeds meets or exceeds activity is within meet expectations.
property projections. The projections. The projections; Despite achieving
project should project should however, target occupancy
achieve stabilisation achieve stabilisation stabilisation will not rate, cash flow
in the near future in the near future occur for some time coverage is tight
due to
disappointing
revenue
f. Cash-flow predictability The property is The property is Leasing activity is The property is
(c) For construction phase entirely pre-leased entirely pre-leased within projections deteriorating due to
through the financing or pre-sold to a but the building cost overruns,
tenor or pre-sold to creditworthy tenant may not be pre- market
an investment grade or buyer, or the leased and there deterioration, tenant
tenant or buyer, or bank has a binding may not exist a cancellations or
the bank has a commitment for takeout financing. other factors. There
binding commitment permanent The bank may be may be a dispute
for take-out financing financing from a the permanent with the party
from an investment creditworthy lender lender providing the
grade lender permanent
financing
2. Asset characteristics
a. Location Property is located Property is located The property The propertys
in highly desirable in location lacks a location,
location that is desirable location competitive configuration,
convenient to that is convenient to advantage design and
services that services that maintenance have
tenants desire tenants desire contributed to the
propertys
difficulties


b. Design and condition Property is favoured Property is Property is Weaknesses exist
due to its design, appropriate in terms adequate in terms in the propertys
configuration, and of its design, of its configuration, configuration,
maintenance, and configuration and design and design or
is highly competitive maintenance. The maintenance maintenance
with new properties propertys design
and capabilities are
competitive with
new properties
c. Property is under construction Construction Construction Construction Project is over
budget is budget is budget is adequate budget or
conservative and conservative and and contractors are unrealistic given its
technical hazards technical hazards ordinarily qualified technical hazards.
are limited. are limited. Contractors may be
Contractors are Contractors are under qualified
highly qualified highly qualified
3. Strength of Sponsor/Developer
a. Financial capacity and willingness The sponsor The sponsor The sponsor The sponsor
to support the property. /developer made a /developer made a /developers /developer lacks
substantial cash material cash contribution may be capacity or
contribution to the contribution to the immaterial or non- willingness to
construction or construction or cash. The support the
purchase of the purchase of the sponsor/developer property
property. The property. The is average to below
sponsor/developer sponsor/developers average in financial
has substantial financial condition resources
resources and allows it to support
limited direct and the property in the
contingent liabilities. event of a cash flow
The shortfall. The


sponsor/developers sponsor/developers
properties are properties are
diversified located in several
geographically and geographic regions
by property type
b. Reputation and track record with Experienced Appropriate Moderate Ineffective
similar properties. management and management and management and management and
high sponsors sponsors quality. sponsors quality. substandard
quality. Strong The sponsor or Management or sponsors quality.
reputation and management has a sponsor track Management and
lengthy and successful record record does not sponsor difficulties
successful record with similar raise serious have contributed to
with similar properties concerns difficulties in
properties managing
properties in the
past
c. Relationships with relevant real Strong relationships Proven Adequate Poor relationships
estate actors with leading actors relationships with relationships with with leasing agents
such as leasing leading actors such leasing agents and and/or other parties
agents as leasing agents other parties providing important
providing important real estate services
real estate services
4. Security Package
a. Nature of lien Perfected first lien Perfected first lien Perfected first lien Ability of lender to
foreclose is
constrained
b. Assignment of rents (for projects The lender has The lender has The lender has The lender has not
leased to long-term tenants) obtained an obtained an obtained an obtained an


assignment. They assignment. They assignment. They assignment of the
maintain current maintain current maintain current leases or has not
tenant information tenant information tenant information maintained the
that would facilitate that would facilitate that would facilitate information
providing notice to providing notice to providing notice to necessary to readily
remit rents directly the tenants to remit the tenants to remit provide notice to
to the lender, such rents directly to the rents directly to the the buildings
as a current rent roll lender, such as lender, such as tenants
and copies of the current rent roll and current rent roll and
projects leases copies of the copies of the
projects leases projects leases
c. Quality of the insurance coverage Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate Substandard
Object Finance Exposure

a. Market conditions Demand is strong Demand is strong Demand is adequate Demand is weak
and growing, strong and stable. Some and stable, limited and declining,
entry barriers, low entry barriers, entry barriers, vulnerable to
sensitivity to some sensitivity to significant sensitivity changes in
changes in changes in to changes in technology and
technology and technology and technology and economic outlook,
economic outlook economic outlook economic outlook highly uncertain
environment
b. Financial ratios (debt service Strong financial Strong / acceptable Standard financial Aggressive
coverage ratio and financing-to- ratios considering financial ratios ratios for the asset financial ratios
value ratio) the type of asset. considering the type considering the
Very robust type of asset. type of asset
economic Robust project


assumptions economic
assumptions
c. Stress analysis Stable long-term Satisfactory short- Uncertain short-term Revenues subject
revenues, capable term revenues. revenues. Cash to strong
of withstanding Financing can flows are vulnerable uncertainties;
severely stressed withstand some to stresses that are even in normal
conditions through financial adversity. not uncommon economic
an economic cycle Default is only likely through an economic conditions the
under severe cycle. The financing asset may default,
economic may default in a unless conditions
conditions normal downturn improve
d. Market liquidity Market is structured Market is worldwide Market is regional Local market
on a worldwide or regional; assets with limited and/or poor
basis; assets are are relatively liquid prospects in the visibility. Low or
highly liquid short term, implying no liquidity,
lower liquidity particularly on
niche markets
a. Political risk, including transfer risk Very low; strong Low; satisfactory Moderate; fair High; no or weak
mitigation mitigation mitigation mitigation
instruments, if instruments, if instruments instruments
needed needed
b. Legal and regulatory risks Jurisdiction is Jurisdiction is Jurisdiction is Poor or unstable

favourable to favourable to generally favourable legal and
repossession and repossession and to repossession and regulatory
enforcement of enforcement of enforcement of environment.
contracts contracts contracts, even if Jurisdiction may


repossession might make
be long and/or repossession and
difficult enforcement of
contracts lengthy
or impossible
3. Transaction characteristics
a. Financing term compared to the Full payout Balloon more Important balloon Repayment in fine
economic life of the asset profile/minimum significant, but still with potentially grace or high balloon
balloon. No grace at satisfactory periods
period levels
4. Operating risk
a. Permits / licensing All permits have All permits obtained Most permits Problems in
been obtained; or in the process of obtained or in obtaining all
asset meets current being obtained; process of being required permits,
and foreseeable asset meets current obtained, part of the
safety regulations and foreseeable outstanding ones planned
safety regulations considered routine, configuration
asset meets current and/or planned
safety regulations operations might
need to be revised
b. Scope and nature of O & M Strong long-term Long-term O&M Limited O&M No O&M contract:
contracts O&M contract, contract, and/or contract or O&M risk of high
preferably with O&M reserve reserve account (if operational cost
contractual accounts (if needed) overruns beyond
performance needed) mitigants
incentives, and/or
O&M reserve
accounts (if
needed)


c. Operators financial strength, track Excellent track Satisfactory track Weak or short track No or unknown
record in managing the asset type record and strong record and re- record and uncertain track record and
and capability to re-market asset re-marketing marketing capability re-marketing inability to re-
when it comes off-lease capability capability market the asset
a. Configuration, size, design and Strong advantage Above average Average design and Below average
maintenance (i.e. age, size for a in design and design and maintenance. design and
plane) compared to other assets on maintenance. maintenance. Configuration is maintenance.
the same market Configuration is Standard somewhat specific, Asset is near the
standard such that configuration, and thus might cause end of its
the object meets a maybe with very a narrower market economic life.
liquid market limited exceptions - for the object Configuration is
such that the object very specific; the
meets a liquid market for the
market object is very
narrow
b. Resale value Current resale Resale value is Resale value is Resale value is
value is well above moderately above slightly above debt below debt value
debt value debt value value
c. Sensitivity of the asset value and Asset value and Asset value and Asset value and Asset value and
liquidity to economic cycles liquidity are liquidity are liquidity are quite liquidity are highly
relatively sensitive to sensitive to sensitive to
insensitive to economic cycles economic cycles economic cycles
economic cycles
6. Strength of sponsor
a. Operators financial strength, track Excellent track Satisfactory track Weak or short track No or unknown
record in managing the asset type record and strong record and re- record and uncertain track record and
and capability to re-market asset re-marketing marketing capability re-marketing inability to


when it comes off-lease capability capability remarket the asset
b. Sponsors track record and financial Sponsors with Sponsors with good Sponsors with Sponsors with no
strength excellent track track record and adequate track or
record and high good financial record and good questionable track
financial standing standing financial standing record and/or
financial
weaknesses
7. Security Package
a. Asset control Legal Legal Legal documentation The contract
documentation documentation provides the lender provides little
provides the lender provides the lender effective control (for security to the
effective control (for effective control (for example a perfected lender and leaves
example a first example a security interest, or a room to some risk
perfected security perfected security leasing structure of losing control
interest, or a interest, or a including such on the asset
leasing structure leasing structure security) on the
including such including such asset, or on the
security) on the security) on the company owning it
asset, or on the asset, or on the
company owning it company owning it
b. Rights and means at the lender's The lender is able The lender is able The lender is able to The lender is able
disposal to monitor the location and to monitor the to monitor the monitor the location to monitor the
condition of the asset location and location and and condition of the location and
condition of the condition of the asset, almost at any condition of the
asset, at any time asset, almost at time and place asset are limited
and place (regular any time and place
reports, possibility
to lead inspections)


c. Insurance against damages Strong insurance Satisfactory Fair insurance Weak insurance
coverage including insurance coverage coverage (not coverage (not
collateral damages (not including including collateral including collateral
with top quality collateral damages) damages) with damages) or with
insurance with good quality acceptable quality weak quality
companies insurance insurance companies insurance
companies companies
Commodities Finance Exposures

a. Degree of over collateralisation of Strong Good Satisfactory Weak
trade
a. Country risk No country risk Limited exposure to Exposure to country Strong exposure to
country risk (in risk (in particular, country risk (in
particular, offshore offshore location of particular, inland
location of reserves reserves in an reserves in an
in an emerging emerging country) emerging country)
country)
b. Mitigation of country risks Very strong Strong mitigation: Acceptable Only partial
mitigation: Strong Offshore mitigation: Offshore mitigation:
offshore mechanisms, mechanisms, less No offshore
mechanisms, strategic strategic mechanisms,
strategic commodity commodity, strong commodity, non-strategic
buyer buyer acceptable buyer commodity, weak
buyer
a. Liquidity and susceptibility to Commodity is Commodity is Commodity is not Commodity is not


damage quoted and can be quoted and can be quoted but is liquid. quoted. Liquidity is
hedged through hedged through There is uncertainty limited given the
futures or OTC OTC instruments. about the possibility size and depth of
instruments. Commodity is not of hedging. the market. No
Commodity is not susceptible to Commodity is not appropriate hedging
susceptible to damage susceptible to instruments.
damage damage Commodity is
susceptible to
damage
4. Strength of Sponsor
a. Financial strength of trader Very strong, relative Strong Adequate Weak
to trading
philosophy and
risks
b. Track record, including ability to Extensive Sufficient Limited experience Limited or uncertain
manage the logistic process experience with the experience with the with the type of track record in
type of transaction type of transaction transaction in general. Volatile
in question. Strong in question. Above question. Average costs and profits
record of operating average record of record of operating
success and cost operating success success and cost
efficiency and cost efficiency efficiency
c. Trading controls and hedging Strong standards Adequate Past deals have Trader has
policies for counterparty standards for experienced no or experienced
selection, hedging, counterparty minor problems significant losses
and monitoring selection, hedging, on past deals
and monitoring
d. Quality of financial disclosure Excellent Good Satisfactory Financial disclosure
contains some
uncertainties or is
insufficient


5. Security Package
a. Asset control First perfected First perfected At some point in the Contract leaves
security interest security interest process, there is a room for some risk
provides the lender provides the lender rupture in the of losing control
legal control of the legal control of the control of the over the assets.
assets at any time if assets at any time if assets by the Recovery could be
needed needed lender. The rupture jeopardised
is mitigated by
knowledge of the
trade process or a
third party
undertaking as the
case may be
b. Insurance against damages Strong insurance Satisfactory Fair insurance Weak insurance
coverage including insurance coverage coverage (not coverage (not
collateral damages (not including including collateral including collateral
with top quality collateral damages) damages) with damages) or with
insurance with good quality acceptable quality weak quality
companies insurance insurance insurance
companies companies companies

Appendix VI Counterparty Credit Risk and Current Exposure Method

1. Counterparty Credit Risk (CCR) is the risk that the counterparty to a
transaction could default before the final settlement of the transactions
cash flows. An economic loss would occur if the transactions or portfolio of
transactions with the counterparty has a positive economic value at the
time of default. Unlike an exposure to credit risk through a financing, where
the exposure to credit risk is unilateral and only the financier faces the risk
of loss, CCR creates a bilateral risk of loss: the market value of the
transaction can be positive or negative to either counterparty to the
transaction. The market value is uncertain and can vary over time with the
movement of underlying market factors.
2. The methods for computing the exposure amount under the standardised
approach for credit risk or the EAD under the IRB approach to credit risk
described in this appendix are applicable to over-the-counter (OTC)
derivatives as well as to the securities financing transactions (SFTs). Such
positions or transactions would generally exhibit the following
characteristics:
(i) Undertaken with an identified counterparty against which a unique
probability of default can be determined;
(ii) Generate an exchange of payments or an exchange of a financial
instrument (including commodities) against payment;
(iii) Generate a current exposure or market value; and
(iv) Have an associated random future market value based on market
variables.
3. Other common characteristics of these transactions may include the

following:
(i) Short-term financing may be a primary objective in that the
transactions mostly consist of an exchange of one asset for another
(cash or securities) for a relatively short period of time, usually for

the business purpose of financing. The two sides of the transactions

are not the result of separate decisions but form an indivisible whole
to accomplish a defined objective;
(ii) Positions are frequently valued (most commonly on a daily basis),
according to market variables; and
(iii) Uses of credit risk mitigant such as collateralisation241, netting and
re-margining to mitigate risk.
4. An exposure value (or EAD) of zero for counterparty credit risk can be
attributed to derivative contracts or SFTs that are outstanding with a central
counterparty (for example a clearing house). This does not apply to
counterparty credit risk exposures from derivative transactions and SFTs
that have been rejected by the central counterparty. Furthermore, an
exposure value (EAD) of zero can be attributed to Islamic banking
institutions credit risk exposures242 to central counterparties that result from
the derivative transactions, SFTs or spot transactions that the Islamic
banking institution has outstanding with the central counterparty. Assets
held by a central counterparty as a custodian on the Islamic banking
institutions behalf would not be subject to a capital requirement for
counterparty credit risk exposures.
5. A central counterparty is an entity that interposes itself between

counterparties to contracts traded within one or more financial markets,
becoming the legal counterparty such that it is the buyer to every seller and
the seller to every buyer. In order to qualify for the above exemptions, the
central counterparty CCR exposures with all participants in its
arrangements must be fully collateralised on a daily basis, thereby
providing protection for the central counterpartys CCR exposures.
6. Under the current exposure method, the exposure amount for a given
counterparty is equal to the sum of the exposure amounts calculated for
241
Collateralisation may be inherent in the nature of some transactions.
242
Example, from clearing deposits and collateral posted with the central counterparty.

each netting set243 with that counterparty.

The Current Exposure Method
7. The current exposure method is to be applied to OTC derivative positions
only, to determine the credit equivalent amount (EAD) for these
transactions for purposes of the capital adequacy calculation. SFTs (which
include transactions such as security financing and borrowing and margin
financing transactions, where the value of the transactions depends on
market valuations and the transactions are often subject to margin
agreements), shall be subject to the treatment set out under Part B.2.5 and
Part B.3.4: of the Framework;
8. For the OTC derivatives contracts, Islamic banking institutions are not
exposed to credit risk for the full face value of the derivatives contracts, but
only to the potential cost of replacing the cash-flow if the counterparty
defaults. As such, the credit equivalent amount will depend, inter alia, on
the maturity of the contract and on the volatility of the rates underlying that
type of instrument.
9. Under the current exposure method, the computation of the credit

equivalent exposure for derivatives contracts is based on the summation of
the following two elements :-
(i) The replacement costs (obtained by marking-to-market) of all contracts
with positive value (zero for contracts with negative replacement costs);
and
(ii) The amount of potential future exposure is calculated by multiplying the
notional value of each contract by an add-on factor.
Credit exposure = positive MTM + (NP x add-on factor (%))
Where:
243
A netting set is a group of transactions with a single counterparty that are subject to a legally
enforceable bilateral netting arrangement and for which netting is recognised for regulatory capital
purposes under the provisions of paragraphs 19 to 24 of this appendix and Part B.3.4. Each
transaction not subject to a legally enforceable bilateral netting arrangement that is recognised for
regulatory capital purposes should be treated as its own netting set (separate from those whose
bilateral netting arrangement is recognised for regulatory capital purposes).

