Credit Risk Provisioning: How to Allocate Funds to Cover Potential Credit Losses

1. What is credit risk provisioning and why is it important?

credit risk provisioning is a crucial aspect of financial management that aims to allocate funds to cover potential credit losses. It plays a vital role in ensuring the stability and resilience of financial institutions. From a risk management perspective, credit risk refers to the potential for borrowers to default on their loan obligations, leading to financial losses for the lender. To mitigate this risk, financial institutions set aside provisions, which are funds earmarked to cover potential credit losses.

From the perspective of financial institutions, credit risk provisioning is important for several reasons. Firstly, it helps them maintain adequate capital reserves to absorb potential losses arising from credit defaults. By setting aside provisions, financial institutions ensure that they have sufficient funds to cover unexpected credit losses, thereby safeguarding their financial health and stability.

Secondly, credit risk provisioning enables financial institutions to comply with regulatory requirements. Regulatory bodies often impose minimum provisioning standards to ensure that financial institutions have adequate buffers to absorb credit losses. By adhering to these standards, financial institutions demonstrate their ability to manage credit risk effectively and maintain the trust and confidence of stakeholders.

Furthermore, credit risk provisioning facilitates accurate financial reporting. Provisions are reflected as expenses on the financial statements, reducing the impact of credit losses on profitability. This allows financial institutions to present a more accurate picture of their financial performance and position to investors, regulators, and other stakeholders.

1. Determining Provisioning Methods: Financial institutions employ various methods to calculate credit risk provisions. These methods may include historical loss experience, statistical models, and expert judgment. Each method has its advantages and limitations, and financial institutions must carefully consider the appropriateness of the method based on their specific circumstances.

2. Impairment Recognition: Credit risk provisions are typically recognized when there is objective evidence of impairment. This evidence may include significant financial difficulties experienced by the borrower, breach of contractual terms, or the probability of default. Financial institutions follow specific accounting standards and guidelines to determine when and how to recognize impairments.

3. Provisioning Levels: The level of credit risk provisions depends on factors such as the credit quality of the loan portfolio, economic conditions, and the institution's risk appetite. Financial institutions assess the creditworthiness of borrowers and assign risk ratings to determine the appropriate provisioning levels. Higher-risk borrowers may require higher provisions to account for the increased likelihood of default.

4. Provisioning Coverage Ratios: Financial institutions often monitor provisioning coverage ratios to assess the adequacy of their provisions. These ratios compare the total provisions held by the institution to the total amount of non-performing loans or the overall loan portfolio. Higher coverage ratios indicate a higher level of protection against credit losses.

5. Stress Testing: To ensure the resilience of their credit risk provisioning, financial institutions conduct stress tests. These tests simulate adverse scenarios, such as economic downturns or industry-specific shocks, to assess the impact on credit risk and the adequacy of provisions. Stress testing helps institutions identify potential vulnerabilities and adjust their provisioning levels accordingly.

It is important to note that the examples provided here are for illustrative purposes only and may not reflect specific real-world scenarios. The actual credit risk provisioning practices may vary across financial institutions based on their internal policies, regulatory requirements, and risk management frameworks.

2. How to measure and predict the probability of default and loss given default of borrowers?

credit risk models are mathematical tools that help lenders and financial institutions assess the likelihood and severity of credit losses due to borrowers defaulting on their obligations. Credit risk models can be used for various purposes, such as pricing loans, setting credit limits, calculating capital requirements, and provisioning for expected and unexpected losses. In this section, we will explore how credit risk models measure and predict two key components of credit risk: the probability of default (PD) and the loss given default (LGD) of borrowers. We will also discuss the advantages and limitations of different types of credit risk models, and how they can be calibrated and validated using historical and current data.

