Final Results - Part 1

Standard Chartered PLC - Risk review continued

The total impairment charge (excluding goodwill impairment) for 2013 has increased by $354 million compared to 2012.  The increase has primarily been in Consumer Banking, partly offset by lower other impairment charges.

In Consumer Banking, total loan impairment provisions have increased year on year, primarily reflecting the growth and seasoning of loans booked between 2010 and 2012, the ongoing impact of Korea Personal Debt Rehabilitation Scheme (PDRS) filings and effects of reduced loan sales compared to previous years. The increase is otherwise in line with our portfolio growth and growth in unsecured products in selected markets in prior years. Portfolio impairment provisions also reduced as a result of reclassification of consumer finance businesses in Korea as held for sale. We remain disciplined in our approach to risk management and proactive in our collection efforts to minimise account delinquencies.

In Wholesale Banking, total loan impairment provisions have increased by $61 million compared to 2012.  This was concentrated in a few names in India and Africa and was partially offset by a release of an overlay portfolio impairment provision (PIP) in MESA as economic conditions improved. The credit quality of the portfolio quality remains high in spite of the volatility in commodity prices and currencies.

Further details of credit risk in respect of the Group's loans portfolio is set out on pages 30 to 64.

Other impairment, excluding goodwill impairment, is lower compared to prior periods, as 2012 was impacted by provision against certain investments in associates. Further details are set out in note 8 on page 109.

We are in the business of taking selected risks to generate shareholder value, and we seek to contain and mitigate these risks to ensure they remain within our risk appetite and are adequately compensated.

The key uncertainties we face in the coming year are set out below. This should not be regarded as a complete and comprehensive statement of all potential risks and uncertainties that we may experience.

Deteriorating macroeconomic conditions in footprint countries

Macroeconomic conditions have an impact on personal expenditure and consumption, demand for business products and services, the debt service burden of consumers and businesses, the general availability of credit for retail and corporate borrowers and the availability of capital and liquidity funding for our business. All these factors may impact our performance.

The world economy is coming out of a difficult period and uncertainty remains. The unwinding of the US Federal Reserve's quantitative easing programme could lead to higher interest rates, volatility in financial markets and capital flight from emerging markets which may threaten the growth trajectory of some vulnerable economies.  A slowdown in China's growth may depress prices and trade in a number of commodity sectors such as energy, metals and mining sectors, and a prolonged slowdown could have wider economic repercussions.

The sovereign crisis in the eurozone is not fully resolved and, although acute risks have been addressed by ongoing policy initiatives, there is still a need for substantial new structural reform (see additional information on the risk of redenomination on page 67).

Our exposure to eurozone sovereign debt is very low. However, we remain alert to the risk of secondary impacts from events in the West on financial institutions, other counterparties and global economic growth.

Inflation and property prices appear to be under control in most of the countries in which we operate. Changes in monetary policy could lead to significant increases in interest rates from their currently low historical levels, with resulting impacts on the wider economy and on property values.

We balance risk and return taking account of changing conditions through the economic cycle, and monitor economic trends in our markets very closely. We conduct stress tests to assess the effects of extreme but plausible trading conditions on our portfolio and also continuously review the suitability of our risk policies and controls. We manage credit exposures following the principle of diversification across products, geographies, client and customer segments. This provides for strong resilience against economic shocks in one or more of our portfolios.

Regulatory changes

Our business as an international bank will continue to be subject to an evolving and complex regulatory framework comprising legislation, regulation and codes of practice, in each of the countries in which we operate. A key uncertainty relates to the way in which governments and regulators adjust laws, regulations and economic policies in response to macroeconomic and other systemic conditions. The nature and impact of such future changes are not always predictable and could run counter to our strategic interests. Some are anticipated to have a significant impact, such as changes to capital and liquidity regimes, changes to the calculation of risk-weighted assets, derivatives reform, remuneration reforms, recovery and resolution plans, banking structural reforms in a number of markets, (including proposals which could result in (i) deposit-taking entities being ring-fenced from wholesale banking activities and (ii) local branches of international banking groups being subsidiarised), the UK bank levy and the US Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act.  In relation to the banking structural reforms, the European Commission has published a legislative proposal for a regulation introducing structural reforms to the EU banking sector, including a prohibition on proprietary trading and separation powers for supervisors relating to banks' other trading activities. Uncertainty remains regarding details of the application of the European Union's Capital Requirements Directive and Regulation  (CRD IV), the proposed Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) and Over the Counter (OTC) derivative reforms across our markets which could potentially have a material impact on the Group and its business model. Proposed changes could also adversely affect economic growth, the volatility and liquidity of the financial markets and, consequently, the way we conduct business, structure our global operating model and manage capital and liquidity. These effects may directly or indirectly impact our financial performance. Despite these concerns, we remain a highly liquid and well capitalised bank under current and currently published future regimes.

