I think most have been said already, but just for the record I have also seen a PD master scale being validated by MRM (US).

I’d say as mentioned, the guiding principle should be how you derive the scale. If it involves mathematical and statistical methods, assumptions etc. then it most likely falls under the “model” definition and should be validated. I would tie it to how you define a model internally and what the MRM policy says about it

For Canada specifically, please refer to the latest Draft Guideline E-23 on model risk management by OSFI (our banking and insurance regulator).

To capture the risk posed by AI, the Draft Guideline modernizes the definition of “model” in the original 2017 Guideline to explicitly include AI and machine learning methods. Basically the AI-based solutions are considered “models” and are subject to model risk management requirements. Detailed requirements can be found in the guideline

I suspect the answer will depend on what regulators require – for example the PRA expects all FIRB firms to use effective maturity (there’s currently a carve-out for SMEs, but they want to remove that too under Basel 3.1 – see below)

I have to admit, I cannot recollect what ECB/ EBA has had to say about this, but I think it would be pretty hard to justify using it in most places but not some – would very much feel like a bank would be open to challenge around whether it was cherry-picking

PRA CP16/22 proposal around Effective Maturity

4.305 The PRA currently specifies within IRB permissions that firms using the
FIRB approach must calculate effective maturity rather than apply fixed
parameters. This is because the PRA considers that calculation of effective
maturity is a more risk-sensitive approach, which better reflects the economic
substance of the exposures, and thus enhances the safety and soundness of firms.
Furthermore, using effective maturity facilitates effective competition because
firms using the AIRB approach are also required to apply the effective maturity
approach.

4.306 The PRA proposes to maintain the substance of its existing approach and
that firms using  the FIRB approach would continue to be required to apply the
effective maturity approach. The PRA proposes to include this provision in its
rules as it considers this would be more appropriate than applying the
requirement on a firm-by-firm basis as is currently the case.

4.307 The PRA considers that the proposed approach is in line with the Basel 3.1
standards as these include a discretion for national supervisors to require
firms using the FIRB approach to calculate effective maturity for all exposures.

4.308 Similarly, to improve risk-sensitivity, the PRA proposes to remove the
option currently setout in the CRR that allows firms that are otherwise
calculating maturity to instead apply fixed maturity values for exposures to
small UK corporates.

The other C&I related criteria I have seen for segmentation (may or may not be captured by your size / sector view):

Rated / quoted vs. not (on the basis these firms have access to additional sources of funding plus an extra source of predictive info, although that can be reflected by other mechanisms) Specialised lending vs not (Basel has some rules re: when should be viewed as specialised – to some extent it comes down to legal form) Legal form e.g. limited liability vs. partnership vs sole trader (at bottom end) Leverage finance / recent transaction e.g. divestiture, M&A … (on the basis that they are more sensitive to changes and historical performance data may be less relevant

Might also be worth taking a look at the detail in sections 2.5.5.1 - 2.5.5.2 dealing with customer migrations and migration matrix stability respectively, in the ECB's Instructions for reporting the validation results of internal models, pgs. 23 - 24

A number of UK banks have their wholesale PD models produce both “TTC” and “PIT” ratings – with the latter typically being driven by some sort of adjustment based on Moody’s KMV EDF’s or equivalents – you also have a number of other banks that for IFRS 9 will apply macro-economic model outputs on top of a largely TTC rating model to produce a PIT PD for IFRS 9 provisioning/ allowances purposes. The dual rating approach at big UK banks was heavily driven by a couple of modellers by the names of Scott Aguais and Lawrence Forest, and they have published a few papers describing their approach.

On the question of splitting by “investment Grade” vs “non-investment grade”, I’ve never seen this, although a split between leveraged and non-leveraged is common historically (when we built the model for one of the large German banks, we were able to reintegrate them). But size r whether a customer is rated/ quoted/ listed is a common basis for segmentation in the commercial space.

For EU banks, qualitative questions still tend to be included, although people are working to make them objective where possible, but not sure many have entirely removed them (again Scott Aguais was wanting to do this for one of the big UK banks – not sure whether he succeeded) – the issue with qualitatives is whether you can find the sweet-spot – at bottom end SME, often I don’t think credit officers have any real insights into their customers given how many they cover; at top-end, question is whether the credit officer has real insight beyond what can be captured by tools such as Factiva Sentiment Signals

Historically, it has been difficult to remove size segmentation from the entire corporate customer base, in part because you tend to see some factors have different relationships for small vs large firms (e.g. you might want a fair bit of cash on balance sheet of an SME, but for a large firm, this would be inefficient and you’d perhaps worry if management wasn’t trying to make their cash work hard )

Airplanes are ships of the sky from an LGD perspective, but not from a PD perspective. Railcars are also ships of the land by the same token

From a PD perspective, they are generally separate. The maritime companies and airlines have very different obligor dynamics

From an LGD perspective, the main drivers are downtime (i.e. how long the asset sits idle after a default) and shortfall (i.e. the decrease in the new lease after a default since usually periods of default coincides with pressure on asset prices and lease rates), but not the value on the plane. It is seldom that you’d actually lose the asset in any meaningful way, so that does not affect the LGD. There are international treaties that lessors would seek the jurisdiction of the lessee be a part of, before sending an expensive plane over with a long lifetime left on the asset. The other jurisdictions get the older planes where the lessor does not care all that much, whether they get it back or not

To be clear, you’d parameterize the LGD model differently for different assets as the downtime and shortfall dynamics are different. But the model structure is the same. So, it becomes a bit of an optical choice on whether you call that a single model or not

This may just be a rumour and so worth trying to Google to verify it, but I recall a long time ago that the MKMV model didn’t work well for banks, this was a known shortcoming of the model

It’s not at all clear what other type of structural model (other than something like KMV) one could even attempt for a bank…

Hello RiskbOWl community,
Oliver Wyman recently conducted a Model Risk Management Survey with 10+ GSIBs participating (thank you to the onces who participated). One of the questions we asked in this survey was "what are your current priorities for MRM?". The top answers were:

100% said: Expand the scope of MRM (i.e. adding new model types such as AI but also more and more non-models entering MRM) 92% said: Increase resource productivity via simplification, streamlining, etc. 92% said: Increase usage of AI tools to support validators 66% said: Increase validation quality less frequent answers: reduce validation frequency, change to event-based validation, increase offshoring or outsourcing

What are your current strategic priorities? Where do you see current challenges?