| RBI
No.2006-2007/58 IDMD.PDRS.03
/03.64.00/2007-08 July
02, 2007 To
all standalone Primary Dealers in the Government Securities Market.
Dear Sir Master
Circular on Capital Adequacy Standards and Risk Management
Guidelines for standalone Primary Dealers Please
refer to our Master Circular IDMD.PDRS. 457/03.64.00/2006-07 dated
August 02, 2006 on the captioned subject. As no modification/changes to the
guidelines have been made by the Reserve bank during the year 2006-07, the same
Master Circular stands valid. Yours
faithfully
(G. Mahalingam) Chief
General Mana
RBI
No. 2006-07/ 97 IDMD.PDRS.
457 /03.64.00/2006-07. August
2, 2006 To
all standalone Primary Dealers in the Government Securities Market. Dear
Sirs, Master
Circular on Capital Adequacy Standards and Risk Management
Guidelines for standalone Primary Dealers Please
refer to our circular IDMD.1/(PDRS)03.64.00/2003-04 dated January 07, 2004
prescribing capital adequacy standards and risk management guidelines for Primary
Dealers (PDs). This
Master Circular is being issued incorporating the guidelines on issue of Subordinated
Debt Instruments under Tier II and Tier III Capital and capital charge for market
risk arising out of diversification of activities by Primary Dealers and reporting
of risk arising out of derivative business. Please
acknowledge receipt. Yours
faithfully,
(G. Mahalingam) Chief
General Manager-in-Charg
ANNEX Annex
A Annex B Annex C Annex
D Appendix
I- V Annex
E Annex
F Annex
G Annex
H
ANNEX CAPITAL
FUNDS & CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS General
Guidelines 1.0
General 1.1
Capital adequacy standards for Primary Dealers in Government Securities market
have been in vogue since December 2000. The guidelines were revised keeping in
view the developments in the market, experience gained over time and introduction
of new products like exchange traded derivatives. The revised guidelines were
issued vide circular IDMD.1/(PDRS)03.64.00/2003-04 dated January 07, 2004.
The present circular has been updated with the guidelines on capital requirements
issued subsequent to the aforesaid circular. 2.0
Capital Funds Capital
Funds would include the following elements: 2.1
Tier-I Capital Tier-I
Capital would mean paid-up capital, statutory reserves and other disclosed free
reserves. Investment in subsidiaries where applicable, intangible assets, losses
in current accounting period, deferred tax asset (DTA) and losses brought
forward from previous accounting periods will be deducted from the Tier I capital.
In
case any PD is having substantial interest/ (as defined for NBFCs) exposure by
way of loans and advances not related to business relationship in other Group
companies, such amounts will be deducted from its Tier I capital. 2.2
Tier-II capital Tier
II capital includes the following:- (i)
Undisclosed reserves and cumulative preference shares other than those which are
compulsorily convertible into equity. Cumulative Preferential shares should be
fully paid-up and should not contain clauses which permit redemption by the holder. (ii)
Revaluation reserves discounted at a rate of fifty five percent; (iii)
General provisions and loss reserves to the extent these are not attributable
to actual diminution in value or identifiable potential loss in any specific asset
and are available to meet unexpected losses, up to the maximum of 1.25 percent
of total risk weighted assets; (iv)
Hybrid debt capital instruments, which combine certain characteristics of equity
and certain characteristics of debt. Subordinated
debt: a)
To be eligible for inclusion in Tier II capital, the instrument should be fully
paid-up, unsecured, subordinated to the claims of other creditors, free of restrictive
clauses, and should not be redeemable at the initiative of the holder or without
the consent of the Reserve Bank of India. It often carries a fixed maturity, and
as it approaches maturity, it should be subjected to progressive discount, for
inclusion in Tier II capital. Instruments with an initial maturity of less than
5 years or with a remaining maturity of one year should not be included as part
of Tier II capital. Subordinated debt instruments eligible to be reckoned as Tier
II capital will be limited to 50 percent of Tier I capital. b)
The subordinated debt instruments included in Tier II capital may be subjected
to discount at the rates shown below:
| Remaining
Maturity of Instruments |
Rate
of Discount (%) | |
Less
than one year |
100 |
| One
year and more but less than two years |
80 |
| Two
years and more but less than three years |
60 |
| Three
years and more but less than four years |
40 |
| Four
years and more but less than five years |
20 |
2.3
Tier – III Capital Tier
III capital is the capital issued to meet solely the market risk capital charge
in accordance with the criteria as laid down below. The
principal form of eligible capital to cover market risk consists of shareholders'
and retained earnings (Tier I Capital) and supplementary capital (Tier II Capital).
