Valuation risk

Last updated February 27, 2023

Valuation risk is the risk that an entity suffers a loss when trading an asset or a liability due to a difference between the accounting value and the price effectively obtained in the trade.

This risk is especially significant for financial instruments with complex features and limited liquidity, that are valued using internally developed pricing models. Valuation errors can result for instance from missing consideration of risk factors, inaccurate modeling of risk factors, or inaccurate modeling of the sensitivity of instrument prices to risk factors. Errors are more likely when models use inputs that are unobservable or for which little information is available, and when financial instruments are illiquid so that the accuracy of pricing models cannot be verified with regular market trades.^[1]

Measurement of financial instrument fair value according to accounting rules

According to the International Financial Reporting Standards, or IFRS,^[2] entities must classify their financial instruments in different categories, depending on their business model and their intention to trade such instruments or keep them in their balance sheet. The classification of financial instruments determines the methodology for their valuation. The admitted categories are:

Held to Collect (HTC), measured at fair value on first-time recognition and at amortized cost afterwards
Fair Value Through Other Comprehensive Income (FVTOCI), measured at fair value with changes in fair value recorded in an equity reserve
Fair Value Through Profit & Loss (FVTP&L), measured at fair value with changes in fair value recorded in the profit and loss statement

The fair value is therefore a key concept in accounting for financial instruments. The accounting principle IFRS 13 ^[3] defines the rules for the determination of fair value. Whenever possible, the fair value should be determined based on the prices recorded in actual trades. However, when an instrument is not traded in active markets and prices are not regularly available, entities may use models to determine its fair value. Entities should classify each financial instrument measured at fair value on an ongoing basis (FVTOCI and FVTP&L) within a three-level “fair value hierarchy”, depending on the level of “observability” of the inputs used for its valuation. Inputs are defined by IFRS 13 as “The assumptions that market participants would use when pricing the asset or liability, including assumptions about risk”.

Inputs can be observable or unobservable, according to the following IFRS 13 definitions:

Observable: “Inputs that are developed using market data, such as publicly available information about actual events or transactions, and that reflect the assumptions that market participants would use when pricing the asset or liability”
Unobservable: “Inputs for which market data are not available and that are developed using the best information available about the assumptions that market participants would use when pricing the asset or liability”

In practice, inputs include:

Market prices, i.e. prices from actual trades. Prices from trades executed in active markets are observable inputs and should be used by preference. When market prices are not available, an entity can use prices for comparable instruments.
Pricing models, which entities use when market prices are not available. For certain instruments (for example, plain-vanilla OTC interest rate swaps) the pricing models are common practice and use inputs that can be easily drawn from traded instrument prices; in such cases, pricing models can be considered observable.
Parameters, which are inputs to the pricing models, including market parameters (drawn from market trades: e.g. the Euro yield curve, that can be calculated from trades of interest rate Euro instruments) and parameters calculated within the model (e.g. the correlation between risk factors). Market and model parameters can be considered observable when they can be directly or indirectly drawn from market prices quoted on active markets by means of widely accepted methodologies.

Entities must classify the inputs they use according to the following hierarchy defined by IFRS 13:

Level 1 inputs: quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that the entity can access at the measurement date.
Level 2 inputs: inputs, other than quoted prices included within Level 1, that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly.
Level 3 inputs: unobservable inputs for the asset or liability.

Once entities have classified the inputs, they must proceed to classify the financial instruments in the appropriate level of the fair value hierarchy, according to a criterion whereby an instrument “Is categorised in its entirety in the same level of the fair value hierarchy as the lowest level input that is significant to the entire measurement.”

The exposure of financial instruments to valuation risk is lowest for Level 1 instruments (whose value can be easily determined based upon prices from actual trades in a liquid market, i.e. entirely observable inputs) and increases as a direct function of the significance of unobservable inputs used in the valuation, reaching a maximum with Level 3 instruments.

Taxonomy of valuation risk

Valuation risk is a financial risk. However, it is different in nature from other financial risks, like market risk. The latter is measured as the potential loss deriving from the evolution of the prices of an entity’s financial instruments over time and is calculated as the potential difference in the instrument price at the valuation date and after a certain number of days in the future (the “holding period”). This implies two key conceptual and methodological differences vs. valuation risk:

Valuation risk is the uncertainty about the difference between the fair value reported for a financial instrument at the valuation date and the price that could be obtained on that same date if the instrument were effectively traded. It is therefore an instantaneous risk that is measured at a specific point in time; its measurement does not involve any time interval.
Market risk and other financial risks are measured by simulating adverse movements of the risk factors affecting the value of an entity’s financial instruments during the holding period, implicitly assuming that the pricing models used by the entity correctly reflect the instrument value and that capacity is maintained along all the holding period. On the opposite, valuation risk represents the uncertainty over the capacity of the pricing models to correctly represent the instrument prices.

