As the published timelines for banks to comply with the Fundamental Review of the Trading Book (FRTB) draw closer, it has been observed that banks are reducing their use of the internal models approach (IMA) for market risk across jurisdictions.
Many banks that are or were on the IMA under Basel 2.5 plan to transition entirely to the standardized approach under the FRTB. Furthermore, those banks transitioning from the IMA under Basel 2.5 to the IMA under the FRTB only plan to do so for a very limited portion of the trading book (15-40% under the FRTB compared to an average of 85% under Basel 2.5).
The move away from the IMA appears to be a relatively recent trend. When the FRTB rules were first issued for consultation in 2012, most banks on the IMA under Basel 2.5 intended to transition to the IMA under the FRTB on a like-for-like basis in terms of their trading book coverage. However, as the rules evolved and banks assessed the cost and impact of implementing and operationalizing the IMA, many have scaled back their ambitions and, in many cases, chosen to transition completely to the SA. Banks that are retaining internal models plan to prioritize the IMA only for selected trading desks where the choice of IMA desk coverage is dependent on the bank’s corresponding business activities and infrastructure readiness.
This whitepaper analyzes the drivers for low IMA adoption across the industry. The themes and views presented are based on discussions with executive sponsors across 26 global trading banks. The paper also reflects banks’ perspectives on the key advantages of the IMA, alongside their views on the steps that could be taken to incentivize greater IMA adoption.
Click on the attached PDF to read the paper.
Documents (1) for Fundamental Review of the Trading Book: Internal Models Approach Adoption
Latest
Guidance for EU IM Model Application for ISDA SIMM®
EU financial and non-financial EU counterparties exchanging IM based on ISDA SIMM® should have already submitted an initial application for authorisation to their competent authority (CA), and ECB if applicable. If not, they should do so timely to ensure continued...
Joint Response on Stress Testing Framework
On February 23, ISDA, the Bank Policy Institute, the American Bankers Association, the Financial Services Forum, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and the US Chamber of Commerce jointly responded to the US Federal Reserve’s consultation on the stress...
Joint Letter on Italian 2026 Budget Law
On February 23, ISDA, the Association for Financial Markets in Europe and the International Securities Lending Association jointly sent a letter to the Italian tax authorities about changes to withholding tax on dividends made in the 2026 budget law, which...
Response to FCA on UK MIFIR Consultation
On February 20, ISDA responded to the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) consultation on improving the UK Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation (MIFIR) transaction reporting regime. The consultation aims to reduce the regulatory burden on firms, support sustained economic growth in...