 It is in the wider interest to have a well run financial system, and we are supportive of a tighter regulatory regime that enhances the resilience of the international financial system. The Group will continue to participate in the regulatory debate through responses to consultations and working towards an improved and workable regulatory architecture. We are also encouraging our international regulators to work together to develop co-ordinated approaches to regulating and resolving cross border banking groups. We support changes to laws, regulations and codes of practice that will improve the overall stability of, and the conduct within, the financial system because this provides benefits to our clients and shareholders and the broader geographies and markets in which we operate. However, we also have concerns that certain proposals may not achieve this desired objective and may have unintended consequences, either individually or in terms of aggregate impact.  

Regulatory compliance, reviews, requests for information and investigations

Since the global financial crisis, the banking industry has been subject to increased regulatory scrutiny.  There has been an unprecedented volume of regulatory changes and requirements, as well as a more intensive approach to supervision and oversight, resulting in an increasing number of regulatory reviews, requests for information and investigations, often with enforcement consequences, involving banks.  

While the Group seeks to comply with the letter and spirit of all applicable laws and regulations at all times, it may be subject to regulatory actions and investigations across our markets, the outcomes of which are generally difficult to predict and can be material to the Group. Where laws and regulations across the geographies in which the Group operates contradict each other or create conflicting obligations, the Group aspires to meet both local requirements and appropriate global standards.

From time to time the Group is the subject of various regulatory reviews, requests for information (including subpoenas and requests for documents) and investigations by various governmental and regulatory bodies arising from the Group's business operations.

In 2012 the Group reached settlements with the US authorities regarding US sanctions compliance in the period 2001 to 2007, involving a Consent Order by the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS), a Cease and Desist Order by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY), Deferred Prosecution Agreements with each of the Department of Justice and with the District Attorney of New York (each a 'DPA') and a Settlement Agreement with the Office of Foreign Assets Control. In addition to the civil penalties totalling $667million, the terms of these settlements (together the 'Settlements') include a number of conditions and ongoing obligations with regard to improving sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Banking Secrecy Act (BSA) controls such as remediation programmes, reporting requirements, compliance reviews and programmes, banking transparency requirements, training measures, audit programmes, disclosure obligations  and the appointment of an independent monitor.  These obligations are managed under a programme of work referred to as the US Supervisory Remediation Program (SRP).  The SRP comprises workstreams designed to ensure compliance with the remediation requirements contained in all of the Settlements.  Provided the Group fulfils all the requirements imposed by the DPAs, the applicable charges against the Group will be dismissed at the end of the two year term of those agreements.

The Group has established a Financial Crime Risk Mitigation Programme (FCRMP), which is a comprehensive, multi-year, programme designed to review many aspects of the Group's existing approach to anti-money laundering and sanctions compliance and to enhance them as appropriate.  One key component of the FCRMP is to oversee and manage the SRP.  As part of the FCRMP the Group or its advisors may identify new issues, potential breaches or matters requiring further review or further process improvements that could impact the scope or duration of the FCRMP.

The Group is engaged with all relevant authorities to implement these programmes, meet the obligations under the Settlements and respond to further requests for information and inquiries related to its historic, current and future compliance with the relevant sanctions regimes of all jurisdictions in which it operates.

The Group recognises that its compliance with historic, current and future sanctions, as well as AML and BSA requirements, and customer due diligence practices, not just in the US but throughout its footprint, is and will remain a focus of the relevant authorities.

As part of their remit to oversee market conduct, regulators and other agencies in certain markets are conducting investigations or requesting reviews into a number of areas of market conduct, including sales and trading, involving a range of financial products, and submissions made to set various market interest rates and other financial benchmarks, such as foreign exchange.   At relevant times, certain of the Group's branches and/or subsidiaries were (and are) participants in some of those markets, in some cases submitting data to bodies that set such rates and other financial benchmarks.