But PDs may also employ a third tier of capital ('Tier III'), consisting of short-term
subordinated debt, as defined below, for the sole purpose of meeting a portion
of the capital requirements for market risks. For
short-term subordinated debt to be eligible as Tier III Capital, it needs, if
circumstances demand, to be capable of becoming part of PD's permanent capital
and available to absorb losses in the event of insolvency. It must, therefore,
at a minimum; (i)
be unsecured, subordinated and fully paid up; (ii)
have an original maturity of at least two years; (iii)
not be repayable before the agreed repayment date unless the RBI agrees; (iv)
be subject to a lock-in clause that neither interest nor principal may be paid
(even at maturity) if such payment means that the PD falls below or remains below
its minimum capital requirement. 2.4
Guidelines on Subordinated Debt Instruments Guidelines
relating to the issue of Subordinated Debt Instruments under Tier II and Tier
III Capital are furnished below: i)
The amount of Subordinated Debt to be raised may be decided by the Board of Directors
of the PD. ii)
The interest rate spread of the instrument over the yield of equal residual maturity
of the Government of India dated security at the time of issue shall not exceed
200 bps. iii)
The instruments should be 'plain vanilla' with no special features like options,
etc. iv)
The debt securities shall carry a credit rating from a Credit Rating Agency registered
with the Securities and Exchange Board of India. v)
The issue of Subordinated Debt instruments should comply with the guidelines issued
by SEBI vide their circular SEBI/MRD/SE /AT/36/2003/30/09 dated September 30,
2003 as amended from time to time, wherever applicable. vi)
In case of issue of unlisted issues of Subordinated Debt, the disclosure requirements
as prescribed by the SEBI for listed companies in terms of the above guidelines
should be complied with. vii)
Necessary permission from the Foreign Exchange Department of the Reserve Bank
of India should be obtained for issuing the instruments to NRIs/FIIs. PDs should
comply with the terms and conditions, if any, prescribed by SEBI/other regulatory
authorities in regard to issue of the instruments. viii)
Investments by PDs in Subordinated Debt of other PDs/banks will be assigned 100%
risk weight for capital adequacy purpose. Further, the PD’s aggregate investments
in Tiers II and III bonds issued by other PDs, banks and financial institutions
shall be restricted upto 5 percent of the investing PD's total capital. The capital
for this purpose will be the same as that reckoned for the purpose of capital
adequacy. ix)
The PDs should submit a report to the Internal Debt Management Department, Reserve
Bank of India giving details of the capital raised, such as, amount raised, maturity
of the instrument, rate of interest together with a copy of the offer document,
soon after the issue is completed. 2.5
Minimum Requirement of Capital Funds PDs
are required to maintain a minimum Capital to Risk-weighted Assets Ratio (CRAR)
norm of 15 percent on an ongoing basis. In
calculating eligible capital, it will be necessary first to calculate the PDs’
minimum capital requirement for credit risk, and thereafter its market risk requirement,
to establish how much Tier I and Tier II capital is available to support market
risk. Eligible capital will be the sum of the whole of the PDs’ Tier I capital,
plus all of its Tier II capital under the limits imposed as summarized in Annex
C. Tier III capital will be regarded as eligible only if it meets the criteria
set out in para 2.3 above. 3.0
Measurement of Risk Weighted Assets: The
details of credit risk weights for the various on-balance sheet items and off-balance
sheet items based on the degree of credit risk and methodology of computing the
risk weighted assets for the credit risk are listed in Annex A. The procedure
for calculating capital charge for market risk is detailed in Annex B. In
order to ensure consistency in the calculation of the capital requirements for
credit and market risks, an explicit numerical link will be created by multiplying
the measure of market risk by 6.67 (i.e., the reciprocal of the credit risk ratio
of 15%) and adding the resulting figure to the sum of risk-weighted assets compiled
for credit risk purposes. The ratio will then be calculated in relation to the
sum of the two, using as the numerator only eligible capital as given in Annex
C. 4.0
Regulatory reporting of Capital adequacy: All
PDs should report the position of their capital adequacy in PDR III return on
a quarterly basis. The PDR III statement is given in Annex D. 5.0
Diversification of PD Activities 5.1
The guidelines on diversification of activities by stand-alone Primary Dealers
have been issued vide circular IDMD. PDRS.26/03.64.00/2006-07 dated July 4, 2006. 5.2
The capital charge for market risk (Value-at-Risk calculated at 99 per cent confidence
interval, 15-day holding period, with multiplier of 3.3) for the activities defined
below should not be more than 20 per cent of the NOF as per the last audited balance
sheet: 1.
Investment / trading in equity and equity derivatives 2.
Investment in units of equity oriented mutual funds 3.
Underwriting public issues of equity 5.3
PDs may calculate the capital charge for market risk on the stock positions /
underlying stock positions/ units of equity oriented mutual funds using Internal
Models (Value-at-Risk based) based on the guidelines prescribed in Appendix
III of Annex D. PDs may continue to provide for credit risk arising
out of equity, equity derivatives and equity oriented mutual funds as prescribed
Annex A. 6.0
Risk reporting of derivatives business In
order to capture interest rate risk arising out of interest rate derivative business,
all PDs are advised to report the interest rate derivative transactions, as per
the format enclosed in Annex G, to the Chief General Manager, Internal
Debt Management Department, RBI, Central Office, Mumbai, as on last Friday of
every month.
Annex
A CAPITAL
ADEQUACY FOR CREDIT RISK Risk
weights for calculation of CRAR (a)
On-Balance Sheet assets All
the on-balance sheet items are assigned percentage weights as per degree of credit
risk. The value of each asset/item is to be multiplied by the relevant risk weight
to arrive at risk adjusted value of the asset, as detailed below. The aggregate
of the Risk Weighted Assets will be taken into account for reckoning the minimum
capital ratio.
| Nature
of asset/item |
Percentage
weight | |
(i) |
Cash balances
and balances in Current |
0 |
| |
Account
with RBI | |
| | | | |
| (ii) |
Amounts
lent in call/notice money market/ |
20 |
| |
Other money
market instruments of banks/ | |
| |
FIs including
CDs and balances in Current | |
| |
account
with banks | |
| | | | |
| (iii) |
Investments | |
| | | | |
| |
(a) |
`Government’securities/‘Approved’securities
guaranteed by Central/State Governments |
0 |
| | |
[other than
at (e) below] | |
| | | | |
| |
(b) |
Fixed Deposits,
Bonds of banks and FIs |
20 |
| | |
(as specified
by DBOD) | |
| | | | |
| |
(c) |
Bonds issued
by banks/Financial Institutions |
100 |
| | |
as Tier
II capital | |
| | | | |
| |
(d) |
Shares of
all Companies and |
100 |
| | |
debentures/bonds/Commercial
| | | | |
Paper of
Companies other than in (b) | |
| | |
above/units
of mutual funds | |
| | | | |
| |
(e) |
Securities
of Public Sector Undertakings |
20 |
| | |
guaranteed
by Government but issued | |
| | |
outside
the market borrowing programme | |
| | | | |
| |
(f) |
Securities
of and other claims on |
100 |
| | |
Primary
Dealers including rediscounting of | |
| | |
bills discounted
by other PDs | |
| | | | |
| |
(g) |
Bills discounted
by banks/FIs that are |
20 |
| | |
Rediscounted | |
| | | | |
| (iv) |
Current
assets | |
| | | | |
| |
(a) |
Inter-corporate
deposits | 100 |
| | | | |
| |
(b) |
Loans to
staff | 100 |
| | | | |
| |
(c) |
Other secured
loans and advances | |
| | |
considered
good | 100 |
| | | | |
| |
(d) |
Bills purchased/discounted |
100 |
| |
(e) |
Others (to
be specified) | 100 |
| | | | |
| (v) |
Fixed
Assets (net of depreciation) | |
| | | | |
| |
(a) |
Assets leased
out (net book value) |
100 |
| | | | |
| |
(b) |
Fixed Assets |
100 |
| | | | |
| (vi) |
Other
assets | |
| | | | |
| |
(a) |
Income tax
deducted at | |
| | |
source (net
of provision) | 0 |
| | | | |
| |
(b) |
Advance
tax paid (net of provision) |
0 |
| | | | |
| |
(c) |
Interest
accrued on Government securities |
0 |
| | | | |
| |
(d) |
Others (to
be specified and risk weight |
x |
| |
|
indicated
as per counter party) |
|
| Notes : |
(1) |
Netting may be done only
in respect of assets where provisions for depreciation or for bad and doubtful
debts have been made. |
|
| |
(2) |
Assets which have been deducted
from capital fund as at `Capital Funds’ above, shall have a risk weight of `zero’. |
|
| |
(3) |
The PDs net off the Current
Liabilities and Provisions from the Current Assets, Loans and Advances in their
Balance Sheet, as the Balance Sheet is drawn up as per the format prescribed under
the Companies Act. For capital adequacy purposes, no such netting off should be
done except to the extent indicated above. |
|
(b)
Off-Balance Sheet items The
credit risk exposure attached to off-Balance Sheet items has to be first calculated
by multiplying the face value of each of the off-Balance Sheet items by ‘credit
conversion factor’ as indicated in the table below. This will then have to be
again multiplied by the weights attributable to the relevant counter-party as
specified above under balance sheet items.
