How is replacement cost calculated under SA-CCR, and how does margining affect the computation?
I'm studying Basel III counterparty credit risk for FRM Part II. SA-CCR replaced CEM for calculating EAD on derivatives. I understand it has replacement cost (RC) and potential future exposure (PFE) components, but the RC formula changes depending on whether the trade is margined or unmargined. Can someone break down the mechanics?
SA-CCR (Standardized Approach for Counterparty Credit Risk) computes Exposure at Default as:\n\nEAD = alpha x (RC + PFE)\n\nwhere alpha = 1.4 (regulatory multiplier). The replacement cost (RC) component captures current exposure, and its formulation differs based on whether the netting set has a margin agreement.\n\nUnmargined RC:\n\nRC = max(V - C, 0)\n\nwhere V = current mark-to-market value of the netting set and C = net collateral held. This is simply the current positive exposure after netting collateral.\n\nMargined RC:\n\nRC = max(V - C, TH + MTA - NICA, 0)\n\nwhere:\n- TH = threshold (exposure level before margin call is triggered)\n- MTA = minimum transfer amount\n- NICA = net independent collateral amount (initial margin held minus initial margin posted)\n\n`mermaid\ngraph TD\n A[\"Netting Set\"] --> B{\"Margin Agreement?\"}\n B -->|\"No\"| C[\"RC = max(V - C, 0)\"]\n B -->|\"Yes\"| D[\"RC = max(V - C,
TH + MTA - NICA, 0)\"]\n C --> E[\"Captures: current MTM exposure\"]\n D --> F[\"Captures: exposure that can
build before margin is received\"]\n E --> G[\"EAD = 1.4 x (RC + PFE)\"]\n F --> G\n`\n\nWorked Example:\nPinnacle Derivatives has a netting set with Evergreen Bank:\n\n| Parameter | Value |\n|---|---|---|\n| Portfolio MTM (V) | +$14.2 million |\n| Variation margin held (C) | $12.8 million |\n| Threshold (TH) | $1.0 million |\n| Minimum transfer amount (MTA) | $0.5 million |\n| Initial margin held (IM received) | $5.0 million |\n| Initial margin posted (IM posted) | $0.0 million |\n| NICA | $5.0 million |\n\nMargined RC = max(14.2 - 12.8, 1.0 + 0.5 - 5.0, 0)\n= max(1.4, -3.5, 0)\n= $1.4 million\n\nThe RC picks up the $1.4 million gap between MTM and variation margin. The TH + MTA - NICA term is negative (excess initial margin provides a buffer), so the first term governs.\n\nIf the portfolio had no margin agreement:\nUnmargined RC = max(14.2 - 0, 0) = $14.2 million (ten times larger).\n\nWhy the Margined Formula Has a Floor:\nThe TH + MTA - NICA floor represents the maximum exposure that could accumulate between margin calls. Even if current MTM is fully collateralized, the threshold and MTA allow some exposure to build before a margin call triggers. Initial margin (NICA) offsets this gap.\n\nPractical Implications:\n- Banks with higher thresholds in their CSAs face higher RC and thus higher capital charges\n- Posting initial margin (reducing NICA) directly reduces RC\n- The alpha multiplier of 1.4 adds a 40% buffer for model risk and wrong-way risk\n\nStudy SA-CCR in detail with our FRM Part II materials.
Master Part II with our FRM Course
64 lessons · 120+ hours· Expert instruction
Related Questions
How is the swap rate curve constructed, and why does bootstrapping from deposit rates to swap rates matter for valuation?
Why did the industry shift to OIS discounting for collateralized derivatives, and how does it differ from LIBOR discounting?
How does a knock-in barrier option actually activate, and what determines its value before the barrier is breached?
How does linear interpolation work on a bootstrapped yield curve, and what artifacts does it introduce?
How does the cheapest-to-deliver switch option work in Treasury bond futures, and when does the CTD bond change?
Join the Discussion
Ask questions and get expert answers.