The Group is contributing to industry proposals to strengthen financial benchmarks processes in certain markets and continues to review its practices and processes in the light of the investigations, reviews and the industry proposals. 

The Group is co-operating with all such ongoing reviews, requests for information and investigations.  While the Group seeks to comply with the letter and spirit of all applicable laws and regulations, the outcome of these reviews, requests for information and investigations is uncertain and it may not be possible to predict the extent of any liabilities or other consequences that may arise.

For further details on legal and regulatory matters refer to note 33 on page 142.

Financial markets dislocation

There is a risk that a sudden financial market dislocation, perhaps as a result of a tightening of monetary policy in the major economies or a deterioration of the sovereign debt crisis in the eurozone, could significantly increase general financial market volatility which could affect our performance or the availability of capital or liquidity. In addition, reduction of monetary intervention by the US Federal Reserve, or other central banks, could disrupt external funding for some economies leading to lower growth and financial markets volatility.  These factors may have an impact on the mark-to-market valuations of assets in our available-for-sale and trading portfolios. The potential losses incurred by certain clients holding derivative contracts during periods of financial market volatility could also lead to an increase in disputes and corporate defaults. At the same time, financial market instability could cause some financial institution counterparties to experience tighter liquidity conditions or even fail. There is no certainty that Government action to reduce the systemic risk will be successful and it may have unintended consequences

We stress test our market risk exposures to highlight the potential impact of extreme market events on those exposures and to confirm that they are within authorised stress triggers.  Stress scenarios are regularly updated to reflect changes in risk profile and economic events.  Where necessary, overall reductions in market risk exposure are enforced.  We closely monitor the performance of our financial institution counterparties and adjust our exposure to these counterparties as necessary. We maintain robust processes to assess the appropriateness and suitability of products and services we provide to clients and customers to mitigate the risk of disputes.

Geopolitical events

We operate in a large number of markets around the world, and our performance is in part reliant on the openness of cross-border trade and capital flows. We face a risk that geopolitical tensions or conflicts in our footprint could impact trade flows, our customers' ability to pay, and our ability to manage capital or operations across borders.

We actively monitor the political situation in all our principal markets, such as the development of events in the Middle East and territorial disputes in North East Asia. We conduct stress tests of the impact of extreme but plausible geopolitical events on our performance and the potential for such events to jeopardise our ability to operate within our stated risk appetite. Further details on stress testing are given on page 30.

 

Risk of fraud and other criminal acts

The banking industry has long been a target for third parties seeking to defraud, to disrupt legitimate economic activity, or to facilitate other illegal activities. The risk posed by such criminal activity is growing as criminals become more sophisticated and as they take advantage of the increasing use of technology and the internet. The incidence of cyber crime is rising, becoming more globally coordinated, and is a challenge for all organisations.

We seek to be vigilant to the risk of internal and external crime in our management of people, processes, systems and in our dealings with customers and other stakeholders. We have a broad range of measures in place to monitor and mitigate this risk. Controls are embedded in our policies and procedures across a wide range of the Group's activities, such as origination, recruitment, physical and information security. 

 

We have a set of techniques, tools and activities to detect and respond to cyber crime, in its many forms.  We actively collaborate with our peers, regulators and other expert bodies as part of our response to this risk.

 

The Group's controls to address money laundering risks are under review as part of the Group's Financial Crime Risk Mitigation Programme, referred to in the section headed "Regulatory compliance, reviews, requests for information and investigations" above. 

 

Fraud and criminal activity may also give rise to litigation impacting the Group. In December 2008 Bernard Madoff confessed to running a Ponzi scheme through Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, LLC ('BMIS').  American Express Bank ('AEB'), acquired by the Group in February 2008, had provided clients with access to funds that invested in BMIS.   BMIS and the funds are in liquidation. Certain clients have brought actions against the Group in various jurisdictions seeking to recover losses based principally on the assertion that inadequate due diligence was undertaken on the funds.  In addition, the BMIS bankruptcy trustee and the funds' liquidator have commenced proceedings against the Group, seeking to recover sums paid to clients when they redeemed their investments prior to BMIS' bankruptcy.  There is a range of possible outcomes in the litigation described above, with the result that it is not possible for the Group to estimate reliably the liability that might arise. However, the Group considers that it has good defences to the asserted claims and continues to defend them vigorously.

 

For further details on legal and regulatory matters refer to note 33 on page 142.