| |
Nature
of item |
Credit
conversion | | | |
factor
percentage | |
i) |
Financial
guarantees considered |
100 |
| |
as
credit substitutes | |
| | | |
| ii) |
Other
guarantees |
50 |
| | | |
| iii) |
Share/debenture/stock |
50 |
| |
underwritten
| |
| | | |
| iv) |
Partly-paid
shares/debentures/other securities |
100 |
| |
and
actual devolvement | |
| | | |
| v) |
Notional
Equity /Index position underlying the equity Derivatives * |
100 |
| | | |
| vi) |
Bills
discounted/rediscounted |
100 |
| | | |
| vii) |
Repurchase
agreements (e.g. buy/sell) |
100 |
| |
where
the credit risk remains with the PD | |
| | | |
| viii) |
Other
contingent liabilities/ |
50 |
| |
commitments
like standby facility with | |
| |
original
maturity of over one year | |
| | | |
| ix) |
Similar
contingent liabilities/ |
0 |
| |
commitments
with original maturity of | |
| |
upto
one year or which can be uncondi- | |
| |
tionally
cancelled at any time | |
*
For guidelines on calculation of notional positions underlying the equity derivatives,
please refer to section A.2, Annex B (Measurement of Market Risk) Note:
Cash margins/deposits shall be deducted before applying the Conversion Factor. (c)
Interest Rate Contracts For
the trading/hedging positions in Interest Rate related contracts, such as, interest
rate swaps, forward rate agreements, basis swaps, interest rate futures, interest
rate options, exchange traded interest rate derivatives and other contracts of
similar nature, risk weighted asset and the minimum capital ratio will be calculated
as per the two steps given below. Step
1 The
notional principal amount of each instrument is to be multiplied by the conversion
factor given below:
| Original
Maturity |
Conversion
Factor | |
Less
than one year |
0.5 per
cent | |
One year
and less than two years |
1.0 per
cent | |
For each
additional year |
1.0 per
cent | Step
2: The
adjusted value thus obtained shall be multiplied by the risk weightage allotted
to the relevant counter-party as specified below:
| Government/any
exposure guaranteed by Government |
0% |
| |
| Banks/Financial
Institutions (as specified by DBOD) |
20% |
|
| | |
Primary
Dealers in the Government Securities market |
100%
| | |
| All
others | 100% |
(d)
Foreign Exchange Contracts (if permitted): Like
the interest rate contracts, the outstanding contracts should be first multiplied
by a conversion factor as shown below:
| Aggregate
outstanding foreign exchange contracts of original maturity |
| |
less
than one year |
2% |
| for
each additional year or part thereof |
3% |
This
will then have to be again multiplied by the weights attributable to the relevant
counter-party as specified above. Foreign
exchange contracts with an original maturity of 14 calendar days or less, irrespective
of the counterparty, may be assigned 'zero' risk weight as per international practice.
Annex
B MEASUREMENT
OF MARKET RISK Market
risk may be defined as the possibility of loss caused by change in market variables.
The objective in introducing the capital adequacy for market risk is to provide
an explicit capital cushion for the price risk to which the PDs are especially
exposed in their portfolio. The
methods for working out the capital charge for market risks are the standardised
model and the internal risk management framework based model. PDs would continue
to calculate capital charges based on the standardised method as also under the
internal risk management framework based (VaR) model and maintain the higher
of the two requirements. However, where price data is not available for specific
category of assets, then PDs may follow the standardised method for computation
of market risk. In such a situation, PDs shall disclose to Reserve Bank of India,
details of such assets and ensure that consistency of approach is followed. PDs
should obtain Reserve Bank of India’s permission before excluding any category
of asset for calculations of market risk. The Bank would normally consider the
instruments of the nature of fixed deposits, commercial bills etc., for this purpose.
Such items will be held in the books till maturity and any diminution in the value
will have to be provided for in the books. Note:
In case of underwriting commitments, following points should be adhered to: a.
In case of devolvement of underwriting commitment for government securities, 100%
of the devolved amount would qualify for the measurement of market risk. b.
In case of underwriting under merchant banking issues (other than G-secs), where
price has been committed/frozen at the time of underwriting, the commitment is
to be treated as a contingent liability and 50% of the commitment should be included
in the position for market risk. However, 100% of devolved position should be
subjected to market risk measurement. The
methodology for working out the capital charges for market risk on the portfolio
is explained below: A:
Standardised Method: Capital charge under standardized method will be the
measures of risk arrived at in terms of paragraphs A.1-3 below summed arithmetically.
A1.
For fixed income instruments Under
standardized method, duration method would continue to apply as hitherto. Under
this, the price sensitivity of all interest rate positions viz., Dated securities,
Treasury bills, Bills purchased/Discounted, Commercial papers, PSU/FI/Corporate
Bonds, Special Bonds, Mutual fund units and derivative instruments like IRS, FRAs,
Interest Rate Futures etc., including underwriting commitments/devolvement and
other contingent liabilities having interest rate/equity risk will be captured.