The example of banks

Banks are the entities most likely to be exposed to valuation risk as a result of their massive holdings of financial instruments classified as Level 2 or 3 of the fair value hierarchy. In Europe, at the end of 2020 the banks under the direct supervision of the European Central Bank (ECB) held fair-valued financial instruments in an amount of € 8.7 trillion, of which € 6.6 trillion classified as Level 2 or 3. Level 2 and Level 3 instruments respectively amounted to 495% and 23% of the banks’ highest-quality capital (so-called Tier 1 Capital).^[4] As an implication, even small errors in such financial instruments’ valuations may have significant impacts on banks’ capital.

In February 2020 the European Systemic Risk Board warned in a report that banks’ substantial amounts of financial instruments with complex features and limited liquidity are a source of risk for the stability of the global financial system.^[5]

A 2017 report by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision,^[6] an international regulator for the banking sector, noted that IFRS 13 leaves entities significant discretion in determining financial instrument fair value and identified this discretion as a potential source of moral hazard: “The evidence consistent with accounting discretion as contributing to moral hazard behavior indicates that (additional) prudential valuation requirements may be justified.”

Areas where discretion may be applied in the determination of financial instrument fair value include:

Definition of active market
Choice of pricing models and methodologies
Classification of inputs used in pricing models as observable or non-observable
Estimation of the level of significance of unobservable inputs used in pricing models

Banking regulators have taken actions to limit discretion and reduce valuation uncertainties. A row of regulatory documents has been issued, providing detailed prudential requirements that have many points of contact with the accounting rules and have the indirect effect of limiting the discretion left to banks in valuating financial instruments.^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13]

The ECB in a Supervision Newsletter of 2021^[14] identified valuation risk as a priority and noted that its inspections had “highlighted severe weaknesses in banks’ internal valuation risk frameworks.” The ECB acknowledged “The interconnectedness of the accounting and prudential frameworks” and consistently adopted in its inspections on banks a comprehensive perspective covering both the accounting space (“valuation uncertainty, observability of valuation inputs, model risk, fair value classification, recognition of profits when instruments are first recorded in the balance sheet (often referred to as day one profits), independence of price verification, market data quality control”) and the prudential space (“prudent valuation practices”).

Issues in estimating banks’ valuation risk exposures

A 2017 paper of the Bank of Italy ^[15] noted significant challenges in the assessment of banks’ exposure to valuation risk as a result of insufficient published data. The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision also highlighted this lack of transparency in the above-mentioned 2017 report: “Accounting values may embed a significant degree of uncertainty and, as a result, may impede the market’s ability to assess a bank’s risk profile and overall capital adequacy."

Subsequent research^[16] confirmed that more informative analysis of banks’ valuation risk exposures, fair value measurement methodologies and practices, risk management processes, and prudential capital allocation would only be made possible by a significant overhaul in banks’ disclosures.

Critical lack of disclosed data has been identified in the following areas:

Qualitative information about the governance and controls on valuation risk
Segmentation of Level 2 instruments (which represent the bulk of banks’ holdings of instruments potentially exposed to valuation risk) by significance of the unobservable inputs used for their valuation
Details on unobservable inputs, their use in the valuation models, their significance for pricing, and the sensitivity of financial instrument valuations to changes in unobservable inputs
Contribution of liabilities to valuation risk, i.e. whether liabilities mitigate a bank’s valuation risk exposure (because they are exposed to the same valuation risk factors as assets, with a similar functional form and sensitivity, and with opposite sign) or instead contribute to it

Valuation risk measurement

The consensus methodology for measuring risks relating to financial instruments follows the approach prescribed for regulated financial entities like banks and insurance companies, which are required to measure the risks in their balance sheets and set aside capital that will allow them to absorb the losses should the risks materialize (generally referred to as “economic capital”). This methodology requires building a probability distribution of the relevant risk factors and pick the value corresponding to a predefined confidence interval.