Exchange rate movements

Changes in exchange rates affect, among other things, the value of our assets and liabilities denominated in foreign currencies, as well as the earnings reported by our non-US dollar denominated branches and subsidiaries. Sharp currency movements can also impact trade flows and the wealth of clients both of which could have an impact on our performance.

We monitor exchange rate movements closely and adjust our exposures accordingly. Under certain circumstances, we may take the decision to hedge our foreign exchange exposures in order to protect our capital ratios from the effects of changes in exchange rates. The effect of exchange rate movements on the capital adequacy ratio is mitigated to the extent there are proportionate movements in risk weighted assets.

The table below sets out the year end and average currency exchange rates per US dollar for India, Korea, Indonesia and Taiwan for the year ended 31 December 2013 and 31 December 2012. These are the markets for which currency exchange rate movements have had the greatest translation impact on the Group's results in 2013.

 

	2013	2012
Indian rupee
Average	58.51	53.43
Period end	61.77	54.96
Korean won
Average	1,094.52	1,126.23
Period end	1,055.08	1,070.34
Indonesian rupiah
Average	10,414.66	9,394.70
Period end	12,164.29	9,799.42
Taiwan dollar
Average	29.70	29.57
Period end	29.84	29.07

As a result of our normal business operations, Standard Chartered is exposed to a broader range of risks than those principal uncertainties mentioned above and our approach to managing risk is detailed on the following pages.

The management of risk lies at the heart of Standard Chartered's business. One of the main risks we incur arises from extending credit to customers through our trading and lending operations. Beyond credit risk, we are also exposed to a range of other risk types such as country cross-border, market, liquidity, operational, pension, reputational and other risks that are inherent to our strategy, product range and geographical coverage.

Risk management framework

Effective risk management is fundamental to being able to generate profits consistently and sustainably and is thus a central part of the financial and operational management of the Group.

Through our risk management framework we manage enterprise-wide risks, with the objective of maximising risk-adjusted returns while remaining within our risk appetite.

As part of this framework, we use a set of principles that describe the risk management culture we wish to sustain:

·  Balancing risk and return: risk is taken in support of the requirements of our stakeholders, in line with our strategy and within our risk appetite

·  Responsibility: it is the responsibility of all employees to ensure that risk-taking is disciplined and focused. We take account of our social responsibilities and our commitments to customers in taking risk to produce a return

·  Accountability: risk is taken only within agreed authorities and where there is appropriate infrastructure and resource. All risk-taking must be transparent, controlled and reported

·  Anticipation: we seek to anticipate future risks and ensure awareness of all known risks

·  Competitive advantage: we seek to achieve competitive advantage through efficient and effective risk management and control.

Risk governance

Ultimate responsibility for setting our risk appetite and for the effective management of risk rests with the Board.

Acting within an authority delegated by the Board, the Board Risk Committee (BRC), whose membership is comprised exclusively of non-executive directors of the Group, has responsibility for oversight and review of prudential risks including but not limited to credit, market, capital, liquidity and operational. It reviews the Group's overall risk appetite and makes recommendations thereon to the Board. Its responsibilities also include reviewing the appropriateness and effectiveness of the Group's risk management systems and controls, considering the implications of material regulatory change proposals, ensuring effective due diligence on material acquisitions and disposals, and monitoring the activities of the Group Risk Committee (GRC) and Group Asset and Liability Committee (GALCO).

The BRC receives regular reports on risk management, including our portfolio trends, policies and standards, stress testing, liquidity and capital adequacy, and is authorised to investigate or seek any information relating to an activity within its terms of reference. The BRC also conducts "deep dive" reviews on a rolling basis of different sections of the consolidated group risk information report.

The Brand and Values Committee (BVC) oversees the brand, culture, values and good reputation of the Group. It seeks to ensure that the management of reputational risk is consistent with the risk appetite approved by the Board and with the creation of long term shareholder value.

The role of the Audit Committee is to have oversight and review of financial, audit and internal control issues.  Further details on the role of the Board and its committees in matters of risk governance are covered in the Corporate Governance section in the Group's Annual Report.

 Overall accountability for risk management is held by the Standard Chartered Bank Court (the Court) which comprises the group executive directors and other senior executives of Standard Chartered Bank.