In
duration method, the capital charge is the sum of four components given below:
a)
the net short or long position in the whole trading book; b)
a small proportion of the matched positions in each time-band (the "vertical
disallowance’’); c)
a larger proportion of the matched positions across different time-bands (the
"horizontal disallowance’’) ; d)
a net charge for positions in options, where appropriate Note
: Since blank short selling in the cash position is not allowed, netting as indicated
at (a) and the system of `disallowances’ as at (b) and (c) above are applicable
currently only to the PDs entering into FRAs/ IRSs/ exchange traded derivatives.
However,
under the duration method, PDs with the necessary capability may, with Reserve
Bank of India’s permission use a more accurate method of measuring all of their
general market risks by calculating the price sensitivity of each position separately.
PDs must select and use the method on a consistent basis and the system adopted
will be subjected to monitoring by Reserve Bank of India. The mechanics of this
method are as follows: i)
First calculate the price sensitivity of all instruments in terms of a change
in interest rates of between 0.6 and 1.0 percentage points depending on the duration
of the instrument (as per Table 1 given below ); ii)
Slot the resulting sensitivity measures into a duration-based ladder with the
thirteen time-bands set out in Table 1; iii)
Subject the lower of the long and short positions in each time-band to a 5% capital
charge towards vertical disallowance designed to capture basis risk; iv)
Carry forward the net positions in each time-band for horizontal offsetting across
the zones subject to the disallowances set out in Table 2. Note
: Points iii and iv above are applicable only where opposite positions exist as
explained at Note above.
| Table
1 | |
Duration
time-bands and assumed changes in yield | |
Assumed
change in yield (%) |
Assumed
change in yield (%) | | | | | |
| Zone
1 | |
Zone
3 | |
| | | | |
| 0
to 1month |
1.00 |
4 to
5 years |
0.85 |
| 1
to 3 months |
1.00 |
5 to
7 years |
0.80 |
| 3
to 6 months |
1.00 |
7 to
10 years |
0.75 |
| 6
to 12 months |
1.00 |
10 to
15 years |
0.70 |
| | |
15 to
20 years |
0.65 |
| Zone
2 | |
Over
20 years |
0.60 |
| | | | |
| 1to2
years | 0.95 | | |
| 2
to 3 years |
0.90 | | |
| 3
to 4 years |
0.85 | | |
| Table
2 | |
Horizontal disallowances | | | |
| Zones |
Time-band |
Within
the zone | Between
adjacent zones |
Between
zones 1 and 3 | |
Zone 1 |
0 – month |
40% |
40% |
100% |
| 1
- 3 months | |
3 – 6 months |
| 6
– 12 months | |
Zone 2 |
1 – 2 years |
30% |
| 2
– 3 years | |
3 – 4 years |
| Zone
3 | 4
– 5 years |
30% |
| 5
– 7 years | |
7 – 10 years |
| 10
– 15 years | |
15 – 20 years |
| Over
20 years | The
gross positions in each time-band will be subject to risk weighting as per the
assumed change in yield set out in Table 1, with no further offsets. A1.1.
Capital charge for interest rate derivatives: The
measurement system should include all interest rate derivatives and off balance-sheet
instruments in the trading book which react to changes in interest rates, (e.g.
forward rate agreements (FRAs), other forward contracts, bond futures, interest
rate positions). A1.2.
Calculation of positions The
derivatives should be converted into positions in the relevant underlying and
become subject to market risk charges as described above. In order to calculate
the market risk as per the standardized method described above, the amounts reported
should be the market value of the principal amount of the underlying or of the
notional underlying. A1.3.
Futures and forward contracts, including forward rate agreements These
instruments are treated as a combination of a long and a short position in a notional
government security. The maturity of a future or a FRA will be the period until
delivery or exercise of the contract, plus - where applicable - the life of the
underlying instrument. For example, a long position in a June three-month interest
rate future taken in April is to be reported as a long position in a government
security with a maturity of five months and a short position in a government security
with a maturity of two months. Where a range of deliverable instruments may be
delivered to fulfill the contract, the PD has flexibility to elect which deliverable
security goes into the maturity or duration ladder but should take account of
any conversion factor defined by the exchange. In the case of a future on a corporate
bond index, positions will be included at the market value of the notional underlying
portfolio of securities. A1.4.
Swaps Swaps
will be treated as two notional positions in government securities with relevant
maturities. For example, an interest rate swap under which a PD is receiving floating
rate interest and paying fixed will be treated as a long position in a floating
rate instrument of maturity equivalent to the period until the next interest fixing
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 floating interest
rate against some other reference price, e.g. a stock index, the interest rate
component should be slotted into the appropriate repricing maturity category,
with the equity component being included in the equity framework. A1.5.
Calculation of capital charges (a)
Allowable offsetting of matched positions PDs
may exclude from the interest rate maturity framework altogether (long and short
positions (both actual and notional) in identical instruments with exactly the
same issuer, coupon and maturity. A matched position in a future or forward and
its corresponding underlying may also be fully offset, and thus excluded from
the calculation. When the future or the forward comprises a range of deliverable
instruments, offsetting of positions in the future or forward contract and its
underlying is only permissible in cases where there is a readily identifiable
underlying security which is most profitable for the trader with a short position
to deliver. The leg representing the time to expiry of the future should, however,
be reported. Security, sometimes called the 'cheapest-to-deliver', and the price
of the future or forward contract should in such cases move in close alignment.