MTM = Mark-to-Market
NP = Notional principal
Add-on factor = As per Appendix VIb
(An illustration of the calculation under the current exposure method is given in
Appendix VIa)
10. The add-on factors in computing the potential future exposure is

determined based on the type of exposure and the residual maturity of
each contracts. The add-on factors for derivatives contracts are listed in
Appendix VIb.
11. The credit equivalent amounts of exchange rate and profit rate contracts
are to be risk-weighted according to the category of the counterparty,
including the use of concessionary weightings in respect of exposures
backed by eligible guarantees and collateral. Nevertheless, the Bank
reserves the right to raise the risk weights if the average credit quality
deteriorates or if loss experience increases.
12. Islamic banking institutions can obtain capital relief for collateral eligible as
defined under the comprehensive approach of the Framework subject to
the same operational requirements.
13. The calculation of the exposure for an individual contract for a collateralised
OTC derivatives transaction244 will be as follows:
Credit exposure= positive MTM + (NP x add-on factor(%))- CA
Where:
MTM = Mark-to-Market
NP = Notional principal
Add-on factor = As per Appendix VIb
CA = Volatility-adjusted collateral amount under the
244
For example, collateralised profit rate swap transactions.

comprehensive approach
14. When effective bilateral netting contracts are in place in a collateralised

OTC derivative transaction, MTM will be the net replacement cost and the
add-on will be ANet as calculated above. The haircut for currency risk (HFX)
should be applied when there is a mismatch between the collateral
currency and the settlement currency. Even in the case where there are
more than two currencies involved in the exposure, collateral and
settlement currency, a single haircut assuming a 10-business day holding
period scaled up as necessary depending on the frequency of mark-to-
market will be applied.
Bilateral Netting
15. Bilateral netting involves weighting of the net rather than the gross claims
with the same counterparties arising out of the full range of forwards,
swaps, options and similar derivative contracts. Careful consideration
needs to be given to ensure that there is no reduction in counterparty risk,
especially in cases if a liquidator of a failed counterparty has (or may have)
the right to unbundle netted contracts, demanding performance on those
contracts favourable to the failed counterparty and defaulting on
unfavourable contracts.
16. Therefore, for capital adequacy purposes, bilateral netting245 may be

conducted only under the following circumstances:
(i) Islamic banking institutions may net transactions subject to novation
under which any obligation between an Islamic banking institution and
its counterparty to deliver a given currency on a given value date is
automatically amalgamated with all other obligations for the same
currency and value date, legally substituting one single amount for the
245
Payments netting, whish is designed to reduce the operational costs of daily settlements, will not
be recognised in the Framework since the counterpartys gross obligations are not in any way
affected.

previous gross obligations; or

(ii) Islamic banking institutions may also net transactions subject to any
legally valid form of bilateral netting not covered above, including other
forms of novation.
17. In both cases above, an Islamic banking institution will need to satisfy the
Bank that it has:
(i) A netting contract or agreement with the counterparty which creates a
single legal obligation, covering all included transactions, such that
the Islamic banking institution would have either a claim to receive or
obligation to pay only the net sum of the positive and negative mark
to market values of included individual transactions in the event a
counterparty fails to perform due to any of the following: default,
bankruptcy, liquidation or similar circumstances;
(ii) Written and reasoned legal opinions that, in the event of a legal
challenge, the relevant courts and administrative authorities would
find the Islamic banking institutions exposure to be such a net
amount under:
(i) The law of the jurisdiction in which the counterparty is chartered

and, if the foreign branch of a counterparty is involved, then also
under the law of the jurisdiction in which the branch is located;
(ii) The law that governs the individual transactions; and
(iii) The law that governs any contract or agreement necessary to

effect the netting.
The Bank will have to be satisfied that the netting is enforceable

under the laws of each of the relevant jurisdictions246; and
(iii) Procedures in place to ensure that the legal characteristics of netting

arrangements are kept under review in the light of possible changes
in relevant law.
246
If the Bank and other national supervisors are dissatisfied about the enforceability under the laws,
the netting contract or agreement will not meet this condition and neither counterparty could
obtain supervisory benefit.

18. Contracts containing walkaway clauses will not be eligible for netting for the
purpose of calculating capital requirements. A walkaway clause is a
provision which permits a non defaulting counterparty to make only limited
payments or no payment at all to the estate of a defaulter, even if the
defaulter is a net creditor.
19. Credit exposure on bilaterally netted forward transactions will be calculated

as the sum of the net mark to market replacement cost, if positive, plus an
add-on based on the notional underlying principal. The add-on for netted
transactions (ANet) will equal the weighted average of the gross add-on
(AGross)247 and the gross add-on adjusted by the ratio of net current
replacement cost to gross current replacement cost (NGR). This is
expressed through the following formula:
ANet = 0.4*AGross+0.6*NGR*AGross
Where:
NGR = level of net replacement cost/level of gross
replacement cost for transactions subject to legally
enforceable netting agreements248
20. The scale of the gross add-ons to apply in this formula will be the same as
those for non netted transactions as set out in paragraphs 9 to 18 of this
appendix. The Bank will continue to review the scale of add-ons to make
sure they are appropriate. For purposes of calculating potential future credit
exposure to a netting counterparty for forward foreign exchange contracts
and other similar contracts in which notional principal is equivalent to cash
flows, notional principal is defined as the net receipts falling due on each
value date in each currency. The reason for this is that offsetting contracts
in the same currency maturing on the same date will have lower potential
future exposure as well as lower current exposure.
247
AGross equals the sum of individual add on amounts (calculated by multiplying the notional
principal amount by the appropriate add on factors set out in paragraph 11 of this appendix) of all
transactions subject to legally enforceable netting agreements with one counterparty.
248
AGross equals the sum of individual add-on amounts (calculated by multiplying the notional
principal amount by the appropriate add-on factors).

Appendix VIa Sample Computation of Risk-Weighted Capital Requirement and

Exposure at Default (EAD) for a Portfolio of Derivative Contracts
Transaction I
Type of instrument : 8 Year Fixed-to-floating Cross Currency Profit
Rate Swap (CCPRS)
Notional principal amount : RM1,000,000
Current date of report : 31 December 1997
Maturity date : 31 December 2000
Remaining maturity : 3 years
Replacement cost : RM350,000 (+ve)
Transaction II
Type of instrument : 6 Year Fixed-to-floating Islamic Profit Rate Swap
(IPRS)
Notional principal amount : RM1,000,000
Current date of report : 31 December 1997
Maturity date : 31 December 2002
Remaining maturity : 5 years
Replacement cost : RM200,000 (-ve)
Type of instrument CCPRS IPRS Total

Credit equivalent
exposure = positive 350,000 + {1,000,000 x 0 + {1,000,000 x (4%)}
replacement cost + (2% + 7%)} = 0 + 40,000
potential future =350,000 + 90,000 = 40,000
exposure =440,000 480,000
Risk-weighted asset 440,000 x 50% 40,000 x 50%
(assume risk weight of = 220,000 = 20,000 240,000
50%)
Capital requirement 220,000 x 8% 20,000 x 8%
(8%) =17,600 =1,600 19,200


Exposure at Default:
Type of instrument CCCRS IPRS Total

EAD = positive 350,000 + {1,000,000 x 0 + {1,000,000 x (4%)}
replacement cost + (2% + 7%)} = 0 + 40,000
potential future
=350,000 + 90,000 = 40,000
exposure
=440,000 480,000

Appendix VIb Add-on Factors for Derivatives Contracts
Schedule 1
Add-on factors for derivative contracts with profit rate exposures
Residual maturity Factor (%)
< 14 calendar days Nil
> 14 calendar days and < 6 months 0.10%
>6 months and < 1 year 0.25%
> I year and < 2 years 1.0%
> 2 year and < years 2.0%
> 3 year and < 4 years 3.0%
for each additional year add 1.0%
Schedule 2
Add-on factors for derivative contracts with foreign exchange exposures
Residual maturity Factor (%)
< 14 calendar days Nil
> 14 calendar days and < 6 months 1.5%
> 6 months and < 1 year 3.0%
> I year and < 2 years 5.0%
> 2 year and <3 years 7.0%
> 5 year and <6 years 10.0%
> 10 years 12.0%

Schedule 3
Add-on factors for other types of contracts
Gold Equities Precious Metals Other
Except Gold Commodities
One year or less 1.0% 6.0% 7.0% 10.0%
Over one year to five 5.0% 8.0% 7.0% 12.0%
years
Over five years 7.5% 10.0% 8.0% 15.0%
Notes: Forwards, swaps, purchased options and similar derivative contracts not
covered by any of the columns of this matrix are to be treated as other commodities
Additional notes add-on factors:

(i) For derivative contracts which are sensitive to movements in more than one
type of rates, the add-on factors used will be the summation of the add-on
factors for the various types of exposures according to the relevant residual
maturity bucket;
(ii) For contracts with multiple exchanges of principal, the notional principal
amount is the sum of the remaining exchanges of principal. This shall
represent the amount to be multiplied with the add-on factors;
(iii) For both forward rate agreements and over-the-counter profit rate contracts of
similar nature which are settled in cash on start date, residual maturity is
measured as the sum of the remaining contract period and the underlying
tenor of the contract (An illustration is provided in Appendix VIc). Institutions
may choose to apply discounts to the add-on factors if the remaining
contract period, as a fraction of residual maturity, falls within a certain range
(please refer to Appendix VId) for the discount factor and range of residual
maturity;
(iv) For single currency floating-to-floating profit rate swaps, the add-on factor is
zero. Thus, the credit exposure for such contracts will comprise only the
positive mark-to-market value;
(v) For contracts that are structured to settle outstanding exposure following
specified payment dates and where the terms are reset such that the market
value of the contract is zero on these specified dates, the residual maturity

would be set equal to the time until the next reset date. In the case of profit
rate contracts with remaining maturities of more than one year that meet the
above criteria, the add-on factor is subject to a floor of 0.5%; and
(vi) The add-ons should be based on effective rather than notional amounts. In
the event that the stated notional amount is leveraged or enhanced by the
structure of the transaction, Islamic banking institutions must use the effective
notional amount when determining potential future exposure.

Appendix VIc Example for Calculation of Residual Maturity
For Forward Rate Agreements and Over-The-Counter Profit Rate Contracts of

Similar Nature which are Settled in Cash on Start Date.
A 3-month forward rate agreement for delivery in June 2008
01/01/2008 (transaction date) start date
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+--------+------>
months
0---------1---------2---------3---------4---------5----_----6---------7---------8---------9
remaining contract period underlying tenor
residual maturity for purpose of Appendix VId

Appendix VId Discount Factor and Range of Residual Maturity
t = Remaining contract period

Discount to Add-on Factor
Residual maturity
t < 0.01 75%
0.01 < t < 0.05 50%
0.05 < t < 0.10 25%
0.10 < t < 0.65 no discount
0.65 < t < 0.80 25%
0.80 < t < 0.90 50%
t 0.90 75%

Appendix VII Capital Treatment for Failed Trades and Non-DvP Transactions
1. The capital treatment specified in this appendix is applicable to all

transactions249 on securities, foreign exchange instruments and
commodities that give rise to a risk of delayed settlement or delivery. This
may include transactions through recognised clearing houses that are
subject to daily mark-to-market and payment of daily variation margins and
that involve a mismatched trade.
2. Transactions on securities, foreign exchange contracts or commodities may

be settled via the following:
(i) delivery-versus-payment system (DvP)250, which provides

simultaneous exchanges of securities for cash, hence exposing
Islamic banking institutions to a risk of loss on the difference between
the transaction valued at the agreed settlement price and the
transaction valued at current market price (i.e. positive current
exposure); or
(ii) non-DvP or free-delivery system, whereby cash is paid without

receipt of the corresponding receivable (securities, foreign currencies,
gold, or commodities) or, conversely, deliverables were delivered
without receipt of the corresponding cash payment, hence exposing
Islamic banking institutions to a risk of loss on the full amount of cash
paid or deliverables delivered.
3. The Bank may use its discretion to waive capital charges in cases of a
system wide failure of a settlement or clearing system, until the situation is
rectified. Failure by a counterparty to settle a trade in itself will not be
deemed a default for purposes of credit risk under the Framework.
249
All securities financing and borrowing, including those that have failed to settle, are treated in
accordance with the parts on credit risk mitigation of the Framework.
250
For the purpose of the Framework, DvP transactions include payment-versus-payment (PvP)
transactions.

4. In applying the risk weight to failed free-delivery exposures, Islamic banking

institutions using the IRB approach may assign PDs to counterparties for
which they have no other banking book exposure on the basis of the
counterpartys external rating. Islamic banking institutions using the
Advanced IRB approach may use a 45% LGD in lieu of estimating LGDs so
long as they apply it to all failed trade exposures. Alternatively, Islamic
banking institutions using the IRB approach may opt to apply the
standardised approach risk weight or a 100% risk weight, subject to the
exposures being immaterial.
Capital Requirements
5. For DvP transactions, if the payments have not yet taken place five
business days after the settlement date, Islamic banking institutions must
calculate a capital charge by multiplying the positive current exposure of
the transaction by the appropriate corresponding risk multiplier. The
corresponding risk multiplied and risk weights are given in the table below:
Number of working days after Corresponding risk Corresponding risk

the agreed settlement date multiplier weight
From 5 to 15 8% 100%
From 16 to 30 50% 625%
From 31 to 45 75% 937.5%
46 or more 100% 1250%
6. Islamic banking institutions are allowed a reasonable transition period to

upgrade their information systems to track the number of days after the
agreed settlement date and calculate the corresponding capital charge.
7. For non-DvP transactions (i.e. free deliveries), after the first contractual
payment/delivery leg, Islamic banking institution that has made the
payment will treat its exposure as a financing if the second leg has not

been received by the end of the business day251. Islamic banking

institutions shall use the standardised risk weights or the appropriate IRB
formula, respectively set forth in the Framework for the exposure to the
counterparty, in the same way as it does for all other banking book
exposures. However, when exposures are not material, banking institutions
may choose to apply a uniform 100% risk weight to these exposures, in
order to avoid the burden of a full credit assessment. If five business days
after the second contractual payment/delivery date the second leg has not
yet effectively taken place, the Islamic banking institution that has made the
first payment leg must apply a 1250% risk weight to the full amount of the
value transferred plus replacement cost, if any. This treatment will apply
until the second payment/delivery leg is effectively made.
Counterparty Risk Requirement
8. The counterparty risk requirement (CRR) aims to measure the amount

necessary to accommodate a given level of a counterparty risk 252
specifically for unsettled trades253 and free deliveries with respect to an
equity business. The CRR capital charge (as given in the table below) will
be multiplied by a factor of 12.5 to arrive at the CRR risk-weighted asset
amount.
Agency Trade Transactions
Time Period CRR
Sales contract Day, T to T+2 CRR = 0
CRR = 8% of market value (MV) of contract X
Counterparty Risk weight, if current MV of contract
T+3 to T+30 > transaction value of contract
CRR = 0, if current MV of contract <= transaction
value of contract
Beyond T+30 CRR = MV of contract X Counterparty Risk weight,
251
If the dates when two payment legs are made are the same according to the time zones where
each payment is made, it is deemed that they are settled on the same day. For example, if a bank
in Tokyo transfers Yen on day X (Japan Standard Time) and receives corresponding US Dollar
via CHIPS on day X (US Eastern Standard Time), the settlement is deemed to take place on the
same value date.
252
Counterparty risk means the risk of a counterparty defaulting on its financial obligation to the
Islamic bank.
253
An unsettled agency purchase/sale or an unsettled principal sale/purchase.

Agency Trade Transactions

Time Period CRR
if current MV of contract > transaction value of
contract
CRR = 0, if MV of contract <= transaction value of
contract
Purchase contract Day, T to T+3 CRR = 0

CRR = 8% of MV of contract X Counterparty Risk
weight, if MV of contract < transaction value of
T+4 to T+30 contract
CRR = 0, if MV of contract >= transaction value of
contract
CRR = MV of contract X Counterparty Risk weight,
if MV of contract < transaction value of contract
Beyond T+30
contract
Principal Trade Transactions

Time Period CRR
Sales contract Day, T to T+3 CRR = 0
weight, if MV of contract < transaction value of
contract
if MV of contract < transaction value of contract
Beyond T+30
contract
Purchase contract Day, T to T+3 CRR = 0
weight, if MV of contract > transaction value of
contract
if MV of contract > transaction value of contract
Beyond T+30
contract
Free Deliveries254
Time Period CRR
254
Where an investment bank delivers equities without receiving payment, or pays for equities
without receiving the equities.

Day, D255 to CRR = 8% of Transaction value of contract X

D+1 Counterparty Risk weight
Beyond D+1 CRR = Transaction value of contract
255
Due date where the investment bank delivers equities without receiving payment shall be the date
of such delivery, and where the investment bank pays for equities without receiving the equities,
shall be the date of such payment.