The Court is the highest executive body of the Group and its terms of reference are approved by the Board of Standard Chartered PLC. The Court delegates authority for the management of risk to the GRC and the GALCO.

The GRC is responsible for the management of all risks other than those delegated by the Court to the GALCO. The GRC is responsible for the establishment of, and compliance with, policies relating to credit risk, country cross-border risk, market risk, operational risk, pension risk and reputational risk. The GRC also defines our overall risk management framework. 

The GALCO is responsible for the management of capital and the establishment of, and compliance with, policies relating to balance sheet management, including management of our liquidity, capital adequacy and structural foreign exchange and interest rate risk.

Members of the GRC and the GALCO are both drawn from the Court. The GRC is chaired by the Group Chief Risk Officer (GCRO). The GALCO is chaired by the Group Finance Director. Risk limits and risk exposure approval authority frameworks are set by the GRC in respect of credit risk, country cross-border risk, market risk and operational risk. The GALCO sets the approval authority framework in respect of liquidity risk. Risk approval authorities may be exercised by risk committees or authorised individuals.

The committee governance structure ensures that risk-taking authority and risk management policies are cascaded down from the Board through to the appropriate functional, divisional and country-level committees. Information regarding material risk issues and compliance with policies and standards is communicated to the country, business, functional and Group-level committees.

Roles and responsibilities for risk management are defined under a Three Lines of Defence model. Each line of defence describes a specific set of responsibilities for risk management and control. 

·  First line of defence: All employees are required to ensure the effective management of risks within the scope of their direct organisational responsibilities. Business, function and geographic heads are accountable for risk management in their respective businesses and functions, and for countries where they have governance responsibilities.

·  Second line of defence: This comprises the risk control owners, supported by their respective control functions. Risk control owners are responsible for ensuring that the risks within the scope of their responsibilities remain within appetite. The scope of a risk control owner's responsibilities is defined by a given risk type and the risk management processes that relate to that risk type. These responsibilities cut across the Group and are not constrained by functional, business and geographic boundaries. The major risk types are described individually in the following sections.

·  Third line of defence: The independent assurance provided by the Group Internal Audit (GIA) function. Its role is defined and overseen by the Audit Committee

The findings from the GIA's audits are reported to all relevant management and governance bodies - accountable line managers, relevant oversight function or committee and committees of the Board.

The GIA provides independent assurance of the effectiveness of management's control of its own business activities (the first line) and of the processes maintained by the Risk Control Functions (the second line).  As a result, the GIA provides assurance that the overall system of control effectiveness is working as required within the Risk Management Framework.

The Risk function

The GCRO directly manages a Risk function that is separate from the origination, trading and sales functions of the businesses. The GCRO also chairs the GRC and is a member of the Court.

The role of the Risk function is:

·  To maintain the Risk Management Framework, ensuring it remains appropriate to the Group's activities, is effectively communicated and implemented across the Group and for administering related governance and reporting processes

·  To uphold the overall integrity of the Group's risk/return decisions, and in particular for ensuring that risks are properly assessed, that risk/return decisions are made transparently on the basis of this proper assessment, and are controlled in accordance with the Group's standards and risk appetite

·  To exercise direct Risk Control Ownership for Credit, Market, Country Cross-Border, Short-term Liquidity and Operational risk types.

The independence of the Risk function is to ensure that the necessary balance in risk/return decisions is not compromised by short-term pressures to generate revenues. This is particularly important given that revenues are recognised from the point of sale while losses arising from risk positions typically manifest themselves over time.

In addition, the Risk function is a centre of excellence that provides specialist capabilities of relevance to risk management processes in the wider organisation.

Risk appetite

We manage our risks to build a sustainable franchise in the interests of all our stakeholders.

Risk appetite is an expression of the amount of risk we are willing to take in pursuit of our strategic objectives, reflecting our capacity to sustain losses and continue to meet our obligations arising from a range of different stress trading conditions.

We define our risk appetite in terms of both volatility of earnings and the maintenance of adequate regulatory capital under stress scenarios. We also define a risk appetite with respect to liquidity risk, operational risk and reputational risk.

Our quantitative risk profile is assessed through a bottom-up analytical approach covering all of our major businesses, countries and products. It is also assessed against a range of exposure concentration thresholds.

The Group's risk appetite statement is approved by the Board and forms the basis for establishing the risk parameters within which the businesses must operate, including policies, concentration limits and business mix.