For valuation risk, this implies building a probability distribution of exit prices. This task is challenging due to the sheer nature of valuation risk, i.e. the fact that a database of exit prices is hardly available. There is no commonly accepted methodology, and additional research will be required. Initial approaches proposed in literature^[17]^[18] include:

Whenever possible, build benchmark curves for key risk factors by leveraging market-traded instruments whose risk factor exposure shows similarities with the instrument being evaluated
Build hypothetical exit prices based on assumptions about the return that investors are expected to ask for the specific risk (an approach similar to one often used for pricing non-performing loans)

With respect to the amount of economic capital to be effectively allocated for a given instrument, one methodological approach suggests that valuation risk on one side, and all other risks relating to the same instrument on the other side are mutually exclusive. In fact, valuation risk for a financial instrument is measured under the assumption that the entity sells it (or transfers it to a third party, in case of a liability); once that instrument has been traded, the entity is no longer exposed to market, credit or other risks for that instrument and can release any capital previously posted against them. Under this assumption, if an entity suffers a loss due to valuation risk, its prudential capital will be affected by two impacts of opposite sign:

A negative impact due to the loss incurred in the trade, that directly dents into available capital
A positive impact due to the release of the capital previously set aside for the traded instrument for all risks other than valuation risk

Under this approach, an entity may allocate economic capital for valuation risk for a given financial instrument to the extent that the risk of loss due to price uncertainty (valuation risk) exceeds the total amount of economic capital set aside for all other risks, as expressed by the following formula:

 $Capital_{VR}(i,t_{Exit})=max[Loss(i,t_{Exit})-Capital_{OR}(i,t_{Exit}),0]$

Where:

$Capital_{VR}(i,t_{Exit})$ is the amount of economic capital to be set aside for valuation risk for instrument ${i}$ at time ${t_{Exit}}$
$Loss(i,t_{Exit})$ is the hypothetical loss assumed to occur on time ${t_{Exit}}$ from the trade of instrument ${i}$
$Capital_{OR}(i,t_{Exit})$ is the total amount of economic capital set aside for all risks other than valuation risk for instrument ${i}$ at time ${t_{Exit}}$ before the trade
$t_{Exit}$ is the evaluation date, i.e. the date when instrument ${i}$ is assumed to be traded

Another way of expressing the same concept is that the total economic capital to be allocated for a financial instrument, including valuation risk and all other risks, is equal to the biggest of the economic capital allocated to valuation risk and the economic capital allocated to the other risks, as per the following formula:

 $Capital(i,t_{Exit})=max[Capital_{VR}(i,t_{Exit}),Capital_{OR}(i,t_{Exit})]$

Where:

$Capital(i,t_{Exit})$ is the total amount of economic capital to be set aside for instrument ${i}$ at time ${t_{Exit}}$
$Capital_{VR}(i,t_{Exit})$ is the amount of economic capital calculated for valuation risk for instrument ${i}$ at time ${t_{Exit}}$ (corresponding to $Loss(i,t_{Exit})$ in the previous equation)
$Capital_{OR}(i,t_{Exit})$ is the total amount of economic capital calculated for risks other than valuation risk for instrument ${i}$ at time ${t_{Exit}}$ before the trade
$t_{Exit}$ is the evaluation date, i.e. the date when instrument ${i}$ is assumed to be traded

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Derivative (finance)</span> Financial contract whose value comes from the underlying entitys performance

In finance, a derivative is a contract that derives its value from the performance of an underlying entity. This underlying entity can be an asset, index, or interest rate, and is often simply called the "underlying". Derivatives can be used for a number of purposes, including insuring against price movements (hedging), increasing exposure to price movements for speculation, or getting access to otherwise hard-to-trade assets or markets.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fundamental analysis</span> Analysis of a businesss financial statements, health, and market

Fundamental analysis, in accounting and finance, is the analysis of a business's financial statements ; health; and competitors and markets. It also considers the overall state of the economy and factors including interest rates, production, earnings, employment, GDP, housing, manufacturing and management. There are two basic approaches that can be used: bottom up analysis and top down analysis. These terms are used to distinguish such analysis from other types of investment analysis, such as quantitative and technical.