Appendix VIII List of Recognised Exchanges*
1. American Stock Exchange (USA)

2. Athens Stock Exchange (Greece)
3. Australian Stock Exchange (Australia)
4. Bermuda Stock Exchange (Bermuda)
5. BME Spanish Exchanges (Spain)
6. Bolsa de Comercio de Buenos Aires (Argentina)
7. Bolsa de Comercio de Santiago (Chile)
8. Bolsa de Valores de Colombia (Colombia)
9. Bolsa de Valores de Lima (Peru)
10. Bolsa de Valores do Sao Paulo (Brazil)
11. Bolsa Mexicana de Valores (Mexico)
12. Bolsa Italiana SPA (Italy)
13. Bourse de Luxembourg (Luxembourg)
14. Bourse de Montreal (Canada)
15. BSE The Stock Exchange, Mumbai (India)
16. Budapest Stock Exchange Ltd (Hungary)
17. Bursa Malaysia Bhd (Malaysia)
18. Chicago Board Options Exchange (USA)
19. Colombo Stock Exchange (Sri Lanka)
20. Copenhagen Stock Exchange (Denmark)
21. Deutsche Borse AG (Germany)
22. Euronext Amsterdam (Netherlands)
23. Euronext Brussels (Belgium)
24. Euronext Lisbon (Portugal)
25. Euronext Paris (France)
26. Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing (Hong Kong)
27. Irish Stock Exchange (Ireland)
28. Istanbul Stock Exchange (Turkey)
29. Jakarta Stock Exchange (Indonesia)
30. JSE Ltd. (South Africa)
31. Korea Exchange (South Korea)
32. Ljubljana Stock Exchange (Slovenia)

33. London Stock Exchange (United Kingdom)

34. Malta Stock Exchange (Malta)
35. NASD (USA)
36. National Stock Exchange of India Limited (India)
37. New York Stock Exchange (USA)
38. New Zealand Stock Exchange Ltd (New Zealand)
39. OMX Exchanges Ltd (Finland & Sweden)
40. Osaka Securities Exchange (Japan)
41. Oslo Bors (Norway)
42. Philippine Stock Exchange (Philippines)
43. Shanghai Stock Exchange (China)
44. Shenzhen Stock Exchange (China)
45. Singapore Exchange (Singapore)
46. Stock Exchange of Tehran (Iran)
47. Stock Exchange of Thailand (Thailand)
48. SWX Swiss Exchange (Switzerland)
49. Taiwan Stock Exchange Corp (Taiwan)
50. Tokyo Stock Exchange (Japan)
51. TSX Group (Canada)
52. Warsaw Stock Exchange (Poland)
53. Wiener Bourse (Austria)
* To be updated as and when changes occur.

Appendix IX Recognition Criteria for Physical Collateral Used For Credit Risk
Mitigation Purposes of Islamic Banking Exposures
General Criteria
1. Islamic banking institutions are allowed to recognise physical assets as

eligible collateral for credit risk mitigation purposes for Islamic banking
exposures, subject to fulfilling all the minimum requirements specified in the
Framework and obtaining prior approval from the Board or relevant board
committees on the recognition. In addition, Islamic banking institutions are
required to notify the Bank two months in advance of any recognition.
2. Any physical assets must be completed for their intended use and must
fulfil the following minimum conditions for recognition as eligible collateral:
(i) The assets are legally owned by the Islamic banking institution. For
Ijarah contracts, these are restricted to operating Ijarah only, where
related costs of asset ownership are borne by the Islamic banking
institution256; or
(ii) The physical assets attract capital charges other than credit risk
prior to/ and throughout the financing period (e.g. operating Ijarah
and inventories257 under Murabahah).
Specific Criteria
Commercial real estate (CRE) and residential real estate (RRE)

3. Eligible CRE or RRE collateral are defined as:
(i) Collateral where risk of the obligor is not materially dependent upon
the performance of the underlying property or project, but rather on
256
Shariah requires that the lessor/ owner bears the costs related to the ownership of or any other
costs as agreed between the lessor and the lessee. In this regard, CRM would not be applicable if
the lessee agrees to absorb material costs related to asset ownership or in an arrangement where
ownership costs would be transferred to the lessee.
257
This excludes inventories which are merely used as a pass-through mechanism such as in
Commodity Murabahah transactions or if the inventories carry no risk due to the existence of
binding agreements with the obligor for them to purchase the inventory.

the underlying capacity of the obligor to repay the debt from other
sources. As such, repayment of the facility is not materially
dependent on any cash flow generated by the underlying CRE/RRE
serving as collateral; and
(ii) The value of the collateral pledged must not be materially

dependent on the performance of the obligor. This requirement is
not intended to preclude situations where purely macro-economic
factors affect both the value of the collateral and the performance of
the obligor.
4. Subject to meeting the definition above, CRE and RRE will be eligible for
recognition as credit risk mitigation under the comprehensive approach only
if all of the following operational requirements are met:
(i) Legal enforceability: any claim on collateral taken must be legally

enforceable in all relevant jurisdictions, and any claim on collateral
must be properly filed on a timely basis. Collateral profits must reflect
a perfected lien (i.e. all legal requirements for establishing the claim
has been fulfilled). Furthermore, the collateral agreement and the
legal process underpinning it must be such that they provide for the
reporting institution to realise the value of the collateral within a
reasonable timeframe;
(ii) Objective market value of collateral: the collateral must be valued

at or less than the current fair value under which the property could
be sold under private contract between a willing seller and an arms-
length buyer on the date of valuation;
(iii) Frequent revaluation: an Islamic banking institution is expected to

monitor the value of the collateral on a frequent basis and at a
minimum once every year. More frequent monitoring is suggested
where the market is subject to significant changes in conditions.
Acceptable statistical methods of evaluation (for example reference to
house price indices, sampling) may be used to update estimates or to

identify collateral that may have declined in value and that may need
re-appraisal. A qualified professional must evaluate the property
when information indicates that the value of the collateral may have
declined materially relative to general market prices or when a credit
event, such as default, occurs;
(iv) Junior liens: Junior liens or junior legal charges may be taken into
account where there is no doubt that the claim for collateral is legally
enforceable and constitutes an efficient credit risk mitigant. Islamic
banking institutions could only use the residual value after taking into
account collateral haircut. In this case, residual value is derived after
deducting exposures with other pledgees, using approved limits or
total outstanding amount of the exposures with other pledgees
whichever is higher;
(v) Collateral management: Islamic banking institutions are also

expected to meet the following requirements:
(a) The types of CRE and RRE collateral accepted by the Islamic
banking institution and financing policies when this type of
collateral is taken must be clearly documented;
(b) The Islamic banking institution must take steps to ensure that
the property taken as collateral is adequately insured against
damage or deterioration;
(c) The Islamic banking institution must monitor on an ongoing

basis the extent of any permissible prior claims (for example tax)
on the property; and
(vi) The Islamic banking institution must appropriately monitor the risk of
environmental liability arising in respect of the collateral, such as the
presence of toxic material on a property.

Other physical assets258

5. Physical collateral other than CRE and RRE may be recognised as eligible
collateral under the comprehensive approach if the following standards are
met:
(i) Existence of liquid markets for disposal of collateral in an expeditious

and economically efficient manner; and
(ii) Existence of well established, publicly available market prices for the
collateral. The amount an Islamic banking institution receives when
collateral is realised should not deviate significantly from these
market prices.
6. Subject to meeting the above definition standards, other physical assets will
be recognised as credit risk mitigation under the comprehensive approach
only if it meets the operational requirements set out for CRE/RRE as well
as the following criteria:
(i) First claim: only Islamic banking institutions having the first liens on,
or charges over, collateral are permitted to recognise this type of
collateral as credit risk mitigation. In this regard, the Islamic banking
institution must have priority over all other lenders to the realised
proceeds of the collateral;
(ii) The financing agreement must include detailed descriptions of the

collateral plus detailed specifications of the manner and frequency of
revaluation;
(iii) The types of physical collateral accepted by the Islamic banking

institution and policies and practices in respect of the appropriate
amount of each type of collateral relative to the exposure amount
must be clearly documented in internal credit policies and
procedures and available for examination and/or audit review;
258
Physical collateral in this context is defined as non-financial instruments collateral.

(iv) Islamic banking institutions credit policies with regard to the

transaction structure must address appropriate collateral
requirements relative to the exposure amount, the ability to liquidate
the collateral readily, the ability to establish objectively a price or
market value, the frequency with which the value can readily be
obtained (including a professional appraisal or valuation), and the
volatility of the value of the collateral. The periodic revaluation
process must pay particular attention to fashion-sensitive collateral
to ensure that valuations are appropriately adjusted downward for
fashion, or model-year, obsolescence as well as physical
obsolescence or deterioration; and
(v) In cases of inventories (for example raw materials, finished goods,

dealers inventories of autos) and equipment, the periodic
revaluation process must include physical inspection of the
collateral.
Leased assets
7. Assets used in operating Ijrah and Ijrah Muntahia Bittamleek (IMB)
(leased assets) may be recognised as eligible collateral and used as credit
risk mitigation under the comprehensive approach for collateralised
transactions.
8. The leased assets must fulfill a function similar to that of collateral, and
recognition of leased assets would be subject to reporting institutions
fulfilling all minimum requirements under CRE/RRE or other physical
collateral, depending on the type of leased assets, as well as the following
additional standards:
(i) Robust risk management on the part of the Islamic banking

institutions acting as the lessors with respect to the location of the
asset, the use to which it is put, its age, and planned obsolescence;

(ii) A robust legal framework establishing the lessors legal ownership of

the asset and its ability to exercise its rights as owner in a timely
manner; and
(iii) There is no huge difference between the rate of depreciation of the

physical asset and the rate of amortisation of the lease payments,
which may overstate the credit risk mitigation attributed to the leased
assets.
Other Additional Criteria
Data maintenance
9. Islamic banking institutions are expected to collect and retain the relevant
data pertaining to revaluation and disposal of physical assets as a means
to recover from delinquent or defaulted exposures, particularly data on
disposal (i.e., selling) amount and timeline of disposal of the physical
assets as well as the relevant costs incurred for the disposal.
10. Islamic banking institutions are expected to use the relevant data to verify
the appropriateness of the minimum 30% haircut on physical assets
particularly non-CRE and non-RRE collateral at least on an annual basis.
Islamic banking institutions should use a more stringent haircut if their
internal historical data on disposal of these physical assets reveal loss
amounts that exceed the 30% haircut.
11. In addition, for the regulatory retail portfolio, Islamic banking institutions are
required to have at least two years of empirical evidence on data such as
recovery rates and value of physical collateral prior to its recognition as a
credit risk mitigant.
Independent review

12. Islamic banking institutions are required to conduct an independent

review259 to ascertain compliance with all minimum requirements specified
in the Framework for the purpose of recognising physical collateral as a
credit risk mitigant. The review should be performed prior to the recognition
of the physical collateral as a credit risk mitigant and at least annually
thereafter to ensure on-going fulfilment of all criteria and operational
requirements.
259
Validation must be performed by a unit that is independent from risk taking/ business units and
must not contain individuals who would benefit directly from lower risk weight derived from the
recognition of physical collateral as CRM.

Appendix X Summary Table of Gross Income Computation
Net income from financing activities A
Net income from investment activities B
Other income: C
Realised/unrealised gains/losses from sales or fair value

changes of trading book securities
Net commission/fees receivables

Intra-group income
Dividend income from investment in securities

Income from non-Shariah compliant sources
Others
Excluding:
Dividend Income from subsidiaries and associated companies

Realised or unrealised profits/losses from sales or impairment
of securities in banking book
Income from extra-ordinary or irregular item
Income from takaful recoveries
Bad debt recovered
Less:
Income attributable to investment account holders and other D
depositors
Total Gross Income A+B+C-D

Appendix XI Mapping of Business Lines
Level 1 Level 2 Activity Groups
Corporate Finance
Municipal/Government Mergers and acquisitions, underwriting,

Finance privatisations, securitisation, research, debt
Corporate
(government, high yield), equity, syndications,
Finance
Merchant Banking initial public offering (IPO), secondary private
placements
Advisory Services
Sales Fixed income, equity, foreign exchanges,

commodities, credit, funding, own position
Market Making securities, sell and buy back agreement,
Trading &
brokerage, debt, prime brokerage, acquisition of
Sales
Proprietary Positions vehicles prior to selling or leasing, property
development, property investment and direct
Treasury equity participation in companies
Retail Banking Retail financing and deposits, banking services, trust

and estates
Private Banking Private financing and deposits, banking
Retail Banking
services, trust and estates, investment advice
Card Services Merchant/commercial/corporate cards, private labels

and retail
Commercial Commercial Banking Project finance, real estate, export finance,

Banking trade finance, factoring, leasing, financing,
guarantees, bills of exchange
Payment and External Clients Payments and collections, funds transfer,
Settlement clearing and settlement
Custody Escrow, depository receipts
Agency Services Corporate Agency Issuer and paying agents
Corporate Trust
Discretionary Fund Pooled, segregated, retail, institutional, closed,

Management open, private equity
Asset
Management Non-Discretionary Fund
Management Pooled, segregated, retail, institutional, closed, open
Retail Brokerage Retail Brokerage Execution and full service

Appendix XII Illustration of the Offsetting Rules Between Negative and Positive OR Capital Charge in Any Business Lines
Business Line Beta Gross Income Gross Income x OR Capital

() Charge
% March Dec Sept June March Dec Sept June
Year 3
08 07 07 07 08 07 07 07
Corporate Finance 18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Trading and Sales 18 -9.00 5.00 -12.00 9.00 -1.62 0.90 -2.16 1.62
Retail Banking 12 5.00 6.00 5.00 5.00 0.60 0.72 0.60 0.60
Commercial Banking 15 10.00 5.00 -8.00 7.00 1.50 0.75 -1.20 1.05
Payment and Settlement 18 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.36 0.36 0.18 0.36
Agency Services 15 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.45
Asset Management 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Retail Brokerage 12 0.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.48
Total 10.00 20.00 -10.00 30.00 1.14 3.03 -2.04 4.56 6.69
A similar manner of computation is required for the calculation of the annual gross income for the two years proceeding the most
recent year. The aggregate operational risk capital charge is equivalent to the three year average of the simple summation of the
regulatory capital charges.

Appendix XIII Detailed Loss Event Type Classification
Event-type Category (Level 1) Definition Categories (Level 2) Activity Examples (Level 3)

Internal Fraud Losses due to acts of a type Unauthorized Activity Transactions not reported (intentional)
intended to defraud, Transaction type unauthorised (w/monetary loss)
misappropriate property or Mismarking of position (intentional)
circumvent regulations,
the law or company policy, Theft and Fraud Fraud / credit fraud / worthless deposits
excluding diversity / Theft / extortion / embezzlement / robbery
discrimination events, which Misappropriation of assets
involves at least one internal Malicious destruction of assets
party Forgery
Check kiting
Smuggling
Account take-over / impersonation / etc.
Tax non-compliance / evasion (wilful)
Bribes / kickbacks
Insider trading (not on firms account)
External fraud Losses due to acts of a type Theft and Fraud Theft/Robbery
intended to defraud, Forgery
misappropriate property or Check kiting
circumvent the law, by a Systems Security Hacking damage
third party Theft of information (w/monetary loss)
Employment Practices and Losses arising from acts Employee Relations Compensation, benefit, termination issues
Workplace Safety inconsistent with employment, Organised labour activity
health or safety laws or Safe Environment General liability (slip and fall, etc.)
agreements, from payment of Employee health & safety rules events
personal injury claims, or from Workers compensation
diversity / discrimination events Diversity & Discrimination All discrimination types
Clients, Products & Business Losses arising from an Suitability, Disclosure & Fiduciary breaches / guideline violations
Practices unintentional or negligent failure Fiduciary Suitability / disclosure issues (KYC, etc.)
to meet a professional obligation Retail customer disclosure violations
to specific clients (including Breach of privacy
fiduciary and suitability Aggressive sales


requirements), or from the nature Account churning
or design of a product. Misuse of confidential information
Lender liability
Non-compliance of Shariah requirements
Improper Business or Market Antitrust
Practices Improper trade / market practices
Market manipulation
Insider trading (on firms account)
Unlicensed activity
Money laundering
Product Flaws Product defects (unauthorised, etc.)
Model errors
Selection, Sponsorship & Failure to investigate client per guidelines
Exposure Exceeding client exposure limits
Advisory Activities Disputes over performance of advisory activities
Damage to Physical Assets Losses arising from loss or Disasters and other events Natural disaster losses
damage to physical assets from Human losses from external sources (terrorism,
natural disaster or other events. vandalism)
Business disruption and Losses arising from disruption of Systems Hardware
system failures business or system failures. Software
Telecommunications
Utility outage / disruptions
Execution, Delivery & Process Losses from failed transaction Transaction Capture, Miscommunication
Management processing or process Execution & Maintenance Data entry, maintenance or loading error
management, from relations with Missed deadline or responsibility
trade counterparties and vendors Model / system misoperation
Accounting error / entity attribution error
Other task misperformance
Delivery failures
Collateral management failure
Reference Data Maintenance
Monitoring and Reporting Failed mandatory reporting obligation
Inaccurate external report (loss incurred)
Customer Intake and Client permissions / disclaimers missing
Documentation Legal documents missing / incomplete
Customer / Client Account Unapproved access given to accounts
Management Incorrect client records (loss incurred)


Negligent loss or damage of client assets
Trade Counterparties Non-client counterparty misperformance
Misc. non-client counterparty disputes
Vendors & Suppliers Outsourcing
Vendor disputes

Appendix XIV Illustration of Computation of Exposures with Credit Risk

Mitigation Effects
Example 1
Financing of RM1,000 with 5 years residual maturity to a BBB-rated
corporate. The full amount of the financing is guaranteed by a corporate with
an external rating (RAM) of AAA.
Solution (Simple approach):
Obligors risk weight (RW) Guarantors RW
100% 20%
Using RW substitution:
RWA = 1000 20%

= RM200
Example 2
Financing of RM1,000 to BBB-rated corporate. Half of the amount of the
financing is secured by an AAA-rated MGS with a residual maturity of 3 years.
Solution (Comprehensive approach):
Variables Supervisory haircut
He No haircut applied as exposure in the form of cash
Hc 0.02260
Hfx No maturity mismatch
Adjusted exposure (E*) = Max {0, [E (1 + He) C (1 Hc - Hfx)]}

= [1000 (1 + 0) 500 (1 0.02 0)]}
= RM510
Risk-weighted assets (RWA)261 = RM510 100%
= RM510
Example 3
Financing of RM1,000 to a small business with a residual maturity of 5 years.