The Group will not compromise adherence to its risk appetite in order to pursue revenue growth or higher returns.

The GRC and GALCO are responsible for ensuring that our risk profile is managed in compliance with the risk appetite set by the Board.  The BRC advises the Board on the risk appetite statement and oversees that the Group remains within it.

Stress testing

Stress testing and scenario analysis are used to assess the financial and management capability of Standard Chartered to continue operating effectively under extreme but plausible trading conditions. Such conditions may arise from economic, regulatory, legal, political, environmental and social factors.

Our stress testing framework is designed to:

·  Contribute to the setting and monitoring of risk appetite

·  Identify key risks to our strategy, financial position, and reputation

·  Support the development of mitigating actions and contingency plans

·  Ensure effective governance, processes and systems are in place to co-ordinate and integrate stress testing

·  Adhere to regulatory requirements.

 

Our stress testing activity focuses on the potential impact of macroeconomic, geopolitical and physical events on relevant geographies, customer segments and asset classes. Stress tests are also performed at country and business level.

A Stress Testing Committee, led by the Risk function with members drawn from the business, Finance, Global Research and Group Treasury, aims to ensure that the implications of specific stress scenarios are fully understood allowing informed mitigation actions and construction of contingency plans. The Stress Testing Committee generates and considers pertinent and plausible scenarios that have the potential to adversely affect our business and considers impact across different risk types and countries.

Stress testing is carried out at multiple levels within the Group to analyse the potential impact of possible stress scenarios at country and business line level and on the Group. During the year, Group level stress testing covered a considerable range of macroeconomic scenarios.  These included the effects of a major downturn in world trade, severe economic stress in emerging markets, a slump in emerging markets exports sharp appreciation and depreciation in currencies, and the tapering of quantitative easing.  Stress testing at business level covered a range of scenarios including the impact of foreign exchange depreciation or appreciation, sustained falls in base metals and energy prices, significant changes in interest rates and drops in counterparty credit quality.

 

At country level, a number of portfolio reviews were also undertaken, covering the effects of stress on a range of industry sectors, including the shipbuilding, banking, real estate, telecoms, mining and renewable energy sectors.

Market risk and liquidity stress tests are also carried out regularly as described in the sections on market risk on page 71 and liquidity risk on page 75.

 

Credit risk is the potential for loss due to the failure of a counterparty to meet its obligations to pay the Group in accordance with agreed terms. Credit exposures arise from both the banking and trading books.

Credit risk is managed through a framework that sets out policies and procedures covering the measurement and management of credit risk. There is a clear segregation of duties between transaction originators in the businesses and approvers in the Risk function. All credit exposure limits are approved within a defined credit approval authority framework. The Group manages its credit exposures following the principle of diversification across products, geographies, client and customer segments.

Credit policies

Group-wide credit policies and standards are considered and approved by the GRC, which also oversees the delegation of credit approval and loan impairment provisioning authorities.

Policies and procedures specific to each business are established by authorised risk committees. These are consistent with our Group-wide credit policies, but are more detailed and adapted to reflect the different risk environments and portfolio characteristics.

Credit rating and measurement

Risk measurement plays a central role, along with judgment and experience, in informing risk taking and portfolio management decisions. It is a primary area for sustained investment and senior management attention.

Since 1 January 2008, Standard Chartered has used the advanced Internal Ratings Based (IRB) approach under the Basel II regulatory framework to calculate credit risk capital requirements.

For IRB portfolios, a standard alphanumeric credit risk grade (CG) system is used across our businesses. The grading is based on our internal estimate of probability of default over a one year horizon, with customers or portfolios assessed against a range of quantitative and qualitative factors. The numeric grades run from 1 to 14 and some of the grades are further sub-classified A, B or C. Lower credit grades are indicative of a lower likelihood of default. Credit grades 1A to 12C are assigned to performing customers or accounts, while credit grades 13 and 14 are assigned to non-performing or defaulted customers. An analysis by credit grade of those loans that are neither past due nor impaired is set out on page 39.

Our credit grades are not intended to replicate external credit grades (where these are available), and ratings assigned by external ratings agencies are not used in determining our internal credit grades. Nonetheless, as the factors used to grade a borrower may be similar, a borrower rated poorly by an external rating agency is typically assigned a worse internal credit grade.

Advanced IRB models cover a substantial majority of our exposures and are used extensively in assessing risks at a customer and portfolio level, setting strategy and optimising our risk-return decisions.