In
addition, opposite positions in the same category of instruments can in certain
circumstances be regarded as matched and allowed to offset fully. To qualify for
this treatment the positions must relate to the same underlying instruments can
be of the same nominal value. In addition: (i)
for futures: offsetting positions in the notional or underlying instruments
to which the futures contract relates must be for identical products and mature
within seven days of each other; (ii)
for swaps and FRAs: the reference rate (for floating rate positions) must
be identical and the coupon closely matched (i.e. within 15 basis points); and
(iii)
for swaps, FRAs and forwards: the next interest fixing date or, for fixed
coupon positions or forwards, the residual maturity must correspond within the
following limits: less
than one month hence: same day; between
one month and one year hence: within seven days; over
one year hence: within thirty days. PDs
with large swap books may use alternative formulae for these swaps to calculate
the positions to be included in the duration ladder. One method would be to first
convert the payments required by the swap into their present values. For that
purpose, each payment should be discounted using zero coupon yields, and a single
net figure for the present value of the cash flows entered into the appropriate
time-band using procedures that apply to zero (or low) coupon bonds; these figures
should be slotted into the general market risk framework as set out earlier. An
alternative method would be to calculate the sensitivity of the net present value
implied by the change in yield used in the duration method and allocate these
sensitivities into the time-bands set out in Table 1. Other methods which produce
similar results could also be used. Such alternative treatments will, however,
only be allowed if: the
supervisory authority is fully satisfied with the accuracy of the systems being
used; the
positions calculated fully reflect the sensitivity of the cash flows to interest
rate changes and are entered into the appropriate time-bands; General
market risk applies to positions in all derivative products in the same manner
as for cash positions, subject only to an exemption for fully or very closely-matched
positions in identical instruments as defined in above paragraphs. The various
categories of instruments should be slotted into the maturity ladder and treated
according to the rules identified earlier. A
2. Capital charge for equity positions: A2.1.
Equity positions This
section sets out a minimum capital standard to cover the risk of holding or taking
positions in equities by the PDs. It applies to long and short positions in all
instruments that exhibit market behavior similar to equities, but not to non-convertible
preference shares (which will be covered by the interest rate risk requirements).
Long and short positions in the same issue may be reported on a net basis. The
instruments covered include equity shares, convertible securities that behave
like equities, i.e., units of MF and commitments to buy or sell equity securities.
The equity or equity like positions including those arrived out in relation
to equity /index derivatives as described below may be included in the duration
ladder below one month. A2.2.
Equity derivatives Equity
derivatives and off balance-sheet positions which are affected by changes in equity
prices should be included in the measurement system. This includes futures and
swaps on both individual equities and on stock indices. The derivatives are to
be converted into positions in the relevant underlying. A2.3.
Calculation of positions In
order to calculate the market risk as per the standardized method for credit and
market risk, positions in derivatives should be converted into notional equity
positions: futures
and forward contracts relating to individual equities should in principle be reported
at current market prices; futures
relating to stock indices should be reported as the marked-to-market value of
the notional underlying equity portfolio; equity
swaps are to be treated as two notional positions Note:
As per the circular IDMD. PDRS./26/03.64.00/2006-07
dated July 4, 2006 on 'Diversification of PD Activities', PDs have been allowed
to calculate the capital charge for market risk on equity and equity derivatives
using the Internal Models approach only. A.3
Capital Charge for Foreign Exchange Position (if permitted): PDs
normally would not be dealing in foreign exchange transactions. However, by virtue
of they having been permitted to raise resources under FCNR(B) loans route, subject
to prescribed guidelines, may end up holding open foreign exchange position. This
open position in equivalent rupees arrived at by marking to market at FEDAI rates
will be subject to a flat market risk charge of 15%. B.
Internal risk model (VaR) based method The
PDs should calculate the capital requirement based on their internal Value at
Risk (VaR) model for market risk, as per the following minimum parameters: (a)
'Value-at-risk' must be computed on a daily basis. (b)
In calculating the value-at-risk, a 99th percentile, one-tailed confidence
interval is to be used. (c)
An instantaneous price shock equivalent to a 15-day movement in prices is to be
used, i.e. the minimum 'holding period' will be fifteen trading days. (d)
Interest rate sensitivity of the entire portfolio should be captured on an integrated
basis by including all fixed income securities like Government securities, Corporate/PSU
bonds, CPs and derivatives like IRS, FRAs, Interest rate futures etc., based on
the mapping of the cash flows to work out the portfolio VaR. Wherever data for
calculating volatilities is not available, PDs may calculate the volatilities
of such instruments using the G-Securities curve with appropriate spread. However,
the details of such instruments and the spreads applied have to be reported and
consistency of methodology should be ensured. (e)
Instruments which are part of trading book, but found difficult to be subjected
to measurement of market risk may be applied a flat market risk measure of 15%.
The instruments likely to be applied the flat market risk measure are units of
MF, Unquoted Equity, etc., and added arithmetically to the measure obtained under
VaR in respect of other instruments. (f)
Underwriting commitments as explained at the beginning of the Annex should also
be mapped into the VaR framework for risk measurement purposes. (g)
The unhedged foreign exchange position arising out of the foreign currency borrowings
under FCNR(B) loans scheme would carry a market risk of 15% as hitherto and the
measure obtained will be added arithmetically to the VaR measure obtained for
other instruments. (h)
The choice of historical observation period (sample period) for calculating
value-at-risk will be constrained to a minimum length of one year and not less
than 250 trading days. For PDs who 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 the individual
observations cannot be less than 6 months). (i)
The capital requirement will be the higher of : i
the previous day's value-at-risk number measured according to the above parameters
specified in this section and ii
the average of the daily value-at-risk measures on each of the preceding sixty
business days, multiplied by a multiplication factor prescribed by Reserve Bank
of India (3.3 presently). (j)
No particular type of model is prescribed. So long as the model used captures
all the material risks run by the PDs, they will be free to use models, based
for example, on variance-covariance matrices, historical simulations, or Monte
Carlo simulations or EVT etc. (k)
The criteria for use of internal model to measure market risk capital charge are
given in Annex E.
Annex
C SUMMATION
OF CAPITAL ADEQUACY REQUIREMENTS The
capital adequacy requirements for the PDs will comprise the
capital charge for credit risk requirements as indicated in Annex A, plus the
capital charge for market risk requirements as indicated in Annex B
In
working out the eligible capital, the PDs are required to first calculate their
minimum capital requirements for credit risk and only afterwards the capital charge
towards market risk requirements. The total capital funds will represent the capital
available to meet both the credit as also the market risks. Of
the 15% capital charge for credit risk, at least 50% should be met by Tier I capital,
that is the total of Tier II Capital, if any, shall not exceed one hundred per
cent of Tier I Capital, at any point of time, for meeting the capital charge for
credit risk. Subordinated
debt as capital should not exceed 50% of tier II capital. The
total of Tier III Capital, if any, shall not exceed two hundred and fifty per
cent of the Tier I Capital that is available for meeting market risk capital charge
i.e. excess over the credit risk capital requirements. The
total of Tier II and Tier III capital eligible for working out the total capital
funds should not exceed 100% of Tier I capital. The
overall capital adequacy ratio will be calculated by establishing an explicit
numerical link between the credit risk and the market risk factors, by multiplying
the market risk capital charge with 6.67 i.e. the reciprocal of the minimum credit
risk capital charge of 15 %. The resultant figure is added to the sum of risk
weighted assets worked out for credit risk purpose. The numerator for calculating
the overall ratio will be the PD’s Tier I, Tier II and the Tier III Capital after
head room deductions, if any. The calculation of capital charge is illustrated
in PDR III format, which is enclosed as Annex D.