The financing is secured by receivables (the ratio of collateral value to
nominal exposure is 125%).
260
Refer to paragraph 2.122 on standard supervisory haircuts table.
261
Refer to paragraph 2.34 for risk weight table for corporate exposure.
Solution:
No recognition for receivables as risk mitigation under the standardization

approach. Thus, the appropriate RW to be applied is 75%, regulatory retail
(financing to small business)
RWA = RM1,000 75%
= RM750
Example 4
Financing of RM1,000 to a B-rated corporate with a 3-year residual maturity.
Half of the exposure, RM500, is guaranteed by an A-rated bank.
Solution:
RWA = (Exposure covered by guarantee, GA) + (exposure not covered)

= (500 50%262) + [(1000 500) 125%]
= 250 + 625
= RM875
Example 5
Bank X provide financing of RM1000 to Bank Z (A rated) for a period of 5

years. Bank Z places a 2 year deposit of RM800 in Bank X.
Solution:
Step 1 Calculate value of credit protection adjusted for maturity mismatch

Ca = C (1 Hc Hfx) ( t 0.25) / ( T 0.25)
= 800 ( 1 0 - 0) ( 2 0.25) / (5 0.25)
= 800 0.37
= RM296
Step 2 Calculate adjusted exposure
E* = max {0, [E (1 + He) Ca ]}

= 1000 (1 + 0) - 296
262
Refer to paragraphs 2.30 and 2.32 on risk weight table for banking institutions exposure.
= RM704
RWA = E* RWA
= 704 50%263
= RM352
Example 8: Proportional Cover

Financing to a BBB corporate of RM1,000 with a 3 year residual maturity. A
guarantee of RM500 from a bank (A rated) with a remaining maturity of 3
years serves as collateral. The secured and unsecured portions are equal in
seniority.
Solution:
RWA = (GA X RWguarantor) + [(E GA) X RWobligor]
= (500 x 50%) + [(1000 500) x 100%]

= 250 + 500
= RM750
Example 9: Treatment of Pools of Credit Risk Mitigation Techniques

Financing to a BBB corporate of RM1,000 with a 3 year residual maturity. The
financing is secured by Guarantee of RM1,000 from a bank (A rated). Half of
the guarantee has residual maturity of 3 years and the other half, a residual
maturity of 2 years. In addition, the financing is also secured by an AAA rated
MGS of RM500 with a residual maturity of 3 years. The bank opts to obtain
the largest capital relief possible from the various risk mitigants.
Solution:
RWA = (GA X RWMGS) + [(E GA) X RWguarantor]

= (500 x 0%) + [(1000 500) x 50%]
= RM250
263
Refer to paragraphs 2.30 and 2.32 for risk weight table for banking institutions exposure.
Appendix XV Information Requirements for Application to Adopt the

Internal Ratings Based Approach for Credit Risk
Islamic banking institutions intending to adopt the IRB approach are required
to submit the relevant information264 in the following table:
1. Overall Implementation
i) Objective, goal and Articulate the objectives, goals and rationale as
rationale for applying approved by the board.
for IRB status
ii) Governance structure Insert name, designation and responsibilities. Append
of the implementation chart if available.
project Explain the role of external parties, if applicable.
iii) Scope and timeline of
the rollout of IRB
across asset class265 Insert class Insert Insert
name commencement completion
date266 date267
across entity Insert entity Insert Insert
name commencement completion
date date
exposures falling Insert class Insert Insert
under temporary and name commencement completion
permanent date date
exemption, if any (as
defined in paragraph
3.4 to 3.6 and 3.14)
and the plan to
migrate the
temporary portfolio to
IRB.
iv) Detailed timeline Insert work step Insert Insert
(describe for each (e.g. data commencement completion
model to be adopted collection, IT date date
for each asset class implementation)
and entity. For
example, behavioural
model for QRRE class
in ABC entity)
264
Information required is applicable to both internal and external models.
265
Include those already covered and to be covered in the future.
266 st
Date of commencement of 1 deliverable.
267
Date of completion of final deliverable.
v) Detailed approved Insert overall amount committed, estimate of

budget and committed personnel involved (breakdown where external parties
resources for are involved),
implementation
vi) Cost-Benefits Analysis Provide a detailed estimate of cost in completing the
entire IRB implementation project and explain the
benefits gained from IRB adoption as compared to
SA.
2. Gap Analysis/ Validation/ Self-Assessment
vii) Overview of gap Explain the process and personnel involved in
analysis/ validation/ conducting the assessment, clarifying the skills and
self-assessment independence of the reviewer, where applicable.
process Explain the baseline/ benchmark used (BCBS
guideline, or the Banks policy documents).
viii) Outcome of List all gaps identified. Evaluate the impact of the
assessment gaps or non-compliances to the overall
implementation of IRB.
ix) Detailed plan for For each gap, explain the remedial actions taken, the
achieving compliance time needed to bridge the gap and the person
responsible. Alternatively, submit the detailed action
plan.
3. Information with regard to the IRB systems (append one for each rating
system):
Islamic banking institutions should submit information (in the form of policies,
reports and technical documentation) that describes its compliance with the
relevant paragraphs on the IRB minimum requirements in the Framework. The
remarks that follow in this section are meant only as a guide.
x) Overview or general Describe the rating system in terms of the rating/
description of internal modeling approach, the time horizon and the segment
rating systems of the portfolio, asset class or product type for which
the rating system will be used.
xi) Rating system design Elaborate on the existence of obligor and facility
dimensions for each major portfolio. Explain the
structural design of the rating system. Append any
rating criteria, definition and assignment process
adopted.
xii) Rating system Describe how the rating assignment process ensures
operations appropriate and consistent rating coverage. Elaborate
on the controls put in place to ensure integrity of the
process, including the process of reviewing and
overriding ratings and loss estimates. Explain the
process put in place to verify and assess data input
for rating assignment. Explain (append if possible) the
structure or framework for data maintenance and
documentation.
xiii) Rating system Explain the conceptual and technical features of the
estimation (covering process undertaken to estimate the relevant
development and parameters (PD, LGD, EAD etc), inclusive of reasons
calibration) (appropriateness, strength and weaknesses) and

further enhancements to be taken. Explain and justify
the differences, if any, in the definition of default
adopted.
Provide empirical analysis to justify the
appropriateness of using the conventional IRB model
and its parameters on the Islamic banking assets
Describe the stress testing processes in place
(including the scenarios adopted and the sources of
information) in relation to capital adequacy.
xiv) Rating system Include the measurement of performance especially
validation on accuracy, calibration, stability and consistency.
Islamic banking institutions which leverages on a
same model as the conventional assets within the
banking group are expected to assess the
performance of the model specifically on the Islamic
asset portfolio as well.
xv) Overview of the Append chart if available.
internal governance
structure of the rating
system
role of board (and its Insert name and responsibilities specific to the
committees) governance of rating system (if any).
role of senior Insert name and responsibilities specific to the
management (and its governance of rating system as well as other critical
committees) responsibilities.
role of credit risk Insert name and responsibilities specific to the design,
management unit (or selection, implementation and performance of rating
its equivalent) system.
role of internal audit Insert name and responsibilities specific to the review
(or other relevant of rating system.
assurance function)
xvi) Use of ratings Explain how the ratings will support internal business
decisions. Explain any adjustments made if ratings
are not used directly.
xvii) Logical data model and Append the logical data fields used and their
the surrounding IT dependencies.
infrastructure
xviii) Data extraction and Explain and attach the tests undertaken to verify the
cleansing processes integrity of data.
xix) IRB training conducted List all relevant training (especially on the operations
to relevant officers, and use of ratings) conducted in the immediate past.
senior management Include areas covered, instructors name,
personnel and board departments affected and date conducted. If possible,
members. include training plans for the future.
Appendix XVI Information Requirements for Application to Adopt the

Internal Models Approach for Market Risk
Islamic banking institutions intending to adopt the internal models approach

for the computation of the market risk capital charge in the trading book are
required to submit to Bank Negara Malaysia the following information:
A. General Information
Organisational Structure
1. The latest organisational chart showing the names and reporting lines
of key personnel in charge of the front office, middle office, back office,
finance and risk management functions.
2. Terms of reference or description of function for the following:
(i) Treasury Department;
(ii) Middle Office;
(iii) Back Office/Processing Unit;
(iv) Finance / Account Department; and
(v) Market Risk Management Unit.
3. Terms of reference of Board Risk Management Committee and Market

Risk Management Committee. Among others should include:
(i) role and composition of committees;
(ii) frequency of meetings; and
(iii) information received.
4. Information pack and minutes of the committees meetings (described

in 3 above) for the past 12 months including:
(i) discussion reports;

(ii) recommendations to the committee; and
(iii) communication of decision.
5. Background, experience and qualification of key treasury front office

and market risk management personnel.
6. Number of staff in treasury front office and market risk management

and their responsibilities.
Policies and Operational Manuals

7. Please provide the following policies and procedures (if maintained
separately from documents required in 2 above:
(i) Treasury Front Office;
(ii) Trading and Investment;
(iii) Middle Office;
(iv) Back Office/Processing Unit;
(v) Finance/Account Department; and
(vi) Trading Book Policy Statement.
Treasury Portfolio Data and Profit and Loss
8. List of treasury products and activities (please also specify products

and activities that will be included in risk models).
9. Monthly detailed outstanding treasury transactions for the last 12

months.
10. Monthly detailed Treasury P&L for the last 12 months.
Internal Controls (with regards to treasury and market risk management)
11. Validation policy and programme.

12. Latest independent review reports.
13. Recent internal and external (if any) audits reports.
14. Exception reports for the last 12 months.
Front office and Market Risk Management Information System (MIS)

infrastructure
15. Structure of source systems (position capture) and risk measurement

system.
16. System manuals.
17. Control structure surrounding risk measurement system.
B. Valuation Model Information (by risk categories)

18. Description of portfolio valuation model specifying whether model was
purchased or developed in house. Description among others should
include:
(i) mark-to-market/model methodology for all products;
(ii) cash flow mapping process; and
(iii) detail products decomposition.
19. For a purchased valuation model, description of adjustments made on

the model.
20. Procedures on zero yield curve generation. Among others should

include:
(i) source of rates; and
(ii) interpolation methodology.
21. Description of valuation adjustments made to cater for illiquidity,

concentration etc.
C. Value-at-Risk (VaR) Measurement Information

Risk system
22. The scope of application for which approval is requested.
23. Description of units, portfolio or entity not covered by the model and
reason(s) for exclusion.
24. Future developments and implementation schedule to incorporate any

areas excluded from the scope of the model.
25. Future developments and implementation schedule of any planned

changes or any future plans that have a bearing on the model.
26. Description and the flow chart of the individual risk supporting systems.
27. Description and the flow chart of the main risk measurement
systems/engine.
Measurement methodology by risk categories (profit rate, equity, foreign

exchange and commodities risks)
28. Overall description of VaR measurement approach
(variance/covariance, Monte Carlo simulation, historical simulation).
This should among others, includes:
(i) confidence interval used;
(ii) holding period;
(iii) description of historical data used to calculate volatility and

correlation parameters and any weighting methodology used in
the calculation specifying the effective observation period; and
(iv) any scaling factors used
29. Description of the underlying assumptions.
30. Description of historical data update process and frequency.
31. Description of underlying parameters. Among others, include:

(i) number of yield curves by currency;
(ii) number of risk factors by currency;
(iii) equity risk factors; and
(iv) commodity risk factors.
32. Description of how the models capture:
(i) non-linear effects particularly, options products;
(ii) correlations within and across broad risk categories; and
(iii) specific risk, if any.
33. Time taken to generate VaR numbers and availability of VaR for
distribution particularly to front office.
Stress testing
34. Description of the methodology used.
35. Stress test results for the past 12 months.
36. Stress test limits.
Back testing
37. Description of the methodology used.
38. Back testing results for the past 12 months.
D. Risk Appetite and Limit Structure
39. Overall limits structure imposed on trading book risk taking activities
(VaR limits, notional limits etc).
40. Policy and procedures governing limits allocation process.
41. Policy and procedures on discretionary powers (e.g. granting

exception, temporary excesses etc).
42. Escalation policy on exceptions.

E. Risk Management & Control
43. Please provide the policies and procedures for market risk
management function.
44. List/summary of reports prepared by risk management on a daily basis.

Description of timeline these reports available for senior management.
45. Description of future developments of risk measurement methodology,

products and activities related to market risk.
Appendix XVII Illustration of Computation of Large Exposure Risk

Requirement
Scenario A
An Islamic banking institution holds exposures consisting of shares and in-
the-money call warrants with market value amounting to RM20 million in a
corporation listed on G10 stock exchange. The Islamic banking institutions
Total Capital is currently RM500 million and the total issued paid-up capital of
the corporation is RM100 million. All exposures are held in the trading book.
Step 1
Determine the amount in excess of threshold. The LERR computation will be
based on exposures to a single equity exceeding 15% of the Islamic banking
institutions Total Capital or 10% of the issuers paid-up capital, whichever is
lower.
Amount in
Applicable
LERR excess of Total
threshold
threshold threshold exposures
level
(RM million) level (RM million)
(RM million)
(RM million)
Based on Islamic
banking
500 x 15% = 75 Not applicable.
institutions Total
Capital
Based on issuers
100 x 10% = 10 10 10 20
paid-up capital
Step 2
Calculate the LERR capital charge by multiplying the market value of the
equity position in excess of the threshold, with the sum of the corresponding
general and specific risk weights as per the market risk component of the
Framework. The LERR capital requirement is incurred in addition to the
market risk capital charge for large exposures to a single equity.
Market risk capital charge RM20 million x (8% + 8%)

= RM3.2 million
LERR capital charge RM10 million x (8% + 8%)
= RM1.6 million
Step 3
Calculate the LERR risk-weighted asset.
LERR risk-weighted asset RM1.6 million x 12.5

= RM20 million
Scenario 2
An Islamic banking institution holds preference shares with market value
amounting to RM80 million in an unlisted corporation. The Islamic banking
institutions Total Capital is currently RM500 million and the total issued paid-
up capital of the corporation is RM1 billion. All exposures are held in the
banking book.
Step 1
Determine the amount in excess of the applicable threshold level.
Amount in
Applicable
excess of Total
LERR threshold threshold
threshold exposures
(RM million) level
level (RM million)
(RM million)
(RM million)
Based on Islamic
banking institutions 500 x 15% = 75 75 5 80
Total Capital
Based on issuers paid-
1000 x 10% = 100 Not applicable
up capital
Step 2
Calculate the LERR risk-weighted asset by multiplying the market value of the
equity exposure (banking book position) in excess of the applicable threshold
with the corresponding risk weight.
Credit risk-weighted asset RM80 million x 100%

=RM80 million
LERR risk-weighted asset RM5 million x 100%

= RM5 million
Appendix XVIII Capital Treatment for Sell and Buyback Agreement

(SBBA)/ Reverse SBBA Transactions
The capital treatment for exposures from SBBA and reverse SBBA
transactions under the banking book and trading book is provided below:
SBBA Reverse SBBA268