IRB risk measurement models are approved by the responsible risk committee, on the recommendation of the Group Model Assessment Committee (MAC). The MAC supports risk committees in ensuring risk identification and measurement capabilities are objective and consistent, so that risk control and risk origination decisions are properly informed. Prior to review by the MAC, all IRB models are validated in detail by a model validation team, which is separate from the teams that develop and maintain the models. Models undergo annual periodic review. Reviews are also triggered if the performance of a model deteriorates materially against predetermined thresholds during the ongoing model performance monitoring process.

Credit approval

Major credit exposures to individual counterparties, groups of connected counterparties and portfolios of retail exposures are reviewed and approved by the Group Credit Committee (GCC). The GCC derives its authority from the GRC.

All other credit approval authorities are delegated by the GRC to individuals based both on their judgment and experience and a risk-adjusted scale that takes account of the estimated maximum potential loss from a given customer or portfolio. Credit origination and approval roles are segregated in all but a very few authorised cases. In those very few exceptions where they are not, originators can only approve limited exposures within defined risk parameters. An analysis of the loan portfolio by product and counterparty is set out on page 48 for Consumer Banking and 54 for Wholesale Banking.

Credit concentration risk

Credit concentration risk may arise from a single large exposure or from multiple exposures that are closely correlated. This is managed within concentration caps set by counterparty or groups of connected counterparties, and having regard for correlation, by country, industry and product, as applicable. Additional concentration thresholds are set and monitored, where appropriate, by tenor profile, collateralisation levels and credit risk profile.

Credit concentrations are monitored by the responsible risk committees in each of the businesses and concentration limits that are material to the Group are reviewed and approved at least annually by the GCC.

 

Credit monitoring

We regularly monitor credit exposures, portfolio performance, and external trends that may impact risk management outcomes.

Internal risk management reports are presented to risk committees, containing information on key environmental, political and economic trends across major portfolios and countries; portfolio delinquency and loan impairment performance; and IRB portfolio metrics including credit grade migration.

Credit governance committees meet regularly to assess the impact of external events and trends on the Group's credit risk portfolios and to define and implement our response in terms of appropriate changes to portfolio shape, portfolio and underwriting standards, risk policy and procedures.

Clients or portfolios are placed on early alert when they display signs of actual or potential weakness. For example, where there is a decline in the client's position within the industry, financial deterioration, a breach of covenants, non-performance of an obligation within the stipulated period, or there are concerns relating to ownership or management.

Such accounts and portfolios are subjected to a dedicated process overseen by Early Alert Committees in countries. Client account plans and credit grades are re-evaluated. In addition, remedial actions are agreed and monitored. Remedial actions include, but are not limited to, exposure reduction, security enhancement, exiting the account or immediate movement of the account into the control of Group Special Assets Management (GSAM), our specialist recovery unit.

For retail exposures, portfolio delinquency trends are monitored continuously at a detailed level. Individual customer behaviour is also tracked and is considered for lending decisions. Accounts that are past due are subject to a collections process, managed independently by the Risk function. Charged-off accounts are managed by specialist recovery teams. In some countries, aspects of collections and recovery functions are outsourced.

The small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) business is managed in two distinct customer sub-segments: small businesses and medium enterprises, differentiated by the annual turnover of the counterparty. The credit processes are further refined based on exposure at risk. Larger exposures are managed through the Discretionary Lending approach, in line with corporate credit procedures, and smaller exposures are managed through Programmed Lending, in line with retail credit procedures. Discretionary Lending and Private Banking past due accounts are managed by GSAM.

Credit risk mitigation

Potential credit losses from any given account, customer or portfolio are mitigated using a range of tools such as collateral, netting agreements, credit insurance, credit derivatives and guarantees. The reliance that can be placed on these mitigants is carefully assessed in light of issues such as legal certainty and enforceability, market valuation correlation and counterparty risk of the guarantor.

Where appropriate, credit derivatives are used to reduce credit risks in the portfolio. Due to their potential impact on income volatility, such derivatives are used in a controlled manner with reference to their expected volatility.

Collateral is held to mitigate credit risk exposures and risk mitigation policies determine the eligibility of collateral types.