Annex
D PDR
III Return Statement
of Capital Adequacy - Quarter ended -
Name of the Primary Dealer :
Statement - 1 ( Summary) Rupees
| (i) |
Total
of Risk Weighted Assets for Credit Risk (Annex I) |
Rs. |
| | | |
| (ii) |
(a) Tier
I Capital funds (after deductions) |
Rs. |
| |
(b) Tier
II Capital funds eligible |
Rs. |
| |
(c) Total
of available Tier I & II capital funds |
Rs. |
| | | |
| (iii) |
Minimum
credit risk capital required |
Rs. |
| |
i.e.
(i) x 15 per cent | |
| | | |
| (iv) |
Excess
of Tier I & II capital funds available |
Rs. |
| |
For market
risk capital charge i.e. (ii) (c) – (iii) | |
| | | |
| (v) |
The Market
Risk capital charge worked |
Rs. |
| |
out as
the higher of the amounts under the | |
| |
Standardised
method and the one as per | |
| |
Internal
Risk Management (VaR) Model | |
| |
(Appendices
II and III) | |
| | | |
| (vi) |
Capital
funds available to meet (v) |
Rs. |
| |
i.e:
excess of Tier I and Tier II as at (iv) above, | |
| |
Plus | |
| |
eligible
Tier III capital funds [maximum | |
| |
up to
250 % of surplus Tier I capital] | |
| | | |
| (vii) |
Over
all Capital Adequacy | |
| |
(a) Total RWA for
credit risk i.e. (i) |
Rs. |
| |
(b) Capital charge
for market risk i.e. (v) |
Rs. |
| |
(c) Numerical Link
for (b) = |
6.67
| | |
i.e.(reciprocal
of credit risk capital ratio of 15%) | |
| |
(d) Risk Weighted
Assets relating to | |
| |
Market
Risk i.e. (b) x (c) |
Rs. |
| |
(e) Total Risk Weighted
Assets i.e. (a) + (d) |
Rs. |
| |
(f) Minimum capital
required i.e. (e) x 15% |
Rs. |
| |
(g) Total Capital
funds available i.e. (ii) + (vi) |
Rs. |
| |
(h) less :
Capital funds prescribed by other regulators/ |
Rs. |
| |
licensors
e.g. SEBI/ NSE/ BSE/OTCEI | |
| |
(i) Net capital funds
available (g – h) |
Rs. |
| |
for PD
business | |
| (viii) |
Surplus
Tier III Capital funds, if any |
Rs. |
| (ix) |
Capital
Adequacy Ratio (CRAR) % (i / e) * 100 | |
Following
Appendices are to be sent along with the return*: Appendix
I - Details of the various on-balance sheet and off-balance sheet items, the
risk weights assigned and the risk adjusted value of assets has to be reported
in this annex as usual. Revised format enclosed. Appendix
II - Details of the market risk charge using the standardised model as usual.
Revised format enclosed. Appendix
III - Details of market risk using the internal model as per the format enclosed. Appendix
IV - Details of back-testing results for the previous quarter, giving the
details of VaR predicted by the model, the actual change in the value of the portfolio
and the face value of the portfolio. Appendix
V - Details of stress testing, giving details of the change in the value of
the portfolio for a given change in the yield and on specific date to be advised
by Reserve Bank of India. Format enclosed. *
The above Appendices (in printable form) may be sent by e-mail to pdrsidmc@rbi.org.in
Annex
E Criteria
for use of internal model to measure market risk capital charge A.
General criteria 1.
In order that the internal model is effective, it should be ensured that : the
PD's risk management system is conceptually sound and its implementation is certified
by external auditors; the
PD has sufficient numbers of staff skilled in the use of sophisticated models
not only in the trading area but also in the risk control, audit, and back office
areas; the
PD has a proven track record of reasonable accuracy in measuring risk (back testing); the
PD regularly conducted stress tests along the lines discussed in Para B.4 below 2.
In addition to these general criteria, PDs using internal models for capital purposes
will be subject to the requirements detailed in Sections B.1 to B.5 below. B.1
Qualitative standards The
extent to which PDs meet the qualitative criteria contained herein will influence
the level at which the RBI will ultimately set the multiplication factor referred
to in Section B.3 (b) below, for the PD. Only those PDs, whose models are in full
compliance with the qualitative criteria, will be eligible for use of the minimum
multiplication factor. The qualitative criteria include: a)
The PD should have an independent risk control unit that is responsible for the
design and implementation of the system. The unit should produce and analyse daily
reports on the output of the PD's risk measurement model, including an evaluation
of the relationship between measures of risk exposure and trading limits. This
unit must be independent from trading desks and should report directly to senior
management of the PD. b)
The unit should conduct a regular back testing programme, i.e. 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. c)
Board of Directors and senior management should be actively involved in the risk
control process and must 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 in positions
taken by individual traders and reductions in the PD’s overall risk exposure. d)
The PD’s internal risk measurement model must be closely integrated into the day-to-day
risk management process of the institution. Its output should accordingly be an
integral part of the process of planning, monitoring and controlling the PD’s
market risk profile. e)
The risk measurement system should be used in conjunction with internal trading
and exposure limits. In this regard, trading limits should be related to the PD’s
risk measurement model in a manner that is consistent over time and that it is
well-understood by both traders and senior management. f)
A routine and rigorous programme of stress testing should be in place as a supplement
to the risk analysis based on the day-to-day output of the PD’s risk measurement
model. The results of stress testing should be reviewed periodically by senior
management and should be reflected in the policies and limits set by management
and the Board of Directors. Where stress tests reveal particular vulnerability
to a given set of circumstances, prompt steps should be taken to manage those
risks appropriately. g)
PDs should have a routine in place for ensuring compliance with a documented set
of internal policies, controls and procedures concerning the operation of the
risk measurement system. The risk measurement system must be well documented,
for example, through a manual that describes the basic principles of the risk
management system and that provides an explanation of the empirical techniques
used to measure market risk. h)
An independent review of the risk measurement system should be carried out regularly
in the PD’s own internal auditing process. This review should include both the
activities of the trading desks and of the 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: the
adequacy of the documentation of the risk management system and process; the
organisation of the risk control unit ; the
integration of market risk measures into daily risk management; the
approval process for risk pricing models and valuation systems used by front and
back-office personnel; the
validation of any significant change in the risk measurement process; the
scope of market risks captured by the risk measurement model; the
integrity of the management information system; the
accuracy and completeness of position data; the
verification of the consistency, timeliness and reliability of data sources used
to run internal models, including the independence of such data sources; the
accuracy and appropriateness of volatility and other assumptions; the
accuracy of valuation and risk transformation calculations; the
verification of the model's accuracy through frequent back testing as described
in (b) above and in the Annex G. i)
The integrity and implementation of the risk management system in accordance with
the system policies/procedures laid down by the Board of Directors should be certified
by the external auditors as outlined at Para B.5. j)
A copy of the back testing result should be furnished to Reserve Bank of India. B.2
Specification of market risk factors An
important part of a PD’s internal market risk measurement system is the specification
of an appropriate set of market risk factors, i.e. the market rates and prices
that affect the value of the PD’s trading positions. The risk factors contained
in a market risk measurement system should be sufficient to capture the risks
inherent in all the PD’s portfolio of on-and-off-balance sheet positions. The
following guidelines should be kept in view: (a)
For interest rates, there must be a set of risk factors corresponding to
interest rates in each portfolio in which the PD has interest-rate-sensitive on-or-off-balance
sheet positions. The
risk measurement system should model the yield curve using one of a number of
generally accepted approaches, for example, by estimating forward rates of 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.