Trading book transaction
1) Market risk in the forward 1) Market risk in the forward sale
purchase transaction transaction
For cash position: General risk for the long
a. General risk for the short cash position
cash position
b. There is no specific risk 2) Counterparty credit risk (as per
charge for the cash position the banking book treatment
For the underlying asset of the below)
forward purchase transaction
a. General risk for the
underlying asset
b. Specific risk for the
underlying asset
2) Counterparty credit risk (as per the

banking book treatment below).
268
In addition to the capital charge applied here, if an arrangement that could effectively
transfer the risk back to the SBBA seller is not legally binding, the SBBA buyer is required
to provide for credit risk charge of the underlying asset.
SBBA Reverse SBBA

Banking book transaction
Standardised Approach for Credit Risk
1) Credit risk in the underlying asset 1) Counterparty credit risk in the
in the forward purchase forward purchase transaction
transaction Credit RWA = Credit
Credit RWA = Underlying asset equivalent amount (derived
value x CCF of forward asset from the Current Exposure
purchase (i.e. 100%) x risk Method) x risk weight of
weight based on recognised counterparty.
issue / issuer rating of the
asset. Note: The positive MTM amount
refers to the difference between
2) Counterparty credit risk in the the underlying asset market value
forward purchase transaction and forward sale transaction
Credit RWA = Credit equivalent value, where the underlying asset
amount (derived from the market value < the forward sale
Current Exposure Method) x transaction value.
risk weight of counterparty.
Note: The positive MTM amount

the underlying asset market value
and forward purchase transaction
value, where the underlying asset
market value > the forward
purchase transaction value.
Internal Ratings-Based Approach for Credit Risk

1) Credit risk in the underlying asset 1) Counterparty credit risk in the
in the forward purchase forward sale transaction
transaction EAD = Credit equivalent amount
EAD = Underlying asset value x (derived from the Current
CCF of forward asset purchase Exposure Method). EAD is to be
(i.e., 100%). EAD is to be used used in capital formula to obtain
in capital formula to obtain the the capital charge.
capital charge.
2) Counterparty credit risk in the Note: The positive MTM
forward purchase transaction amount refers to the difference
EAD = Credit equivalent between the underlying asset
amount (derived from the market value and forward sale
Current Exposure Method). transaction value, where the
EAD is to be used in capital forward sale transaction value >
formula to obtain the capital the underlying asset market
charge. value.
Note: The positive MTM amount

the underlying asset market value
and forward purchase transaction
value, where the underlying asset
market value > the forward
purchase transaction value.
The underpinning basis for the capital treatment for SBBA and reverse SBBA
transactions is the risk profile of the underlying transactions, i.e., outright
sale/buy contract as well as forward transactions as waad (promise) to
buyback/sellback and is therefore not a collateralised transaction.
Appendix XIX IRB Coverage
Permanent exemption Temporary exemption

(Capital requirements for these exposures (Applicable only during the
to be computed using the standardised transitional period for banking
approach from the start of the transitional institutions migrating to IRB
period) approach)
Exposures to Entities and asset Additional exposures Exposures to be covered by IRB approach
sovereigns, central classes (or sub- with aggregate credit
banking institutions, classes in the case RWA (computed using
banking institutions and of retail) that are the standardised
public sector entities; immaterial in terms approach) which
Equity holdings in of size and cumulatively account
entities whose debt perceived risk profile for less than or equal
qualifies for 0% risk which cumulatively to 10% of total credit
weight under the account for less RWA.
standardised approach than or equal to
15% of total credit
Equity investments called RWA.
for by the Federal
Government of Malaysia,
Bank Negara Malaysia,
Association of Banking
institutions in Malaysia,
Association of Islamic
Banking Institutions in
Malaysia, or Malaysian
Investment Banking
Association, subject to a
limit of 10% of Total
Capital; and
Immaterial equity
holdings on a case-by-
case basis.
A B
C
The next section provides an illustration on how Islamic banking institutions should compute A and B for purposes of the IRB coverage
requirement.
The computation for the IRB coverage requirement is as follows:
A
Cumulative Immaterial Exposures = ----------- 15%
C
Or
A + B
Cumulative Immaterial Exposures = ------------- 25%
C
Appendix XX Assessment of Credit Risk based on Shariah Contracts
1. This appendix sets out the specificities of Islamic financial products or

transactions that are undertaken based on specific Shariah contracts and stages
for identification of the credit risk exposure.
2. Islamic transactions can generally be classified into four main categories as

follows:
(i) Asset-based transactions, which comprise of Murbahah, Salam and

Istisn` contracts, that are mainly structured or created based on the
purchase or sale of assets;
(ii) Lease-based transactions, which comprise of Ijrah contracts;
(iii) Equity-based transactions, which comprise of Mushrakah and Mudrabah

contracts, that are undertaken mainly based on equity participation in a joint
venture or business enterprise; and
(iv) Loan-based transactions, which are primarily undertaken through the Qardh
contract.
3. The innovation in Islamic banking products and financial instruments has resulted
in the development of varied product structures which are differentiated by a
unique product name. For example, some products are structured using a
combination of Shariah permissible terms. For capital adequacy computation
purposes, the capital treatments on these financial instruments shall be assessed
based on the analysis of the risk profile embedded within these transactions
rather than the product name, unless specifically required by the Bank.
MURBAHAH
Murbahah
4. A Murbahah contract refers to an agreement whereby an Islamic banking

institution sells to an obligor an asset that it has acquired at an agreed selling
price between both parties. The agreed selling price is based on the acquisition
cost (purchase price plus other direct costs) of the asset incurred by the Islamic
banking institution and a profit margin agreed between the Islamic banking
institution and its obligor. The Murbahah contract shall include the agreed
repayment terms where the obligor is obliged to pay the selling price after taking
delivery of the asset.
5. Islamic banking institutions are exposed to credit risk in the event that the obligor
fails to pay the agreed selling price in accordance with the agreed repayment
terms under the Murbahah contract. Hence, Islamic banking institutions shall be
subject to the capital charge for credit risk exposure once the asset is sold and
payment is due to the Islamic banking institution.
Murbahah for Purchase Orderer (MPO)
6. A Murbahah for Purchase Orderer (MPO) contract refers to an agreement

whereby an Islamic banking institution sells to an obligor at an agreed selling
price, a specified type of asset that has been acquired by the Islamic banking
institution based on an agreement to purchase (AP) by the obligor which can be
binding or non-binding. The relevant legal recourse provided under the AP that
requires the obligor to perform their obligation to purchase the underlying asset
from the Islamic banking institution shall be a key determinant for the AP to be
recognised as binding or non-binding. Thus, it is pertinent for Islamic banking
institutions to ensure the adequacy and enforceability of the legal documentation
under the MPO contract. The MPO contract shall include the agreed repayment
terms where the obligor is obliged to pay the selling price after taking delivery of
the asset.
7. The difference between a Murbahah transaction and an MPO transaction is that

under a Murbahah contract, the Islamic banking institution sells an asset which
is already in its possession, whilst in an MPO, the Islamic banking institution
acquires an asset in anticipation that the asset will be purchased by the obligor.
8. Islamic banking institutions are exposed to credit risk in the event that the obligor
fails to pay the agreed selling price in accordance with the agreed repayment
terms under the MPO contracts. Hence, Islamic banking institutions shall be
subject to the capital charge for credit risk exposure once the asset is sold and
payment is due to the Islamic banking institution.
9. For MPO with binding AP, Islamic banking institutions are exposed to credit risk
in the event that the obligor (purchase orderer) defaults on its binding obligation
to purchase the assets under the contract. In view of the adequate legal recourse
that requires the obligor to purchase the asset at an agreed price, the credit risk
exposure commences once the Islamic banking institution acquires the
underlying asset. For non-binding MPO, the effect is similar to a Murbahah
transaction.
BAI BITHAMAN AJIL (BBA) AND BAI INAH
10. For the purpose of the Framework, the Bai` Bithaman Ajil (BBA) and Bai` Inah
contracts are deemed to have similar transaction characteristics and financing
effects as the Murbahah and MPO contract. The BBA involves the selling of an
asset with deferred payment terms while Bai Inah involves a sell and buy back
agreement. An example of Bai Inah is where an obligor sells to the Islamic
banking institution an asset at a selling price that will be repaid on cash basis for
the first leg of the agreement. On the second leg, the Islamic banking institution
sells back the asset to the obligor on deferred payment terms to enable the
financing transaction.
IJRAH
Ijrah
11. Ijrah contracts refer to a lease agreement whereby the lessor transfers the right
to use (or usufruct) of the leased asset to the lessee, for an agreed period and at
an agreed consideration, in the form of lease rental. The lessor maintains
ownership of the leased asset during the lease period under these contracts.
12. As the owner of the leased asset, Islamic banking institutions therefore assume
all liabilities and risks pertaining to the leased asset including the obligation to
restore any impairment and damage to the leased asset arising from wear and
tear, as well as natural causes which are not due to the lessees misconduct or
negligence.
13. As a lessor, Islamic banking institutions may acquire the asset to be leased
based on the lessees specifications as stipulated under the agreement to lease
(AL), prior to entering into the Ijrah contract with the lessee. The AL can be
binding or non-binding on the lessee depending on the legal recourse in the AL,
which states the obligation for the lessee to lease the specified asset from the
lessor.
14. Islamic banking institutions as the lessor under the Ijrah contracts are exposed
to the credit risk of the lessee in the event that the lessee fails to pay the rental
amount as per the agreed terms.
15. In addition, under a binding AL, Islamic banking institutions are exposed to credit
risk in the event that the lessee (lease orderer) defaulting on its binding obligation
to execute the Ijrah contract. In this situation, the Islamic banking institution may
lease or dispose off the asset to another party. However, the Islamic banking
institution is also exposed to the credit risk of the lessee if the lessee is not able
to compensate for the losses incurred arising from the disposal of the asset.
16. Under a non-binding AL, the Islamic banking institution is not exposed to the risk
of non-performance by the lease orderer given that the Islamic banking institution
does not have legal recourse to the lease orderer. In this regard, credit risk
exposure arises upon the commencement of rental agreement.
Ijrah Muntahia Bittamleek

17. Ijrah Muntahia Bittamleek (IMB) contract refers to a lease agreement similar to
Ijrah contracts. However, in addition to paragraphs 11 to 16, the lessor has an
option to transfer ownership of the leased asset to the lessee in the form of a gift
or a sale transaction at the end of IMB.
Al-Ijrah Thumma Al-Bai

18. Al-Ijrah Thumma Al-Bai` (AITAB) contract is a type of IMB contract that ends
with a transfer of ownership to the lessee by way of a sale transaction and shall
be treated similarly to the IMB contract for purposes of capital adequacy
requirements.
SALAM
19. A Salam contract refers to an agreement whereby an Islamic banking institution
purchases from an obligor a specified type of commodity, at a predetermined
price, which is to be delivered on a specified future date in a specified quantity
and quality. Islamic banking institution as the purchaser of the commodity makes
full payment of the purchase price upon execution of the Salam contract. Islamic
banking institutions are exposed to credit risk in the event that the obligor
(commodity seller) fails to deliver269 the paid commodity as per the agreed terms.
269
Delivery risk in a Salam contract is measured based on the commodity sellers credit risk.
20. In addition, an Islamic banking institution may also enter into a parallel Salam
contract, which is a back-to-back contract to sell the commodity purchased under
the initial Salam contract to another counterparty. This arrangement enables the
Islamic banking institution to mitigate the risk of holding the commodity.
21. Islamic banking institutions undertaking the parallel Salam transaction are
exposed to credit risk in the event that the purchaser fails to pay for the
commodity it had agreed to purchase from the Islamic banking institution.
Nevertheless, in the event of non-delivery of the commodity by the seller under
the initial Salam contract, the Islamic banking institution is not discharged of its
obligation to deliver the commodity to the purchaser under the parallel Salam
contract.
ISTISN`
22. An Istisn` contract refers to an agreement to sell to or buy from an obligor an
asset which has yet to be manufactured or constructed. The completed asset
shall be delivered according to the buyers specifications on a specified future
date and at an agreed selling price as per the agreed terms.
23. As a seller of the under the Istisn` contract, the Islamic banking institution is
exposed to credit risk in the event that the obligor fails to pay the agreed selling
price, either during the manufacturing or construction stage, or upon full
completion of the asset.
24. As a seller, the Islamic banking institution has the option to manufacture or
construct the asset on its own or to enter into a parallel Istisn` contract to
procure the asset from another party or, to engage the services of another party
to manufacture or construct the asset. Under the parallel Istisn` contract, as the
purchaser of the asset, the Islamic banking institution is exposed to credit risk in
the event that the seller fails to deliver the specified asset at the agreed time and
in accordance with the initial Istisn` ultimate buyers specifications. The failure of
delivery of completed asset by the parallel Istisn` seller does not discharge the
Islamic banking institution from its obligations to deliver the asset ordered by the
obligor under the initial Istisn` contract. Thus, the Islamic banking institution is
additionally exposed to the potential loss of making good the shortcomings or
acquiring the specified assets elsewhere.
MUSHRAKAH
25. A Mushrakah contract is an agreement between an Islamic banking institution
and its obligor to contribute an agreed proportion of capital funds to an enterprise
or to acquire ownership of an asset/real estate. The proportion of the capital
investment may be on a permanent basis or, on a diminishing basis where the
obligor progressively buys out the share of the Islamic banking institution (thus,
this contract is named Diminishing Mushrakah, which is categorized under
Mushrakah contract for the purpose of the Framework). Profits generated by the
enterprise or an asset/real estate are shared in accordance to the terms of the
Mushrakah agreement, while losses are shared based on the capital
contribution proportion.
26. In general, Mushrakah contracts can broadly be classified into two categories as
follows:
(i) Equity participation in a private commercial enterprise to undertake

business ventures or financing of specific projects; and
(ii) Joint ownership in an asset or real estate.
I. EQUITY PARTICIPATION IN A PRIVATE COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE TO

UNDERTAKE BUSINESS VENTURES OR FINANCING OF SPECIFIC
PROJECTS
27. An Islamic banking institution may enter into a Mushrakah contract with their
obligor to provide an agreed amount of capital for the purpose of participating in
the equity ownership of an enterprise. In this arrangement, the Islamic banking
institution is exposed to capital impairment risk in the event that the business
activities undertaken by the enterprise incur losses. The Mushrakah agreement
may provide an agreed exit mechanism which allows partners to divest their
interest in the enterprise at a specified tenor or at the completion of the specified
project. In this regard, the Islamic banking institution must ensure that the
contract clearly stipulates the exit mechanism for partners to redeem their
investment in this entity.
28. Islamic banking institutions that enter into this type of Mushrakah contract are
exposed to the risk similar to an equity holder or a joint venture arrangement
where the losses arising from the business venture are to be borne by the
partners. As an equity investor, the Islamic banking institution serves as the first
loss absorber and its rights and entitlements are subordinated to the claims of
creditors. In terms of risk measurement, the risk exposure to an enterprise may
be assessed based on the performance of the specific business activities
undertaken by the joint venture as stipulated under the agreement.
II. JOINT OWNERSHIP IN AN ASSET OR REAL ESTATE

29. Mushrakah contracts that are undertaken for the purpose of joint ownership in
an asset or real estate may generally be classified into the two categories as
follows:
i) Mushrakah contract with an Ijrah sub-contract
Partners that jointly own an asset or real estate may undertake to lease the
asset to third parties or to one of the partners under an Ijrah contract and
therefore generate rental income to the partnership. In this case, the risk
profile of the Mushrakah arrangement is essentially determined by the
underlying Ijrah contract. Islamic banking institutions are exposed to credit

risk in the event that the lessee fails to service the lease rentals.
ii) Mushrakah contract with a Murbahah sub-contract
As a joint owner of the underlying asset, Islamic banking institutions are

entitled to a share of the revenue generated from the sale of asset to a third
party under a Murbahah contract. Islamic banking institutions are exposed
to credit risk in the event the buyer or counterparty fails to pay for the asset
sold under the Murbahah contract.
iii) Diminishing Mushrakah
(a) An Islamic banking institution may enter into a Diminishing