For Wholesale Banking, these policies set out the clear criteria that must be satisfied if the mitigation is to be considered effective:

·  excessive exposure to any particular risk mitigants or counterparties should be avoided. Collateral concentration mitigation standards are maintained at both the portfolio and counterparty level;

·  risk mitigants should not be correlated with the underlying assets such that default would coincide with a lowering of the forced sale value of the collateral;

·  where there is a currency mismatch, haircuts should be applied to protect against currency fluctuations;

·  legal opinions and documentation must be in place; and

·  ongoing review and controls exist where there is a maturity mismatch between the collateral and exposure.

For all credit risk mitigants that meet the policy criteria, a clear set of procedures are applied to ensure that the value of the underlying collateral is appropriately recorded and updated regularly.

Collateral types that are eligible for risk mitigation include: cash; residential, commercial and industrial property; fixed assets such as motor vehicles, aircraft, plant and machinery; marketable securities; commodities; bank guarantees; and letters of credit. Standard Chartered also enters into collateralised reverse repurchase agreements.

All eligible collateral accepted by SME and Private Bank is covered by a product proposal approved by senior credit officers with the relevant delegated authority. New collateral types have to be vetted through a stringent 'New Business Approval' process and approved by the Consumer Banking Risk Committee.

In order to be recognised as security and for the loan to be classified as secured, all items pledged must be valued and an active secondary resale market must exist for the collateral. Documentation must be held to enable Consumer Banking to realise the asset without the cooperation of the asset owner in the event that this is necessary.

For certain types of lending - typically mortgages, asset financing - the right to take charge over physical assets is significant in terms of determining appropriate pricing and recoverability in the event of default. The requirement for collateral is however not a substitute for the ability to pay, which is the primary consideration for any lending decisions.

Regular valuation of collateral is required in accordance with the Group's risk mitigation policy, which prescribes both the process of valuation and the frequency of valuation for different collateral types. The valuation frequency is driven by the level of price volatility of each type of collateral and the nature of the underlying product or risk exposure. Stress tests are performed on changes in collateral values for key portfolios to assist senior management in managing the risks in those portfolios. Physical collateral is required to be insured at all times and against all risks, with the Group as the loss payee under the insurance policy. Detailed procedures over collateral management must be in place for each business at the country level.

Where appropriate, collateral values are adjusted to reflect current market conditions, the probability of recovery and the period of time to realise the collateral in the event of possession.

Where guarantees or credit derivatives are used as credit risk mitigation the creditworthiness of the guarantor is assessed and established using the credit approval process in addition to that of the obligor or main counterparty. The main types of guarantors include bank guarantees, insurance companies, parent companies, shareholders and export credit agencies.

The Group uses bilateral and multilateral netting to reduce presettlement and settlement counterparty risk. Pre-settlement risk exposures are normally netted using bilateral netting documentation in legally approved jurisdictions. Settlement exposures are generally netted using Delivery versus Payments or Payment versus Payments systems.

Traded products

Credit risk from traded products is managed within the overall credit risk appetite for corporates and financial institutions.

The credit risk exposure from traded products is derived from the positive mark-to-market value of the underlying instruments, and an additional component to cater for potential market movements.

For derivative contracts, we limit our exposure to credit losses in the event of default by entering into master netting agreements with certain counterparties. As required by IAS 32, exposures are only presented net in the financial statement if there is a legal right to offset and there is an intent to settle on a net basis or realise the assets and liabilities simultaneously.  As master netting agreements are generally enforced only in the event of default, they cannot be netted on the balance sheet.

In addition, we enter into Credit Support Annexes (CSAs) with counterparties where collateral is deemed a necessary or desirable mitigant to the exposure. Further details on CSAs are set out on page 34.

Securities

The portfolio limits and parameters for the underwriting and purchase of all pre-defined securities assets to be held for sale are approved by the Underwriting Committee. The Underwriting Committee is established under the authority of the GRC. The business operates within set limits, which include country, single issuer, holding period and credit grade limits.

Day to day credit risk management activities for traded securities are carried out by a specialist team within the Risk function whose activities include oversight and approval within the levels delegated by the Underwriting Committee. Issuer credit risk, including settlement and pre-settlement risk, and price risk are controlled by the Risk function.

The tables on pages 33 to 84 and related analysis reflect the restatement of balances at 31 December 2012 for the impact of equity accounting Permata, the Group's joint venture business in Indonesia (within the Other Asia Pacific geographic region) rather than the previous treatment of proportionate consolidation.