Financial economics is the branch of economics characterized by a "concentration on monetary activities", in which "money of one type or another is likely to appear on both sides of a trade". Its concern is thus the interrelation of financial variables, such as share prices, interest rates and exchange rates, as opposed to those concerning the real economy. It has two main areas of focus: asset pricing and corporate finance; the first being the perspective of providers of capital, i.e. investors, and the second of users of capital. It thus provides the theoretical underpinning for much of finance.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Moral hazard</span> Increases in the exposure to risk when insured, or when another bears the cost

In economics, a moral hazard is a situation where an economic actor has an incentive to increase its exposure to risk because it does not bear the full costs of that risk. For example, when a corporation is insured, it may take on higher risk knowing that its insurance will pay the associated costs. A moral hazard may occur where the actions of the risk-taking party change to the detriment of the cost-bearing party after a financial transaction has taken place.

In finance, an interest rate swap (IRS) is an interest rate derivative (IRD). It involves exchange of interest rates between two parties. In particular it is a "linear" IRD and one of the most liquid, benchmark products. It has associations with forward rate agreements (FRAs), and with zero coupon swaps (ZCSs).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Valuation (finance)</span> Process of estimating what something is worth, used in the finance industry

In finance, valuation is the process of determining the present value (PV) of an asset. In a business context, it is often the hypothetical price that a third party would pay for a given asset. Valuations can be done on assets or on liabilities. Valuations are needed for many reasons such as investment analysis, capital budgeting, merger and acquisition transactions, financial reporting, taxable events to determine the proper tax liability.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mark-to-market accounting</span> Accounting practice

Mark-to-market or fair value accounting is accounting for the "fair value" of an asset or liability based on the current market price, or the price for similar assets and liabilities, or based on another objectively assessed "fair" value. Fair value accounting has been a part of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) in the United States since the early 1990s, and is now regarded as the "gold standard" in some circles. Failure to use it is viewed as the cause of the Orange County Bankruptcy, even though its use is considered to be one of the reasons for the Enron scandal and the eventual bankruptcy of the company, as well as the closure of the accounting firm Arthur Andersen.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fair value</span> Financial estimation of potential market price

In accounting and in most schools of economic thought, fair value is a rational and unbiased estimate of the potential market price of a good, service, or asset. The derivation takes into account such objective factors as the costs associated with production or replacement, market conditions and matters of supply and demand. Subjective factors may also be considered such as the risk characteristics, the cost of and return on capital, and individually perceived utility.

In financial markets, stock valuation is the method of calculating theoretical values of companies and their stocks. The main use of these methods is to predict future market prices, or more generally, potential market prices, and thus to profit from price movement – stocks that are judged undervalued are bought, while stocks that are judged overvalued are sold, in the expectation that undervalued stocks will overall rise in value, while overvalued stocks will generally decrease in value.

In finance, systemic risk is the risk of collapse of an entire financial system or entire market, as opposed to the risk associated with any one individual entity, group or component of a system, that can be contained therein without harming the entire system. It can be defined as "financial system instability, potentially catastrophic, caused or exacerbated by idiosyncratic events or conditions in financial intermediaries". It refers to the risks imposed by interlinkages and interdependencies in a system or market, where the failure of a single entity or cluster of entities can cause a cascading failure, which could potentially bankrupt or bring down the entire system or market. It is also sometimes erroneously referred to as "systematic risk".

Business valuation is a process and a set of procedures used to estimate the economic value of an owner's interest in a business. Here various valuation techniques are used by financial market participants to determine the price they are willing to pay or receive to effect a sale of the business. In addition to estimating the selling price of a business, the same valuation tools are often used by business appraisers to resolve disputes related to estate and gift taxation, divorce litigation, allocate business purchase price among business assets, establish a formula for estimating the value of partners' ownership interest for buy-sell agreements, and many other business and legal purposes such as in shareholders deadlock, divorce litigation and estate contest.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Financial risk</span> Any of various types of risk associated with financing

Financial risk is any of various types of risk associated with financing, including financial transactions that include company loans in risk of default. Often it is understood to include only downside risk, meaning the potential for financial loss and uncertainty about its extent.

The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to finance:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Option (finance)</span> Right to buy or sell a certain thing at a later date at an agreed price

In finance, an option is a contract which conveys to its owner, the holder, the right, but not the obligation, to buy or sell a specific quantity of an underlying asset or instrument at a specified strike price on or before a specified date, depending on the style of the option. Options are typically acquired by purchase, as a form of compensation, or as part of a complex financial transaction. Thus, they are also a form of asset and have a valuation that may depend on a complex relationship between underlying asset price, time until expiration, market volatility, the risk-free rate of interest, and the strike price of the option. Options may be traded between private parties in over-the-counter (OTC) transactions, or they may be exchange-traded in live, public markets in the form of standardized contracts.