For material exposures to interest rate movements in the major instruments, PDs
must model the yield curve using all material risk factors, driven by the nature
of the PD’s trading strategies. For instance, a PD 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 interest rate risk accurately. The
risk measurement system must incorporate separate risk factors to capture spread
risk (e.g. between bonds and swaps), i.e. risk arising from less than perfectly
correlated movements between Government and other fixed-income instruments. (b)
For equity prices, at a minimum, there should be a risk factor that is
designed to capture market-wide movements in equity prices (e.g. a market index).
Position in individual securities or in sector indices could be expressed in 'beta-equivalents'
relative to this market-wide index. More detailed approach would be to have risk
factors corresponding to various sectors of the equity market (for instance, industry
sectors or cyclical, etc.), or the most extensive approach, wherein, risk factors
corresponding to the volatility of individual equity issues are assessed. The
method could be decided by the PDs corresponding to their exposure to the equity
market and concentrations. B.3.
Quantitative standards
PDs should update their data sets at least once every three months and
should also reassess them whenever market prices are subject to material changes.
Reserve Bank of India may also require a PD to calculate their value-at-risk using
a shorter observation period if, in it’s judgement, this is justified by a significant
upsurge in price volatility. (b)
The multiplication factor will be set by Reserve Bank of India on the basis of
the assessment of the quality of the PD’s risk management system, as also the
back testing framework and results, subject to an absolute minimum of 3. The document
`Back testing’ mechanism to be used in conjunction with the internal
risk based model for market risk capital charge’, enclosed as Annex F,
presents in detail the back testing mechanism. PDs
will have flexibility in devising the precise nature of their models, but the
parameters indicated at Annex- E are the minimum which the PDs need to
fulfill for acceptance of the model for the purpose of calculating their capital
charge. Reserve Bank of India will have the discretion to apply stricter standards.
B.4 Stress
testing 1.
PDs that use the internal models approach for meeting market risk capital
requirements must have in place a rigorous and comprehensive stress testing program
to identify events or influences that could greatly impact them. 2.
PD’s stress scenarios need to cover a range of factors than can create extraordinary
losses or gain in trading portfolios, or make the control of risk in those portfolios
very difficult. These factors include low-probability events in all major types
of risks, including the various components of market, credit and operational risks.
3.
PD’s stress test should be both of a quantitative and qualitative nature, incorporating
both market risk and liquidity aspects of market disturbances. Quantitative criteria
should identify plausible stress scenarios to which PDs could be exposed. Qualitative
criteria should emphasize that two major goals of stress testing are to evaluate
the capacity of the PD’s capital to absorb potential large losses and to identify
steps the PD can take to reduce its risk and conserve capital. This assessment
is integral to setting and evaluating the PD’s management strategy and the results
of stress testing should be regularly communicated to senior management and, periodically,
to the PD’s Board of Directors. 4.
PDs should combine the standard stress scenarios with stress tests developed by
PDs themselves to reflect their specific risk characteristics. Specifically, Reserve
Bank of India may ask PDs to provide information on stress testing in three broad
areas, which are discussed below. (a)
Scenarios requiring no simulations by the PD. PDs
should have information on the largest losses experienced during the reporting
period available for Reserve Bank of India’s review. This loss information could
be compared to the level of capital that results from a PD’s internal measurement
system. For example, it could provide Reserve Bank of India with a picture of
how many days of peak day losses would have been covered by a given Value-at-Risk
estimate. (b)
Scenarios requiring a simulation by the PD. PDs
should subject their portfolios to a series of simulated stress scenarios and
provide Reserve Bank of India with the results. These scenarios could include
testing the current portfolio against past periods of significant disturbance,
incorporating both the large price movements and the sharp reduction in liquidity
associated with these events. A second type of scenario would evaluate the sensitivity
of the PD’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 PD’s
current positions against the extreme values of the historical range. Due consideration
should be given to the sharp variation that at times has occurred in a matter
of days in periods of significant market disturbance. (c)
Scenarios developed by the PD itself to capture the specific characteristics of
its portfolio In
addition to the scenarios prescribed by Reserve Bank of India under (a) and (b)
above, a PD should also develop its own stress tests which it identified as most
adverse based on the characteristics of its portfolio. PDs should provide Reserve
Bank of India with a description of the methodology used to identify and carry
out stress testing under the scenarios, as well as with a description of the results
derived from these scenarios. The
results should be reviewed periodically by senior management and should be reflected
in the policies and limits set by management and the Board of Directors. Moreover,
if the testing reveals particular vulnerability to a given set of circumstances,
Reserve Bank of India would expect the PD to take prompt steps to manage those
risks appropriately (e.g. by reducing the size of its exposures). B.5
External Validation PDs
should get the internal model’s accuracy validated by external auditors, including
at a minimum, the following: (a)
verifying that the internal validation processes described in B.1(h) are
operating in a satisfactory manner; (b)
ensuring that the formulae used in the calculation process as well as for
the pricing of complex instruments are validated by a qualified unit, which in
all cases should be independent from the trading desks; (c)
Checking that the structure of internal models is adequate with respect
to the PD’s activities and geographical coverage; (d)
Checking the results of the PD’s back testing of its internal measurement system
(i.e. comparing Value-at-Risk estimates with actual profits and losses) to ensure
that the model provides a reliable measure of potential losses over time. PDs
should make the results as well as the underlying inputs to their value-at-risk
calculations available to the external auditors; (e)
Making sure that data flows and processes associated with the risk measurement
system are transparent and accessible. In particular, it is necessary that
auditors are in a position to have easy access, wherever they judge it necessary
and under appropriate procedures, to the models’ specifications and parameters.