Mushrakah contract with an obligor for the purpose of providing
financing based on a joint ownership of an asset, with the final
objective of transferring the ownership of the asset to the obligor in the
contract.
(b) The contract allows the obligor to gradually purchase the Islamic
banking institutions share of ownership in an asset/real estate or
equity in an enterprise over the life of the contract under an agreed
repayment terms and conditions which reflect the purchase
consideration payable by the obligor to acquire the Islamic banking
institutions share of ownership.
(c) As part of the mechanism to allow the obligor to acquire the Islamic
banking institutions share of ownership, the Islamic banking institution
and obligor may agree to lease the asset/real estate to the obligor. The
agreed amount of rental payable can be structured to reflect the
progressive acquisition of the Islamic banking institutions share of
ownership by the obligor. Eventually, the full ownership of the asset will
be transferred to the obligor as it continues to service the rental
payment. In this regard, the Islamic banking institution is exposed to
credit risk similar to an exposure under the Mushrakah with Ijrah
contract.
(d) However, if the exposure under the Diminishing Mushrakah contract

consists of share equity in an enterprise, the Islamic banking institution
shall measure its risk exposure using the treatment for equity risk.
MUDRABAH
30. A Mudrabah contract is an agreement between an Islamic banking institution

and an obligor whereby the Islamic banking institution contributes a specified
amount of capital funds to an enterprise or business activity that is to be
managed by the obligor as the entrepreneur (Mudrib). As the capital provider,
the Islamic banking institution is at risk of losing its capital investment (capital
impairment risk) disbursed to the Mudrib. Profits generated by the enterprise or
business activity are shared in accordance with the terms of the Mudrabah
agreement whilst losses are borne solely by the Islamic banking institution
(capital provider)270. However, losses due to misconduct, negligence or breach of
contracted terms271 by the entrepreneur, shall be borne solely by the Mudrib. In
this regard, the amount of capital invested by the Islamic banking institution
under the Mudrabah contract shall be treated similar to an equity exposure.
31. Mudrabah transactions can be carried out:
(i) on a restricted basis, where the capital provider authorises the Mudrib to
make investments based on a specified criteria or restrictions such as
types of instrument, sector or country exposures; or
(ii) on an unrestricted basis, where the capital provider authorises the

Mudrib to exercise its discretion in business matters to invest funds and
undertake business activities based on the latters skills and expertise.
270
Losses borne by the capital provider would be limited to the amount of capital invested.
271
Islamic banking institutions are encouraged to establish and adopt stringent criteria for definition of
misconduct, negligence or breach of contracted terms.
32. In addition, transactions involving Mudrabah contracts may generally be sub-

divided into two categories as follows:
I. EQUITY PARTICIPATION IN AN ENTITY TO UNDERTAKE BUSINESS

VENTURES
33. This type of Mudrabah contract exposes the Islamic banking institution to risks
akin to an equity investment, which is similar to the risk assumed by an equity
holder in a venture capital or a joint-venture investment. As an equity investor,
the Islamic banking institution assumes the first loss position and its rights and
entitlements are subordinated to the claims of creditors.
II. INVESTMENT IN PROJECT FINANCE

34. The Islamic banking institutions investment in the Mudrabah contract with a
Mudrib is for the purpose of providing bridging finance to a specific project. This
type of contract exposes the Islamic banking institution to capital impairment risk
in the event that the project suffers losses. Under this arrangement, the Islamic
banking institution as an investor provides the funds to the construction company
or Mudrib that manages the construction project and is entitled to share the
profit of the project in accordance to the agreed terms of the contract and must
bear the full losses (if any) arising from the project.
35. There may be situations where the risk profile of money market instruments
based on Mudrabah contracts may not be similar to an equity exposure given
the market structure and regulatory infrastructure governing the conduct of the
market. In particular, Mudrabah interbank investments in the domestic Islamic
money market would attract the credit risk of the Islamic banking institution
instead of equity risk despite having similarities in the contractual structure.
QARDH
36. Qardh is a loan given by an Islamic banking institution for a fixed period, where
the borrower is contractually obliged to repay only the principal amount borrowed.
In this contract, the borrower is not obligated to pay an extra amount (in addition
to the principal amount borrowed) at his absolute discretion as a token of
appreciation to the Islamic banking institution.
37. Islamic banking institutions are exposed to credit risk in the event that the
borrower fails to repay the principal loan amount in accordance to the agreed
repayment terms. Hence, the credit risk exposure commences upon the
execution of the Qardh contract between the Islamic banking institution and the
borrower.
Appendix XXI Capital treatment for Investment Accounts
The Look-Through Approach (LTA)
1. The look-through approach refers to the calculation of credit and market risk
capital requirements based on the underlying assets funded by an investment
account, as illustrated below:
Look-through approach
Banking institution as IAH

(rabbul mal)
Investment account
placement
Banking institution as
Capital requirement
entrepreneur/agent
(mudarib/wakeel) is based on the
underlying asset
Investment account fund
Underlying assets
2. Where a banking institution is an Investment Account Holder (IAH), the banking

institution shall apply the LTA only when the following conditions are met:
a) the financial information about the underlying assets is maintained at a

sufficiently granular level to enable the calculation of the corresponding
risk weights272; and
272
The IAH may specify the information required and time period for such disclosure in the investment
account agreement with the mudarib/wakeel.
b) the financial reports of the investment account funds are prepared at least
at the same reporting interval as that of the IAH272.
3. Under the LTA, the IAH shall calculate the credit and market risk capital
requirements of the investment account, as if it directly holds the underlying
assets using similar approach applied by the IAH on its own assets 273.
Credit risk
a) Under the standardised approach, the IAH shall calculate the capital
requirements based on the risk weight applicable to the obligor of the
underlying assets.
b) Under the IRB approach, the IAH shall calculate the IRB risk components
(i.e. the probability of default (PD) and, where applicable, loss given
default (LGD) and exposure at default (EAD)) of the underlying assets. For
the avoidance of doubt, the IAH shall use the standardised approach for
exposures of the underlying assets that are under the permanent
exemptions from the IRB approach.
c) The IAH may take into account the effect of any CRM only when the CRM
used by the mudarib/wakeel fulfils the relevant CRM technique
requirements and there is a clear and enforceable legal documentation
that ensures the benefit of CRM can be effectively passed to the IAH.
Market risk
(i) Under the standardised approach, the IAH shall apply the specific risk and
general risk capital charges applicable to the underlying assets.
(ii) Under the IMA, the IAH shall calculate the capital requirements of the
underlying assets using the internal models approved by the Bank.
(iii) The IAH may offset its own position against positions arising from the
underlying assets provided that the conditions specified in this policy
273
For example, if the IAH adopts the IRB approach for an asset class, the IAH should apply similar
approach for that asset class which is funded by an investment account.
documents are met and that there are no obstacles to timely recoverability
of funds from the mudarib/wakeel 274.
The alternative approach when the LTAs conditions are not met
4. When the conditions in paragraph 2 are not met, the IAH shall treat the
investment account as exposure to equities.
Credit risk
a) For the standardised approach, apply a risk-weight of 150%;
b) For the IRB approach, apply a risk weight of 400%; and
Market risk
(i) For the standardised approach, apply a specific risk charge of 14%, in
addition to the general risk charge;
(ii) For the IMA, calculate the capital requirements according to internal
models for equities.
274
Consequently, the mudarib/wakeel is not allowed to recognise such position arising from the
underlying assets to offset against its own positions.
Appendix XXII Transitional Arrangements and Approval Process
Transitional Arrangements
1. Islamic banking institutions adopting the IRB approach before 31 December 2015
will be eligible for a transition period from the date of implementation, as follows:
Implementation Date Available Transition Period
Between 1 January 2010
3 years
to 31 December 2012
Between 1 January 2013 Less than 3 years commencing from the date of
to 31 December 2015 implementation until 31 December 2015
After 31 December 2015 None
2. The following chart provides an illustration of the transitional arrangements

applicable for Islamic banking institutions implementing the IRB approach based
on various timelines:
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Current IRB approach

Adoption within 2010 approach
(e.g. Implementation on Jan 2010)
3-year transition period
Standardised approach IRB approach

Adoption between 2011 to 2012
(e.g. Implementation on June 3-year transition period
2012)
Standardised approach IRB approach

Adoption between 2013 to 2015
(e.g. Implementation on June 1.5-year
2014) transition
period
Adoption after 2015

Standardised approach IRB
(e.g. Implementation on June approach
2016)
Approval Process
Approval for Direct Migration from Current Accord
3. For Islamic banking institutions granted approval for direct migration, the Banks
assessment focuses mainly on the review of the board-approved detailed overall
implementation plan, to ensure that it is adequate, comprehensive, credible and
feasible with regard to initial coverage and pace of rollout. In particular:
i) Governance and Sustainability of Implementation
Islamic banking institutions must demonstrate to the Bank that the

implementation of IRB can be sustained. This should include the
support of the board, including the allocation of sufficient resources
that ensures smooth progress of the IRB implementation.
Islamic banking institutions must demonstrate that all the necessary

capabilities required for the IRB approach are covered in the
implementation plan. In other words, the IRB implementation should
not be conditional or significantly dependent on capabilities that are
implemented outside the IRB implementation plan.
ii) Discipline in Implementation and IRB Coverage Requirement
Islamic banking institutions are also expected to demonstrate a good

track record of adherence to the implementation plan submitted, as
well as strict discipline in implementing current initiatives. They need to
demonstrate to the Bank that substantive results have been achieved
within the scheduled timeframe.
Islamic banking institutions must ensure that the IRB coverage

requirement as stipulated in Appendix XIX is adhered to at all times.
iii) Risk Management Capabilities
Islamic banking institutions with adequate overall risk management275

would be viewed favourably as the basic building blocks and
capabilities would have already been in place. For example, Islamic
banking institutions that have been using internal ratings in critical
decision-making for some time would have less difficulty in meeting
the use test requirements of the IRB approach.
Approval for Migration to IRB Approach from the Standardised Approach
4. Islamic banking institutions intending to migrate to the IRB approach from the
standardised approach must notify the Bank its intention to migrate at least 3
years before the intended IRB implementation date.
275
Ratings based on supervisory assessments may be used as a benchmark.
5. Full submission of the information requirements as specified in Appendix XV

must reach the Bank at least 2 years before the intended IRB implementation
date.
For Implementation before 31 December 2015
6. For these Islamic banking institutions, the scope of the Banks assessment will be
wider than that outlined in paragraph 43 of this appendix. The Bank will conduct a
full assessment of the implemented IRB systems in the majority of the Islamic
banking institutions portfolio. In addition, the Bank will also be assessing the
Islamic banking institutions ability to complete the implementation of IRB over
the remainder of its portfolio (i.e. those under temporary exemption) during the
transition period.
7. Islamic banking institutions also need to ensure that the IRB coverage
requirement should be achieved by 1 January 2016 regardless of when the
Islamic banking institution migrates to the IRB approach. Details of the transition
period and the relaxations are elaborated in paragraphs 3.14 to 3.17 of the
Framework.
8. The decision for the approval of the migration to the IRB approach will be made
within six months of the receipt of the full submission.
For Implementation After the Transition Period (From 1 January 2016 onwards)
9. From this date onwards, all applications must be accompanied by a full

submission of documentation that shows the Islamic banking institutions meet all
the minimum requirements except for the use of internal rating requirements
where the Islamic banking institution shall demonstrate a credible track record
showing that the rating systems which comply with the minimum requirements
have been used for at least 1 year. The Islamic banking institution may utilise the
time allocated for the review period by the Bank and parallel run period to fully
meet the use of internal ratings requirements276..
10. The scope of the Banks assessment will exceed those outlined in paragraphs 43
and 6 of this appendix and will cover the full assessment of all the IRB systems
that cover its entire portfolio (except those under permanent exemption).
11. The decision for the approval of the migration to the IRB approach will be made
within 1 year upon receipt of the full application from the Islamic banking
institution.
276
As required in paragraph 3.375
Important Milestones for IRB Adoption

Direct migration from current accord Migration from standardised approach Migration from standardised approach
(where transition period is available) (where transition period is not available)
Submission as per
Appendix XVI
Approval for direct At least 2 years before At least 2 years before

Formal notification to the Formal notification to the intended IRB adoption
migration intended IRB adoption
Bank Bank date
date
At least 18 months At least 18 months

Full submission Full submission intended IRB adoption Full submission intended IRB adoption
date date
Review by the Bank Review by the Bank Review by the Bank
Approval to enter Within 6 months Approval to enter Within 6 months Approval for migration Within 6 months
transition period after full submission transition period after full submission after full submission
At least 1 year before

At least 1 year before At least 1 year before Parallel run full implementation
Parallel run implementation under Parallel run implementation under
transition period transition period
Implementation under 3 years Implementation under Maximum of

transition period transition period 3 years
Full implementation Full implementation
Islamic banking institutions are expected to periodically update the Bank on their implementation progress following approval for direct
migration and approval to enter into the transition period until full IRB implementation. Frequency of updates will be determined on a case-by-
case basis.
Appendix XXIII Credit Conversion Factors for Off-Balance Sheet Items under the
IRB Approach
1. Exposure measurement for off-balance sheet items (EAD) under the

foundation IRB approach shall be treated similarly to the standardised
approach, where the credit risk inherent in each off-balance sheet instrument
is translated into an on-balance sheet equivalent (credit equivalent) by
multiplying the nominal principal amount with a CCF; and the resulting amount
then being weighted according to the risk weight of the counterparty.
2. The CCFs for the various types of off-balance sheet instruments are as
follows:
Instrument CCF
a. Direct credit substitutes, such as general guarantees of
indebtedness including standby letters of credit serving
as financial guarantees for financings and securities, 100%
acceptances (including endorsements with the
characteristics of acceptances).
b. Certain transaction-related contingent items, such as
performance bonds, bid bonds, warranties and standby 50%
letters of credit related to particular transactions.
c. Short-term self-liquidating trade-related contingencies,
such as documentary credits collateralised by the
underlying shipments. The credit conversion factor shall 20%
be applied to both the issuing and confirming Islamic
d. Assets277 sold with recourse, where the credit risk
100%
remains with the selling Islamic banking institution.
e. Forward asset purchases, and partly-paid shares and
securities, which represent commitments with certain 100%
drawdown.
f. Commitment to buy back Islamic securities SBBA
transactions. 100%
g. Derivatives contracts. Credit equivalent to be

derived using current
exposure method as
given in Appendix VI.
277
Item (d), which includes housing loans sold to Cagamas Bhd, and (e) should be weighted
according to the type of asset (e.g. housing loan) and not according to the counterparty (i.e.
Cagamas) with whom the transaction has been entered into.
Instrument CCF
h. Commitments (e.g. formal standby credit facilities), notes
issuance facilities (NIFs) and revolving underwriting 75%
facilities (RUFs), regardless of maturity.
i. Any facilities under (h) that are unconditionally and
immediately cancellable and revocable by the Islamic 0%, subject to the
banking institution or that effectively provide for automatic requirements in
cancellation due to deterioration in a obligors paragraphs 3.62 to 3.64
creditworthiness (for example, corporate overdrafts and and 3.74.
other facilities), at any time without prior notice.
3. In addition to the computation under item (g) above, counterparty credit risk
can also arise from unsettled securities, commodities and foreign exchange
transactions from the trade date irrespective of the booking or accounting
transaction. Islamic banking institutions are encouraged to develop,
implement and improve systems for tracking and monitoring credit risk
exposures arising from such unsettled transactions as appropriate for
producing management information that facilitates action on a timely basis.
When these transactions are not processed via a delivery-versus-payment
system (DvP) or a payment-versus-payment (PvP) mechanism, these
transactions are subject to a capital charge as calculated in Appendix VII.
4. Islamic banking institutions must closely monitor securities, commodities, and

foreign exchange transactions that have failed, starting the first day they fail. A
capital charge for failed transactions shall be calculated as per Appendix VII.
Appendix XXIV Illustrative IRB Risk Weights
1. The following tables provide illustrative risk weights calculated for four asset
class types under the IRB approach to credit risk. Each set of risk weights for
UL was produced using the appropriate risk-weight function of the risk weight
functions set out in various parts of Part B.3.5. The inputs used to calculate
the illustrative risk weights include measures of the PD, LGD, and an
assumed effective maturity (M) of 2.5 years.
2. A firm-size adjustment applies to exposures made to small and medium-sized

entity (SME) obligors (defined as corporate exposures where the reported
sales for the consolidated group of which the firm is a part is less than RM250
million). Accordingly, the firm size adjustment was made in determining the
second set of risk weights provided in column two given that the turnover of
the firm receiving the exposure is assumed to be RM25 million.
Illustrative IRB Risk Weights for UL
Qualifying Revolving Retail

Asset Class Corporate Exposures RRE Financing Other Retail Exposures
Exposures
LGD:
45% 45% 45% 25% 45% 85% 45% 85%
Maturity: 2.5 years
Turnover
250 25
(RM million)
PD:
0.03% 14.44% 11.30% 4.15% 2.30% 4.45% 8.41% 0.98% 1.85%
0.05% 19.65% 15.39% 6.23% 3.46% 6.63% 12.52% 1.51% 2.86%
0.10% 29.65% 23.30% 10.69% 5.94% 11.16% 21.08% 2.71% 5.12%
0.25% 49.47% 39.01% 21.30% 11.83% 21.15% 39.96% 5.76% 10.88%
0.40% 62.72% 49.49% 29.94% 16.64% 28.42% 53.69% 8.41% 15.88%
0.50% 69.61% 54.91% 35.08% 19.49% 32.36% 61.13% 10.04% 18.97%
0.75% 82.78% 65.14% 46.46% 25.81% 40.10% 75.74% 13.80% 26.06%
1.00% 92.32% 72.40% 56.40% 31.33% 45.77% 86.46% 17.22% 32.53%
1.30% 100.95% 78.77% 67.00% 37.22% 50.80% 95.95% 21.02% 39.70%
1.50% 105.59% 82.11% 73.45% 40.80% 53.37% 100.81% 23.40% 44.19%
2.00% 114.86% 88.55% 87.94% 48.85% 57.99% 109.53% 28.92% 54.63%
2.50% 122.16% 93.43% 100.64% 55.91% 60.90% 115.03% 33.98% 64.18%