In September 2006, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) of the United States issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards 157: Fair Value Measurements), which “defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value in generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), and expands disclosures about fair value measurements.” This statement is effective for financial reporting fiscal periods commencing after November 15, 2007 and the interim periods applicable.

Macroprudential regulation is the approach to financial regulation that aims to mitigate risk to the financial system as a whole. In the aftermath of the late-2000s financial crisis, there is a growing consensus among policymakers and economic researchers about the need to re-orient the regulatory framework towards a macroprudential perspective.

The role of fair value accounting in the subprime mortgage crisis of 2008 is controversial. Fair value accounting was issued as US accounting standard SFAS 157 in 2006 by the privately run Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)—delegated by the SEC with the task of establishing financial reporting standards. This required that tradable assets such as mortgage securities be valued according to their current market value rather than their historic cost or some future expected value. When the market for such securities became volatile and collapsed, the resulting loss of value had a major financial effect upon the institutions holding them even if they had no immediate plans to sell them.

There were many events that led to the financial crisis of the late 2000s, and many differing views on which parties were primarily responsible. The main groups that have been identified for playing a major role in the crisis include: investment bankers, credit rating agencies, financial statement preparers, the Federal Reserve, investors, loan originators, auditors, and borrowers among others. For a detailed background on the causes of the crisis and the parties that contributed please reference:Causes of the 2007-2012 global financial crisis and “History of Fair Value Issues” The purpose of this article is to expand on the role that accountants specifically played within the late 2000s financial crisis.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">XVA</span>

An X-Value Adjustment is an umbrella term referring to a number of different “valuation adjustments” that banks must make when assessing the value of derivative contracts that they have entered into. The purpose of these is twofold: primarily to hedge for possible losses due to other parties' failures to pay amounts due on the derivative contracts; but also to determine the amount of capital required under the bank capital adequacy rules. XVA has led to the creation of specialized desks in many banking institutions to manage XVA exposures.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">IFRS 7</span> Accounting standard titled "Financial Instruments: Disclosures"

IFRS 7, titled Financial Instruments: Disclosures, is an International Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) published by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). It requires entities to provide certain disclosures regarding financial instruments in their financial statements. The standard was originally issued in August 2005 and became applicable on 1 January 2007, superseding the earlier standard IAS 30, Disclosures in the Financial Statements of Banks and Similar Financial Institutions, and replacing the disclosure requirements of IAS 32, previously titled Financial Instruments: Disclosure and Presentation.

References

↑ "A Holistic Accounting and Prudential Approach, November 2020" (PDF). Promontory, an IBM Company.
↑ "IASB, International Financial Reporting Standard #9 - Financial Instruments". International Accounting Standard Board.
↑ "IASB, International Financial Reporting Standard #13 - Fair Value Measurement". International Accounting Standard Board.
↑ Bank, European Central (19 May 2021). "ECB, Supervision Newsletter - Room for improving valuation risk management, May 2021". European Central Bank.
↑ "ESRB, Macroprudential implications of financial instruments in Levels 2 and 3 for accounting purposes, 2020" (PDF). European Systemic Risk Board.
↑ "BCBS, The interplay of accounting and regulation and its impact on bank behaviour, 2017" (PDF). Basel Committee on Banking Supervision.
↑ "BCBS, Basel III: A global regulatory framework for more resilient banks and banking systems, 2010" (PDF). Basel Committee on Banking Supervision.
↑ "Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012". Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR).
↑ "Regulation (EU) 2019/876 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2019 amending Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 as regards the leverage ratio, the net stable funding ratio, requirements for own funds and eligible liabilities, counterparty credit". Capital Requirements Regulation 2 (CRR2).
↑ "Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/101 of 26 October 2015 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards for prudent valuation under Article 105(14)". EU Commission Regulation.
↑ "EBA final draft Regulatory Technical Standards on prudent valuation under Article 105(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (Capital Requirements Regulation — CRR)" (PDF). European Banking Authority.
↑ "EBA final draft Regulatory Technical Standards on criteria for assessing the modellability of risk factors under the Internal Model Approach (IMA) under Article 325be(3) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (revised Capital Requirements Regulation – CRR2". European Banking Authority. 27 June 2019.
↑ "EBA final draft Regulatory Technical Standards on Back‐testing requirements and Profit and Loss attribution requirements under Article 325 bf(9) and 325bg (4) of Regulation(EU) No575/2013(revised Capital Requirements Regulation ‐ CRR2" (PDF). European Banking Authority.
↑ Bank, European Central (19 May 2021). "ECB, Supervision Newsletter - Room for improving valuation risk management, May 2021". European Central Bank.
↑ "Risks and challenges of complex financial instruments: an analysis of SSM banks, 2017" (PDF). Bank of Italy.
↑ Onorato, Mario; Battaglia, Fabio Maria; Lascala, Orazio; Ngjela, Arber (April 1, 2021). "Valuation Risk at European Banks: Empirical Evidence". doi:10.2139/ssrn.3843099. S2CID 236745597. SSRN 3843099.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
↑ Bianchetti, Marco; Cherubini, Umberto (March 1, 2016). "Prudent Valuation Guidelines and Sound Practices" (PDF). doi:10.2139/ssrn.2790629. S2CID 156904750. SSRN 2790629.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
↑ Onorato, Mario; Battaglia, Fabio; Lascala, Orazio; Ngjela, Arber (November 4, 2020). "A Holistic Accounting and Prudential Approach". doi:10.2139/ssrn.3741563. S2CID 230652981. SSRN 3741563.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[1] "A Holistic Accounting and Prudential Approach, November 2020" (PDF). Promontory, an IBM Company.