"BACK
TESTING" mechanism to be used in conjunction with the internal risk based
model for market risk capital charge The
following are the parameters of the back testing framework for incorporating into
the internal models approach to market risk capital requirements. Primary
Dealers that have adopted an internal model-based approach to market risk measurement
are required routinely to compare daily profits and losses with model-generated
risk measures to gauge the quality and accuracy of their risk measurement systems.
This process is known as 'back testing'. The
objective of the back testing efforts is the comparison of actual trading results
with model-generated risk measures. If the comparison uncovers sufficient differences,
problems almost certainly must exist, either with the model or with the assumptions
of the back test. Description
of the back testing framework The
back testing program consists of a periodic comparison of the Primary Dealer’s
daily Value-at-Risk measures with the subsequent daily profit or loss ("trading
outcome"). The Value-at-Risk measures are intended to be larger than all
but a certain fraction of the trading outcomes, where that fraction is determined
by the confidence level of the Value-at-Risk measure. Comparing the risk measures
with the trading outcomes simply means that the Primary Dealer counts the number
of times that the risk measures were larger than the trading outcome. The fraction
actually covered can then be compared with the intended level of coverage to gauge
the performance of the Primary Dealer’s risk model. Under
the Value-at-Risk framework, the risk measure is an estimate of the amount that
could be lost on a set of positions due to general market movements over a given
holding period, measured using a specified confidence level. The
back tests to be applied compare whether the observed percentage of outcomes covered
by the risk measure is consistent with a 99% level of confidence. That is, they
attempt to determine if a PD’s 99th percentile risk measures truly
cover 99% of the firm’s trading outcomes. i)
Significant changes in portfolio composition relative to the initial positions
are common at trading day end. For this reason, the back testing framework suggested
involves the use of risk measures calibrated to a one-day holding period. A
more sophisticated approach would involve a detailed attribution of income by
source, including fees, spreads, market movements, and intra-day trading results. Primary
Dealers should perform back tests based on the hypothetical changes in portfolio
value that would occur were end-of-day positions to remain unchanged. ii)
Back testing using actual daily profits and losses is also a useful exercise since
it can uncover cases where the risk measures are not accurately capturing trading
volatility in spite of being calculated with integrity. Primary
Dealers should perform back tests using both hypothetical and actual trading outcomes.
The steps involve calculation of the number of times that the trading outcomes
are not covered by the risk measures ("exceptions"). For example, over
200 trading days, a 99% daily risk measure should cover, on average, 198 of the
200 trading outcomes, leaving two exceptions. The
back testing framework to be applied entails a formal testing and accounting of
exceptions on a quarterly basis using the most recent twelve months of date. Primary
Dealers may however base the back test on as many observations as possible. Nevertheless,
the most recent 250 trading days' observations should be used for the purposes
of back testing. The usage of the number of exceptions as the primary reference
point in the back testing process is the simplicity and straightforwardness of
this approach. Normally,
in view of the 99% confidence level adopted, a level of 4 exceptions in the observation
period of 250 days would be acceptable to consider the model as accurate. Exceptions
above this, would invite supervisory actions. Depending on the number of exceptions
generated by the Primary Dealer’s back testing model, both actual as well as hypothetical,
Reserve Bank of India may initiate a dialogue regarding the Primary Dealer’s model,
enhance the multiplication factor, may impose an increase in the capital requirement
or disallow use of the model as indicated above depending on the number of exceptions.
In
case large number of exceptions are being noticed, it may be useful for the PDs
to dis-aggregate their activities into sub sectors in order to identify the large
exceptions on their own. The reasons could be of the following categories: Basic
integrity of the model 1)
The PD’s systems simply are not capturing the risk of the positions themselves
(e.g. the positions of an office are being reported incorrectly). 2)
Model volatilities and/or correlations were calculated incorrectly (e.g. the computer
is dividing by 250 when it should be dividing by 225). Model’s
accuracy could be improved 3)
The risk measurement model is not assessing the risk of some instruments with
sufficient precision (e.g. too few maturity buckets or an omitted spread). Bad
luck or markets moved in fashion unanticipated by the model 4)
Random chance (a very low probability event). 5)
Markets moved by more than the model predicted was likely (i.e. volatility was
significantly higher than expected). 6)
Markets did not move together as expected (i.e. correlations were significantly
different than what was assumed by the model). Intra-day
trading 7)
There was a large (and money-losing) change in the PD’s 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).
Annex
H List
of circulars Consolidated
| No |
Circular
no | Date |
Subject |
| 1 |
IDMD.1/(PDRS)03.64.00/2003-04
| January
07, 2004 |
Capital
Adequacy Standards and Risk Management Guidelines for Primary Dealers |
| 2 |
IDMD.PDRS.No.06/03.64.00
/2004-05 |
October
15, 2004 |
Capital
Adequacy Standards – Guidelines on Issue of Subordinated
Debt Instruments – Tier II and Tier III Capital |
| 3 |
IDMD.
PDRS.26/03.64.00 /2006-07 |
July
4, 2006 |
Diversification
of activities by stand-alone Primary Dealers - Operational Guidelines |
| 4 |
IDMD.PDRS.No.148/
03.64.00/ 2006-07 |
July
10, 2006 |
Risk
reporting of derivatives business | |