Qualifying Revolving Retail

Asset Class Corporate Exposures RRE Financing Other Retail Exposures
Exposures
LGD:
45% 45% 45% 25% 45% 85% 45% 85%
Maturity: 2.5 years
Turnover
250 25
(RM million)
3.00% 128.44% 97.58% 111.99% 62.22% 62.79% 118.61% 38.66% 73.03%
4.00% 139.58% 105.04% 131.63% 73.13% 65.01% 122.80% 47.16% 89.08%
5.00% 149.86% 112.27% 148.22% 82.35% 66.42% 125.45% 54.75% 103.41%
6.00% 159.61% 119.48% 162.52% 90.29% 67.73% 127.94% 61.61% 116.37%
10.00% 193.09% 146.51% 204.41% 113.56% 75.54% 142.69% 83.89% 158.47%
15.00% 221.54% 171.91% 235.72% 130.96% 88.60% 167.36% 103.89% 196.23%
20.00% 238.23% 188.42% 253.12% 140.62% 100.28% 189.41% % 117.99% 222.86%

Appendix XXV Potential Evidence of Likely Compliance with the Use Test
Essential Areas Evidence of Likely Compliance

1. Credit Ratings assignment is part of credit analysis and decision, and
approval Authority level for approval depends on rating
2. Policy Rating system, estimates, processes and organisational
guidelines are all consistent
3. Reporting Internal ratings, default and loss estimates are used in all reports
relating to credit and profitability information at all levels within
the organisation, including senior management
4. Capital Internal ratings, default and loss estimates are used in internal
management capital allocation, and in Pillar 2 capital assessment.
5. Risk Individual and portfolio limits are set with reference to internal
governance ratings, default and loss estimates.
6. Pricing Estimates for regulatory purposes and those derived for risk-
decisions based pricing, are produced for senior managements
information. However, for actual pricing purposes, Islamic
banking institution may use estimates which have been aligned
with the actual life of the facility.
Appendix XXVI Data-Enhancing and Benchmarking Tools
1. While industry and supervisory practices are still emerging, the Bank
views that the preliminary range of data-enhancing and validation tools
and techniques summarised below might be useful to facilitate efforts
undertaken by Islamic banking institutions. Nevertheless, these tools
are more applicable to estimation of PDs rather than LGDs or EADs.
Additional techniques that are more relevant to LGD and EAD are only
expected to emerge over time. Islamic banking institutions are
encouraged to consider the list below and to utilise the tools and
techniques that are most appropriate to their particular circumstances.
Data-Enhancing Tools for Quantification and Validation
2. While a relative lack of loss data may make it more difficult to use
quantitative methods to assess risk parameters, there are tools that
could be used to enhance data richness or to determine the degree of
uncertainty that could be addressed through conservatism. Among
these possible tools are the following:
(i) Pooling of data with other banking institutions or market

participants, the use of other external data sources, and the use of
market measures of risk can be effective methods to complement
internal loss data. While an Islamic banking institution would need
to satisfy itself and the Bank that these sources of data are
relevant to its own situation, the Bank nevertheless believes that
in principle, data pooling, external data and market measures can
be an effective means to augment internal data in appropriate
circumstances. This can be especially relevant for small portfolios
or for portfolios where an Islamic banking institution is a recent
market entrant;
(ii) Internal portfolio segments with similar risk characteristics might

be combined. For example, an Islamic banking institution might
have a broad portfolio with adequate default history that, if

narrowly segmented, could result in the creation of a number of
low-default portfolios. While such segmentation might be
appropriate from the standpoint of internal use (e.g. pricing), for
purposes of assigning risk parameters for regulatory capital
purposes it might be more appropriate to combine sub-portfolios;
(iii) In some circumstances, different rating categories might be

combined and PDs analysed for the combined category. Islamic
banking institutions using rating systems that map to rating
agency categories might find it useful, for example, to combine
AAA, AA and A-rated credits, provided this is done in a manner
that is consistent with paragraphs 3.251 and 3.252 of the
Framework. This could enhance default data without necessarily
sacrificing the predictiveness or risk-sensitivity of the rating
system;
(iv) The upper bound of the PD estimate can be used as an input to

the RWA formula for those portfolios where the PD estimate itself
is deemed to be too unreliable to warrant direct inclusion in capital
adequacy calculations;
(v) Islamic banking institutions may derive PD estimates from data

with a horizon that is different from one year. Where defaults are
spread out over several years, an Islamic banking institution may
calculate a multi-year cumulative PD and then annualise the
resulting figure. Where intra-year rating migrations contain
additional information, these migrations could be analysed as
separate rating movements in order to infer PDs, which may be
especially useful for the higher-quality rating grades; and
(vi) If low default rates in a particular portfolio are the result of credit
support, the lowest non-default rating could be used as a proxy for
default (e.g. banking institutions, investment firms, thrifts, pension
funds, insurance/takaful firms) in order to develop ratings that
differentiate risks. When such an approach is taken, calibration of
such ratings to a PD consistent with IRB definition of default would

still be necessary.
3. While Islamic banking institutions would not be expected to utilise all of

these tools, the suitability and most appropriate combination of
individual tools and techniques will depend on the nature of the Islamic
banking institution and the characteristics of the specific portfolio.
Benchmarking tools for validation

4. In addition, where a scarcity of internal historical data makes it difficult
to meaningfully back-test risk rating predictions against realised
defaults, it may be possible to make greater use of various
benchmarking tools for validation. Among the tools that could
potentially be used are the following:
(i) Internal ratings and migration matrices could be compared with

the ratings and migrations of third parties such as rating agencies
or data pools, or with the ratings and migrations resulting from
other internal models;
(ii) Internal ratings could be benchmarked against internal or external

expert judgements, for example where a portfolio has not
experienced recent losses but where historical experience
suggests the risk of loss is greater than zero;
(iii) Internal ratings could be compared with market-based proxies for

credit quality, such as equity prices, bond spreads, or premiums
for credit derivatives;
(iv) An analysis of the rating characteristics of similarly rated

exposures could be undertaken; and
(v) The average rating output for the portfolio as a whole could be
compared with actual experience for the portfolio rather than
focusing on back-testing estimates for more narrowly defined
segments of the portfolio. Similarly, rating grades can be
combined in order to make back-testing more meaningful.
5. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather serve as a useful

guide of some benchmarking tools that might be useful in the case of
scarce internal loss data. It is important that Islamic banking institutions
utilise as many tools and techniques, as necessary to build confidence
and demonstrate the predictive ability of the credit risk rating systems.
Appendix XXVI Illustration on the treatment of underwriting exposures
Example
Bank A (applying the Standardised Approach for Credit Risk) extends a 5-year
underwriting Commercial Paper (CP) facility of RM5 million to Company ABC
on 1 September 2010. On 28 September 2010, Company ABC decides to
utilise the facility with a CP issuance of RM2 million.
Nominal amount of CP underwriting facility RM5 million

granted
Nominal amount of underwriting RM2 million
(drawn portion)
Rating and tenor P1 rated CP, 3 months
tenor
Date of fixing the rate (drawn portion) 28 September 2010
Date of issuance 1 October 2010
On 1 October 2010, the CP was issued where:

RM1.5 million was subscribed; and
RM0.5 million was unsubscribed, hence remained with Bank A.
Underwriting facility
extended Profit fixing date Issuance date
1 Aug 2010 28 Sept 2010 1 Oct 2010
a) Undrawn amount = RM5m b) Undrawn amount = RM3m d) Undrawn amount = RM3m

[Reported in the banking [Reported in the banking [Reported in the banking
book] book] book]
c) Drawn amount = RM2m e) Unsubscribed portion of

[Reported in the trading RM0.5 mil [Reported in the
book] trading book]
Reporting date Reporting date Reporting date

31 Aug 2010 30 Sept 2010 31 Oct 2010
At the reporting date 31 August 2010, where it falls between the profit
fixing date and issue date:
a) The undrawn amount is deemed as a banking book position and is
subject to the credit risk capital charge
RM5m x 50% x 8%
At the reporting date 30 September 2010, where it falls between the

profit fixing date and issue date:
b) The undrawn amount is deemed as a banking book position and is
RM3m x 50% x 8%
c) The drawn amount is deemed as a trading book position and is subject

to the market risk capital charge based on the maturity and rating of the
CP issued:
The general risk: RM2m x 50% x 0.2%
The specific risk: RM2m x 50% x 0.25%
At the reporting date 31 October 2010, where the CP has been issued
and Bank A holds RM0.5m of the unsubscribed portion:
d) The undrawn amount is deemed as a banking book position and is
RM3 mil x 50% x 8%
e) The unsubscribed portion is deemed as a trading book position (with

intention to sell down) and is subject to the market risk capital charge
based on the maturity and rating of the CP purchased:
The general risk: RM0.5m x 0.2%
The specific risk: RM0.5m x 0.25%
Appendix XXVII Definitions and General Terminologies
Asset-backed commercial paper (ABCP) programme

An ABCP programme predominantly issues commercial paper with an original
maturity of one year or less that is backed by assets or other exposures held
in a bankruptcy-remote SPV.
Credit enhancement
A credit enhancement is a contractual arrangement in which an Islamic
banking institution retains or assumes a securitisation exposure and, in
substance, provides some degree of added protection to other parties to the
transaction.
Credit-enhancing profit-only strip

A credit-enhancing profit-only strip is an on-balance sheet asset that
represents a valuation of cash flows related to future margin income and is
subordinated.
Excess spread
Excess spread is generally defined as gross finance charge collections and
other income received by the trust or SPV minus certificate profit, servicing
fees, charge-offs, and other senior SPV expenses.
Future margin income (FMI)

The amount of income anticipated to be generated by the relevant exposures
over a certain period of time that can reasonably be assumed to be available
to cover potential credit losses on the exposures (i.e. after covering normal
business expenses). FMI usually does not include income anticipated from
new accounts.
Gain-on-sale
Gain-on-sale is any residual interest retained by the originating Islamic
banking institution that is, an on-balance sheet asset that represents a
retained beneficial interest in a securitisation accounted for as a sale, and that
exposes the originating Islamic banking institution to any credit risk directly or
indirectly associated with the transferred asset, that exceeds a pro rata share
of that originating Islamic banking institutions claim on the asset.
Investment grade
A securitisation exposure is deemed to be of investment grade if an ECAI
recognised by the Bank has assigned it a rating within long-term rating
categories 1 to 3, or short-term rating categories 1 to 3 (as defined in
paragraph 7.11).
Originating Islamic banking institution

An Islamic banking institution is considered to be an originator in a
securitisation transaction if it meets either of the following conditions:
the Islamic banking institution originates directly or indirectly (e.g. an
Islamic banking institution purchases a third party financial instrument via
its balance sheet or acquires credit risk through credit derivatives and
subsequently sells or transfers to an SPV) the underlying exposures
included in the securitisation; or
the Islamic banking institution serves as a sponsor of an ABCP conduit or
similar programme that acquires exposures from third-party entities. In the
context of such a program, an Islamic banking institution would generally
be considered a sponsor and, in turn, an originator if it, in fact or in
substance, manages or advises the programme, places sukuk into the
market, or provides liquidity and/or credit enhancements.
Residual interest
Residual interest can take several forms such as credit-enhancing profit-only
strips, spread accounts, cash collateral/reserve accounts, retained
subordinated interests and other forms of over-collateralisation, accrued but
uncollected returns on transferred assets (presumably in credit card
securitisations) that when collected, will be available to serve in a credit-
enhancing capacity. Residual interest generally does not include profit
purchased from a third party other than the purchased credit-enhancing profit-
only strips.
Servicer
A servicer is one (typically the originating Islamic banking institution) that
manages the underlying credit exposures of a securitisation on a day-to-day
basis in terms of collection of principal and profit, which is then forwarded to
investors in the securitisation transaction.
Special purpose vehicle (SPV)

An SPV is an entity set up for a specific purpose, the activities of which are
limited to those necessary to accomplish the purpose of the SPV, and the
structure of which is intended to isolate the SPV from the credit risk of an
originator or seller of the exposures. SPVs are commonly used as financing
vehicles in which exposures are sold to a SPV or similar entity in exchange for
cash or other assets funded by sukuk issued by the SPV.
Traditional securitisation
Sukk structured under traditional securitisation involves the following:
i) a transfer of an underlying pool of exposures to a SPV which issues
asset-backed Sukk to capital market investors;
ii) the cash flow generated from the underlying pool of exposures is used
to service at least two different stratified risk positions or tranches
reflecting different degrees of credit risk. This would involve any
structures with stratified risk position or tranches resulting in the junior
positions absorbing losses for the more senior positions which can be
achieved via credit rating tranches as well as credit enhancements
(e.g. overcollateralisation, reserves account in the SPV); and
iii) investors are exposed to the risk and performance of the specified
underlying exposures rather than the performance of the originator of
the underlying exposures. Where investors are exposed to the risk and
performance of both the underlying exposure and the originator,
investors shall apply the requirements in the Securitisation Framework.
Appendix XXVIII Legal Requirements and Regulatory Process
Sale/ Transfer of assets

While Islamic banking institutions may adopt various methods of legal transfer
(please refer to Appendix XXIX for examples of methods of legal transfer), the
method employed should seek to minimise legal risks 278 to the originating
Islamic banking institution. Regardless of the method to be adopted for the
transfer, all potential legal risks must be identified and adequately disclosed,
when and where appropriate (for example, in the information memorandum for
investors).
Secrecy requirements Section 34 of IBA

Pursuant to subsection 34(3) of the IBA, an Islamic banking institution is not
permitted to disclose to any person, information or documents relating to the
accounts of its customers. Prior approval of the Bank must be obtained under
subsection 34(3) of the IBA for the disclosure of customer-related information,
to third parties to facilitate the necessary procedures to effect securitisation
transactions such as due diligence and credit rating assessments. In cases
where financing documentation already provides for customers permission for
the disclosure of his information, the Banks consent pursuant to subsection
34(3) of the IBA is not required.
The Bank gives its consent, on a case-by-case basis, pursuant to subsection

34(3) of the IBA, to legal counsel, reporting accountants, and any other parties
as the case may require, specifically appointed to facilitate the conduct of due
diligence processes or credit rating assessments. Applications for the Banks
consent under subsection 34(3) of the IBA should include the following
information:
278
Islamic banking institutions shall assess the relevance of legal requirements including
Section 22(1)(a)(i) of IBA, where Islamic bank is required to obtain the prior approval of
the Minister of Finance (MOF) for the sale or disposal of its shares or business which will
result in a change in the control or management of the Islamic bank.
time period required by the legal counsel and accountants to conduct the
due diligence (for revolving securitisation schemes, the Bank may grant
such approval for the entire revolving period);
names of legal and accounting firms including names and identity card
numbers of individual staff involved in the exercise; and
justification for the need to disclose customer information to the identified
parties.
In the case where the Banks consent is obtained under subsection 34(3) of
the IBA, Islamic banking institutions must incorporate in the sale and purchase
agreement, the requirement for the buyer/SPV to preserve the confidentiality
of customers information. Should due diligence become necessary in the
case of an asset replenishment, a separate application for the Banks consent
under subsection 34(3) of the IBA should be sought unless the customers
consent has already been obtained earlier.
Disclosure requirements for financing disposed under the Debt

Management Programme
Islamic banking institutions that dispose financing which are under the Debt
Management Programme (DMP) of the Credit Counselling and Debt
Management Agency are required to take appropriate actions to secure the
commitment of buyers of the financings to continue to abide by the terms and
conditions of the DMP, as long as the borrower continues to comply with the
DMP. Islamic banking institutions should also ensure that borrowers are
informed of the disposal of their financing to third parties, irrespective of
whether prior consent has been obtained from the borrower for the sale or
transfer of their financing.
Application for Capital Relief

Originating Islamic banking institutions applying for capital relief for their
securitisation transactions are required to submit the following to the Bank:
a confirmation of compliance by senior management against the
operational requirements for traditional securitisation, as outlined in Part
F.2. The statement should be supported by relevant information e.g. legal
opinion confirming the legality of the sale of assets or enforceability of the

contracts.
a risk management self assessment, in line with the requirements of
paragraph 20.2 of Part C of this framework, which details information
regarding:
the role(s) of the Islamic banking institution in the securitisation
transaction describing the purpose, nature, extent and risk
implications arising from the role(s); and
risk management policies and procedures that will be implemented
to address any potential risk issues.
The above submission to the Bank should be validated and signed-off by an
appropriate level of authority within senior management of the Islamic banking
institution.
Regulatory process and submission of applications to Bank Negara