[2] "IASB, International Financial Reporting Standard #9 - Financial Instruments". International Accounting Standard Board.

[3] "IASB, International Financial Reporting Standard #13 - Fair Value Measurement". International Accounting Standard Board.

[4] Bank, European Central (19 May 2021). "ECB, Supervision Newsletter - Room for improving valuation risk management, May 2021". European Central Bank.

[5] "ESRB, Macroprudential implications of financial instruments in Levels 2 and 3 for accounting purposes, 2020" (PDF). European Systemic Risk Board.

[6] "BCBS, The interplay of accounting and regulation and its impact on bank behaviour, 2017" (PDF). Basel Committee on Banking Supervision.

[7] "BCBS, Basel III: A global regulatory framework for more resilient banks and banking systems, 2010" (PDF). Basel Committee on Banking Supervision.

[8] "Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012". Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR).

[9] "Regulation (EU) 2019/876 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2019 amending Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 as regards the leverage ratio, the net stable funding ratio, requirements for own funds and eligible liabilities, counterparty credit". Capital Requirements Regulation 2 (CRR2).

[10] "Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/101 of 26 October 2015 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards for prudent valuation under Article 105(14)". EU Commission Regulation.

[11] "EBA final draft Regulatory Technical Standards on prudent valuation under Article 105(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (Capital Requirements Regulation — CRR)" (PDF). European Banking Authority.

[12] "EBA final draft Regulatory Technical Standards on criteria for assessing the modellability of risk factors under the Internal Model Approach (IMA) under Article 325be(3) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (revised Capital Requirements Regulation – CRR2". European Banking Authority. 27 June 2019.

[13] "EBA final draft Regulatory Technical Standards on Back‐testing requirements and Profit and Loss attribution requirements under Article 325 bf(9) and 325bg (4) of Regulation(EU) No575/2013(revised Capital Requirements Regulation ‐ CRR2" (PDF). European Banking Authority.

[14] Bank, European Central (19 May 2021). "ECB, Supervision Newsletter - Room for improving valuation risk management, May 2021". European Central Bank.

[15] "Risks and challenges of complex financial instruments: an analysis of SSM banks, 2017" (PDF). Bank of Italy.

[16] Onorato, Mario; Battaglia, Fabio Maria; Lascala, Orazio; Ngjela, Arber (April 1, 2021). "Valuation Risk at European Banks: Empirical Evidence". doi:10.2139/ssrn.3843099. S2CID 236745597. SSRN 3843099.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

[17] Bianchetti, Marco; Cherubini, Umberto (March 1, 2016). "Prudent Valuation Guidelines and Sound Practices" (PDF). doi:10.2139/ssrn.2790629. S2CID 156904750. SSRN 2790629.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

[18] Onorato, Mario; Battaglia, Fabio; Lascala, Orazio; Ngjela, Arber (November 4, 2020). "A Holistic Accounting and Prudential Approach". doi:10.2139/ssrn.3741563. S2CID 230652981. SSRN 3741563.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]