Methodology for measuring expected credit losses (ECL) according to IFRS 9
For a detailed description of the bank’s loss model, please see note 9 in the annual report for 2022.
Sparebanken Møre has developed an ECL model based on the Group’s IRB parameters and applies a three-stage approach when assessing ECL on loans to customers and financial guarantees in accordance with IFRS 9.
Stage 1: At initial recognition and if there’s no significant increase in credit risk, the commitment is classified in stage 1 with 12-months ECL.
Stage 2: If a significant increase in credit risk since initial recognition is identified, but without evidence of loss, the commitment is transferred to stage 2 with lifetime ECL measurement.
Stage 3: If the credit risk increases further, including evidence of loss, the commitment is transferred to stage 3 with lifetime ECL measurement. The commitment is considered to be credit-impaired. As opposed to stage 1 and 2, effective interest rate in stage 3 is calculated on net impaired commitment (total commitment less expected credit loss) instead of gross commitment.
Staging is performed at account level and implies that two or more accounts held by the same customer can be placed in different stages. If a customer has one account in stage 3 (risk classes K, M or N), all of the customer’s accounts will migrate to stage 3.
Customers in risk class N have been subject to individual loss assessment with impairment. In connection with individual loss assessment, 3 scenarios based on calculation of the weighted present value of future cash flow after realisation of collateral are prepared. If the weighted present value of cash flow after realisation of collateral is positive, model-based loss provisions according to the ECL model is used.
An increase in credit risk reflects both customer-specific circumstances and development in relevant macro factors for the particular customer segment. The assessment of what is considered to be a significant increase in credit risk is based on a combination of quantitative and qualitative indicators.
Quantitative criteria
A significant increase in credit risk is determined by comparing the PD at the reporting date with PD at initial recognition. If the actual PD is higher than initial PD, an assessment is made of whether the increase is significant.
Significant increase in credit risk since initial recognition is considered to have occurred when either
- PD has increased by 100 per cent or more and the increase in PD is more than 0.5 percentage points, or
- PD has increased by more than 2,0 percentage points
- The customer’s agreed payments are overdue by more than 30 days
The weighted, macro adjusted PD in year 1 is used for comparison with PD on initial recognition to determine whether the credit risk has increased significantly.
Qualitative criteria
In addition to the quantitative assessment of changes in the PD, a qualitative assessment is made to determine whether there has been a significant increase in credit risk, for example, if the commitment is subject to special monitoring.
Credit risk is always considered to have increased significantly if the customer has been granted forbearance measures, though it is not severe enough to be individually assessed in stage 3.
Positive migration in credit risk
A customer migrates from stage 2 to stage 1 if:
- The criteria for migration from stage 1 to stage 2 is no longer present, and
- this is satisfied for at least one subsequent month (total 2 months)
A customer migrates from stage 3 to stage 1 or stage 2 if the customer no longer meets the conditions for migration to stage 3:
- The customer migrates to stage 2 if more than 30 days in default.
- Otherwise, the customer migrates to stage 1.
Accounts that are not subject to the migration rules above are not expected to have significant change in credit risk and retain the stage from the previous month.
Customers who are going through a probation period after default (at least 3 or 12 months), are initially held in stage 3. The customers can be overridden to stage 2 if that is considered to give the best estimate of expected credit loss.
In the quarterly report for the third quarter of 2023, it was informed about improvements in the market for Oil Services/Supply and developments within some commitments placed in stage 3.
According to notice to the Oslo Stock Exchange during the fourth quarter of 2023, the loss provisions on these commitments were reversed. In addition, further loss reversals on other loans and guarantees were recognized in the quarter. Net loan loss reversals in the fourth quarter amounts to MNOK 117.
Scenarios
Three scenarios are developed: Best, Basis and Worst. For each of the scenarios, expected values of different parameters are given, for each of the next five years. The possibility for each of the scenarios to occur is also estimated. After five years, the scenarios are expected to converge to a long-term stable level.
Changes to PD as a result of scenarios, may also affect the staging.
Definition of default, credit-impaired and forbearance
The definition of default is similar to that used in the capital adequacy regulation.
A commitment is defined to be subject to forbearance (payment relief due to payment difficulties) if the bank agrees to changes in the terms and conditions as a result of the debtor having problems meeting payment obligations. Performing forbearance (not in default) is placed in stage 2 whereas non-performing (defaulted) forbearance is placed in stage 3.
Management override
Quarterly review meetings evaluate the basis for the accounting of ECL losses. If there are significant events that will affect an estimated loss which the model has not taken into account, relevant factors in the ECL model will be overridden. An assessment is made of the level of long-term PD and LGD in stage 2 and stage 3 under different scenarios, as well as an assessment of macro factors and weighting of scenarios.
Consequences of increased macroeconomic uncertainty and measurement of expected credit loss (ECL) for loans and guarantees
The bank’s loss provisions reflect expected credit loss (ECL) pursuant to IFRS 9. When assessing ECL, the relevant conditions at the time of reporting and expected economic developments are taken into account.
At its meeting on 13 December 2023, Norges Bank decided to raise the key policy rate from 4.25 to 4.5 per cent. Based on their current assessment of the outlook and risk profile, the key policy rate will probably be kept at this level for some time ahead. Growth in the Norwegian economy is low. After growth slowed in the first half of 2023, mainland Norway GDP was approximately unchanged from the second to the third quarter. Household consumption as a whole has fallen so far this year and has been slightly lower than expected in Norges Bank's March Report. Norges Bank estimates that the average mortgage rate will rise to about 5.7 per cent next year. Higher interest rates and high inflation have curbed demand in the Norwegian economy, and household consumption and housing investments are expected to show weak developments this year and next. On the other hand, the depreciation of the krone has improved cost competitiveness for Norwegian enterprises. This points to increased exports. High activity in petroleum-related industries will boost activity in both 2024 and 2025. Prospects of rising public demand throughout the projection period also point to increased activity. Through 2025 and 2026, Norges Bank expects economic activity to pick up gradually, primarily as a result of higher private consumption. The interest burden is expected to increase slightly further through 2024 before gradually decreasing later in the projection period. The slowdown will occur both as a result of a lower debt burden and a lower key policy rate over time. As a result of weak growth in employment in the next few years, Norges Bank expects unemployment to edge up.
So far, no significant increase in arrears and forbearance has been observed as a result of increased interest costs and higher inflation.
The ECL as of 31.12.2023 is based on a scenario weighting with 70 per cent weight on the baseline scenario (normal development), 20 per cent weight on the worst case scenario and 10 per cent weight on the best-case scenario. The weightings have been kept unchanged from the first quarter of 2022 when the weighting for the worst-case scenario was increased from 10 per cent to 20 per cent while the weighting for the best-case scenario was reduced from 20 per cent to 10 per cent as a result of the war in Ukraine, sharp increase in energy and commodity prices and prospects of persistently higher inflation and interest rates.