Malaysia
Regardless of whether capital relief is being sought or not, the following
transaction information should be maintained by originating Islamic banking
institutions upon the completion of the transaction (issuance of notes), and
made available to the Bank upon request:
Final rating report
Principle terms and conditions of transaction
Information memorandum
Legal opinion of true sale
Opinion of accounting treatment
The latest risk management self assessment in accordance with
paragraph 7.2 of Prudential Standards on Securitisation Transaction for
Islamic Banks, which details information regarding:
o the role(s) of the Islamic banking institution in the securitisation
transaction describing the purpose, nature, extent and risk
implications arising from the role(s); and
o risk management policies and procedures that will be implemented to
address any potential risk issues
The above submission to the Bank should be validated and signed-off by an

appropriate level of authority within senior management of the Islamic banking
institution.
Regulatory process and submission of applications to Bank Negara

Malaysia
Regardless of whether capital relief is being sought or not, the following
transaction information should be maintained by originating Islamic banking
institutions upon the completion of the transaction (issuance of notes), and
made available to the Bank upon request:
Final rating report
Principle terms and conditions of transaction
Information memorandum
Legal opinion of true sale
Opinion of accounting treatment
The latest risk management self assessment in accordance with
paragraph 7.2 of Prudential Standards on Securitisation Transaction for
Islamic Banks.
Where relevant, regulatory applications should be directed to:

Pengarah
Jabatan Penyeliaan Perbankan or
Jabatan Penyeliaan Konglomerat Kewangan (as applicable)
Bank Negara Malaysia
Jalan Dato Onn
50480 Kuala Lumpur
Where securitisation transactions involve the Exchange Control Act 1953,

Islamic banking institutions should ensure that the necessary approvals, if
any, on such matters are sought from:
Pengarah
Jabatan Pentadbiran Pertukaran Asing
Bank Negara Malaysia
Jalan Dato Onn

50480 Kuala Lumpur
Note: The above list of legal and regulatory requirements is non-exhaustive.

Hence, Islamic banking institutions are also required to ensure compliance
with all other relevant requirements, if any.
Appendix XXIX Methods of Legal Transfer
Novation
The transfer involves a tripartite arrangement whereby the two parties to the
original contract, the originator and the borrower, agree with the SPV that the
SPV shall become a substitute for the originator thus assuming the
originators rights and obligations under the original contract. This method is
considered the cleanest transfer. However, it may involve legal procedures
and requirements such as obtaining the signature of borrowers as a party to
the novation agreement effecting the transfer of assets and titles, legal fees,
stamp duty, etc.
Assignment
An assignment may also achieve an effective transfer of the sellers rights to
the principal sum and profit, usually with the exclusion of certain obligations.
However, there is potential risk that some rights may not be effectively
assigned, thus resulting in the impairment of the buyers entitlements to
certain rights accrued between the borrower and the seller, such as the late
payment fee, prepayment charges, late payment charges, repossession of
collateral, and set-off arrangements (for example, netting of obligations).
Another constraint is the restriction on the assignability of financing that may
be imposed in financing agreements prohibiting any assignment to third
parties without the consent of the parties to the agreement.
In the case of a legal assignment, the seller will notify the borrower that the
rights to the assets are being assigned to the buyer. This notification will
ensure that the buyers rights are not impaired by other intervening rights, or
at the minimum, the seller should provide a warranty that all rights to the
principal sum and profit are being assigned and no other right exists.
In the case of an equitable assignment where notice of the transfer is not

given to the borrowers (due to impracticality, etc), the SPV buyer and
consequently the investors are exposed to potential legal risks (where the
transfer is not perfected). For example, investors may lose priority to the
holder of a legal assignment that may be created subsequently by the
seller/originator. Another legal risk concerns the fact that the buyer or investor
may not have direct rights against the obligor and needs to join the
seller/originator in any legal action initiated against the obligor with respect to
the receivables. Similarly, in cases where obligors obligation is offset with its
deposit (that is, enforceable on-balance sheet netting), unless the SPVs claim
is perfected, there is a risk that the SPV may not be entitled to the full amount
due from the obligor.
Appendix XXX Comparison of Asset-based Sukk and Asset-backed

Sukk
Example of Asset-based Sukk Ijarah (sale & lease-back)
1. Originator sells property to SPV

and receives proceeds from Sukk
issuance
2. Issues Sukk
Originator/
Lessee SPV Sukk holders
3 (a) SPV/Sukukholders leases property 3 (b) Profit distributions

back to originator. SPV receives rental
proceeds from originator (who is now also
the lessee).
4. Upon maturity, originator is obligated to

repurchase property for redemption of the
principal amount
Example of Asset-backed Sukk Ijarah
1. Originator sells property to SPV & 2. Issue Sukk

receives proceeds from Sukk issuance
Sukk holders
Originator SPV
3 (b) Profit distributions
Tenants/ 4. Upon maturity, since there is no

Lessee repurchase undertaking of underlying asset
from originator, sukk holders may obtain
3 (a) SPV leases the property to the principal amount via disposal of
tenants and receives rental underlying asset to 3rd party
proceeds from tenants (i.e. lesses)
Appendix XXXI Eligibility Criteria for Off-Balance Sheet Securitisation

Exposures
Eligible liquidity facilities

1. An off-balance sheet securitisation exposure can be classified as an
eligible liquidity facility, if the following conditions are met:
a. The facility documentation must clearly identify and limit the
circumstances under which it may be drawn. Draws under the facility
must be limited to the amount that is likely to be repaid fully from the
liquidation of the underlying exposures and any credit enhancements
provided by parties other than the Islamic banking institutions
providing the liquidity facility. In addition, the facility must not cover
any losses incurred in the underlying pool of exposures prior to a
draw, or be structured such that draw-down is certain (as indicated
by regular or continuous draws);
b. The facility must be subject to an asset quality test that precludes it
from being drawn to cover credit risk exposures that are in default as
defined in Appendix III of CAFIB. In addition, if the exposures that a
liquidity facility is required to fund are externally rated sukuk, the
facility can only be used to fund such sukuk that are rated at least
investment grade at the time of funding;
c. The facility cannot be drawn after all applicable (e.g. transaction-
specific and programme-wide) credit enhancements from which the
liquidity would benefit have been exhausted; and
d. Repayment of draws on the facility (e.g. cash flow generated from
underlying assets acquired by the SPV) must not be subordinated to
any interests of any note holder in the programme (e.g. ABCP
programme) or subject to any deferral or waiver.
Eligible services cash advance facilities

2. Undrawn cash advances extended by an Islamic banking institutions
acting as a servicer of a securitisation, to facilitate an uninterrupted flow
of payments to investors, can be classified as an eligible servicer cash

advance facility, if the following conditions are met:
a. the provision of such facilities must be contracted;
b. the undrawn cash advances or facilities must be unconditionally
cancellable at the discretion of the servicer without prior notice;
c. the servicer is entitled to full reimbursement and this right is senior
to other claims on cash flows from the underlying pool of exposures;
and
d. such cash advances should not act as a credit enhancement to the
securitisation.
Eligible underwriting facilities

3. An off-balance sheet securitisation exposure can be classified as an
eligible underwriting facility, if the following conditions are met:
a. the underwriting facility must be clearly documented with the
specified amount and time period of the facility stipulated. The
facility should be separated from any other facility provided by the
Islamic banking institution;
b. the facility is cancellable at the discretion of the Islamic banking
institution within a reasonable period of notice; and
c. a market exists for the type of underwritten sukuk.
Appendix XXXII Securitisation with Early Amortisation Provisions
1. An originating Islamic banking institution is required to hold capital against

all or a portion of the investors interest (i.e. against both the drawn and
undrawn balances related to the securitised exposures) when it sells
revolving exposures into a structure that contains an early amortisation
feature in the following manner:
Capital requirement for originating Islamic banking institutions
= (Investors interest279) x CCF x (Risk weight of underlying exposures)
2. The total capital charge for all of its positions will be subject to a maximum
capital requirement equal to the greater of:
a. the capital required for retained securitisation exposures; or
b. the capital requirement that would apply had the exposures not
been securitised.
3. The specific credit conversion factors (CCFs) to be applied depend upon

whether the early amortisation repays investors through a controlled or
non-controlled mechanism.
4. For the purpose of the Securitisation Framework, a controlled early

amortisation provision must meet all of the following conditions:
a. an appropriate capital or liquidity plan is in place to ensure that
sufficient capital and liquidity is available in the event of an early
amortisation;
b. returns, principal, expenses, losses and recoveries are shared on a
pro-rata basis according to the Islamic banking institutions and
investors relative shares of the receivables outstanding at the
beginning of each month. The same pro-rata share should be
279
Investors interest refers to the share of investors in the principal amount of drawn
balances and the credit equivalent amount of the undrawn balances, relating to the
securitised exposures.
applied throughout the duration of the transaction, including the

amortisation period;
c. a period for amortisation has been set, which should be sufficient
for at least 90% of the total debt outstanding at the beginning of the
early amortisation period to have been repaid or recognised as in
default; and
d. the pace of repayment should not be any more rapid than would be
allowed by straight-line amortisation over the period set out in
criterion (c).
5. An early amortisation provision that does not satisfy the conditions above
will be treated as a non-controlled early amortisation.
6. The CCFs to be applied depends on whether the securitised exposures

are uncommitted retail credit lines (e.g. credit card receivables) or other
credit lines (e.g. revolving corporate facilities). A credit line is considered
uncommitted if it is unconditionally cancellable without prior notice.
7. The capital requirement outlined in this Appendix does not apply under
the following circumstances:
a. where the securitisation transaction includes a replenishment
structure under which the replenished exposures are not revolving
in nature and the early amortisation ends the ability of the
originating Islamic banking institutions to add new exposures;
b. where the transaction has features that mirror a term structure (i.e.
where the risk on the underlying exposures does not return to the
originating Islamic banking institution);
c. a structure where investors remain fully exposed to future drawings
by borrowers in respect of the revolving underlying exposures even
after an early amortisation event has occurred; and
d. the early amortisation clause is solely triggered by events not
related to the performance of the securitised assets or the
originating Islamic banking institution, such as material changes in

tax laws or regulations.
Determination of CCFs for controlled early amortisation features

Uncommitted retail exposures
8. For uncommitted retail credit lines (e.g. credit card receivables) in
securitisations containing controlled early amortisation features, Islamic
banking institutions must compare the three-month average excess
spread to the point at which the originating Islamic banking institution is
required to trap excess spread as stipulated under the terms of the
securitisation structure (i.e. excess spread trapping point).
9. In cases where such a transaction does not require excess spread to be

trapped, the trapping point is deemed to be 4.5 percentage points.
10. Islamic banking institutions must divide the excess spread level by the
transactions excess spread trapping point, to determine the appropriate
segments and apply the corresponding CCF, as outlined in the following
table.
Controlled early amortisation features
Uncommitted Committed
3-month average excess spread
Credit Conversion Factor (CCF)
133.33% of trapping point or more 0% CCF
less than 133.33% to 100% of
Retail 1% CCF
trapping point
credit 90% CCF
less than 100% to 75% of trapping
lines 2% CCF
point
10% CCF
point
20% CCF
point
Less than 25% of trapping point 40% CCF
Non-retail
credit 90% CCF 90% CCF
lines
Other exposures
11. All other securitised revolving exposures (i.e. those that are committed
and all non-retail exposures) with controlled early amortisation features
will be subject to a CCF of 90% against the off-balance sheet exposures.
Determination of CCF for non-controlled early amortisation features

12. Early amortisation features that do not satisfy the definition of a controlled
early amortisation will be considered non-controlled and treated as
follows:
Uncommitted retail exposures

13. For uncommitted retail credit lines (e.g. credit card receivables) in
securitisations containing non-controlled early amortisation features,
Islamic banking institutions must compare the three-month average
excess spread to the point at which the Islamic banking institution is
required to trap excess spread under the terms of the securitisation
structure (i.e. excess spread trapping point). In cases where such a
transaction does not require excess spread to be trapped, the trapping
point is deemed to be 4.5 percentage points. The excess spread level
shall be divided by the transactions excess spread trapping point to
determine the appropriate segments and apply the corresponding credit
conversion factors, as outlined in the following table.
Non-controlled early amortisation features
3-month average excess spread

Credit Conversion Factor (CCF)
133.33% of trapping point or more 0% CCF
Retail less than 133.33% to 100% of trapping
5% CCF
credit point 100% CCF
lines
Less than 100% to 75% of trapping point 15% CCF
less than 75% to 50% of trapping point 50% CCF
less than 50% of trapping point 100% CCF

Non-retail
credit 100% CCF 100% CCF
lines
Other exposures
14. All other securitised revolving exposures (i.e. those that are committed
and all non-retail exposures) with non-controlled early amortisation
features will be subject to a CCF of 100% against the off-balance sheet
exposures.
Pools comprising both revolving and term exposures

15. For securitisation structures wherein the underlying pool comprises both
revolving and term exposures, the originating Islamic banking institution
must apply the relevant early amortisation treatment to that portion of the
underlying pool containing revolving exposures.

CAFIB (RWA) PD 02032017 - N

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CAFIB (RWA) PD 02032017 - N

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CAFIB (RWA) PD 02032017 - N

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Capital Adequacy Framework

for Islamic Banks

Issued on: 2 March 2017

PART A OVERVIEW ................................................................................ 1

A.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................ 1

A.2 APPLICABILITY ........................................................................ 3

A.3 LEGAL PROVISION .................................................................. 3

A.4 LEVEL OF APPLICABILITY ...................................................... 3

B.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 5

B.2 THE STANDARDISED APPROACH FOR CREDIT RISK ......... 7

B.2.1 EXTERNAL CREDIT ASSESSMENTS ...................................... 7

B.2.2 DEFINITION OF EXPOSURES ................................................ 11

B.2.3 TREATMENT FOR THE COMPUTATION OF CREDIT RISK-

Issued on: 2 March 2017

B.2.4 OFF-BALANCE SHEET ITEMS ............................................... 43

B.2.5 CREDIT RISK MITIGATION .................................................... 47

B.3 THE INTERNAL RATINGS BASED APPROACH ................... 68

B.3.1 ADOPTION OF THE IRB APPROACH .................................... 68

B.3.2 CATEGORIES OF EXPOSURES............................................. 77

B.3.3 RISK COMPONENTS .............................................................. 89

B.3.4 CREDIT RISK MITIGATION (CRM) ....................................... 104

Issued on: 2 March 2017

B.3.5 RISK-WEIGHTED ASSETS ................................................... 130

B.3.6 CALCULATION OF MINIMUM CAPITAL REQUIREMENT ... 148

B.3.7 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE IRB APPROACH .... 155

B.3.8 QUALIFICATION ................................................................... 224

C.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 230

C.1.1 SOUND PRACTICES FOR OPERATIONAL RISK

C.2 THE BASIC INDICATOR APPROACH (BIA) ........................ 231

C.3 THE STANDARDISED APPROACH AND ALTERNATIVE

C.3.1 THE STANDARDISED APPROACH (TSA) ........................... 234

Issued on: 2 March 2017

C.3.2 THE ALTERNATIVE STANDARDISED APPROACH (ASA) 239

D.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 243

D.1.1 PRUDENT VALUATION GUIDANCE .................................... 245

D.1.2 CLASSIFICATION OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ............ 249

D.1.3 TREATMENT OF MONEY MARKET INSTRUMENTS IN

D.1.4 TREATMENT OF COUNTERPARTY CREDIT RISK IN THE

D.2 THE STANDARDISED MARKET RISK APPROACH............ 257

D.2.1 BENCHMARK RATE RISKS ................................................. 257

Issued on: 2 March 2017

Treatment of Profit Rate Derivatives, Sell and Buy Back

D.2.2 EQUITY POSITION RISK ...................................................... 276

D.2.3 FOREIGN EXCHANGE RISK (INCLUDING GOLD AND

D.2.4 COMMODITIES RISK ............................................................ 284

D.2.5 INVENTORY RISK ................................................................. 294

D.2.6 TREATMENT OF OPTIONS .................................................. 301

D.3 INTERNAL MODELS APPROACH........................................ 321

Issued on: 2 March 2017

D.3.1 COMBINATION OF INTERNAL MODELS AND THE

D.3.2 QUALITATIVE STANDARDS ................................................ 324

D.3.3 QUANTITATIVE STANDARDS ............................................. 327

D.3.4 SPECIFICATION OF MARKET RISK FACTORS .................. 330

D.3.5 MODELLING OF SPECIFIC RISK ......................................... 333

D.3.6 STRESS TESTING................................................................. 337

D.3.7 MODEL VALIDATION STANDARDS .................................... 340

D.3.8 MODEL REVIEW ................................................................... 342

D.3.9 FRAMEWORK FOR THE USE OF BACK TESTING............. 343