The probability of default (PD) is the likelihood that a borrower will fail to repay their debt within a specified time horizon, usually one year. The PD can be estimated using either statistical or machine learning methods, based on the characteristics and behavior of the borrower, such as their credit score, income, debt-to-income ratio, payment history, etc. Some common methods for estimating PD are:

1. Logistic regression: This is a statistical technique that models the relationship between a binary outcome variable (default or no default) and a set of explanatory variables (borrower characteristics). The logistic regression model assigns a PD score to each borrower, ranging from 0 to 1, based on their probability of defaulting. For example, a borrower with a PD score of 0.05 has a 5% chance of defaulting within a year, while a borrower with a PD score of 0.95 has a 95% chance of defaulting within a year.

2. Decision trees: This is a machine learning technique that splits the data into smaller and smaller subsets based on a series of rules or criteria, until each subset is homogeneous or pure in terms of the outcome variable. The decision tree model assigns a PD score to each borrower, based on the path they follow from the root node to the leaf node of the tree. For example, a borrower who has a credit score below 600, a debt-to-income ratio above 40%, and a payment history of more than 90 days past due, may end up in a leaf node with a PD score of 0.8, meaning they have an 80% chance of defaulting within a year.

3. Neural networks: This is a machine learning technique that mimics the structure and function of the human brain, using layers of interconnected nodes or neurons that process information and learn from data. The neural network model assigns a PD score to each borrower, based on the weighted combination of inputs (borrower characteristics) and outputs (default or no default) of the network. For example, a borrower who has a credit score of 700, a debt-to-income ratio of 30%, and a payment history of less than 30 days past due, may end up with a PD score of 0.1, meaning they have a 10% chance of defaulting within a year.

The loss given default (LGD) is the percentage of the exposure at default (EAD) that is not recovered by the lender in the event of a default. The EAD is the amount of money that the lender has lent or committed to lend to the borrower at the time of default. The LGD can be estimated using either deterministic or stochastic methods, based on the recovery process and the collateral value of the loan. Some common methods for estimating LGD are:

1. Historical average: This is a deterministic method that calculates the LGD as the average percentage of loss over a sample of past defaulted loans. For example, if the lender has recovered 40% of the EAD on average from 100 past defaulted loans, then the LGD is 60% for all current and future loans.

2. Regression analysis: This is a deterministic method that models the relationship between the LGD and a set of explanatory variables (loan characteristics), such as the loan-to-value ratio, the seniority of the loan, the type and quality of the collateral, the industry and location of the borrower, etc. The regression analysis model assigns an LGD score to each loan, based on its expected percentage of loss. For example, a loan with a high loan-to-value ratio, a low seniority, and a poor quality collateral, may have an LGD score of 80%, meaning the lender expects to lose 80% of the EAD in case of a default.

3. monte Carlo simulation: This is a stochastic method that generates a large number of possible scenarios of the recovery process and the collateral value, using random variables and probability distributions. The monte Carlo simulation model assigns an LGD score to each loan, based on the average percentage of loss across all scenarios. For example, a loan with a variable interest rate, a flexible repayment schedule, and a volatile collateral value, may have an LGD score of 50%, meaning the lender expects to lose 50% of the EAD on average, but with a high degree of uncertainty and variation.

Credit risk models are useful tools for measuring and predicting the PD and LGD of borrowers, but they also have some limitations and challenges, such as:

- data quality and availability: Credit risk models rely on accurate and timely data to estimate the PD and LGD of borrowers, but the data may be incomplete, outdated, inconsistent, or biased, due to errors, fraud, or changes in the market conditions or the borrower behavior. This may lead to inaccurate or unreliable estimates of the credit risk parameters, and affect the performance and validity of the models.

- Model complexity and interpretability: Credit risk models may use sophisticated and advanced methods to capture the nonlinear and complex relationships between the credit risk parameters and the explanatory variables, but this may also make the models difficult to understand, explain, and validate, especially for non-technical users and regulators. This may lead to a lack of transparency and accountability of the models, and affect the trust and confidence of the stakeholders.

- Model risk and uncertainty: Credit risk models are based on assumptions and simplifications that may not reflect the reality or the future of the credit risk environment, such as the distribution and correlation of the credit risk parameters, the recovery process and the collateral value, the borrower behavior and the default definition, etc. This may lead to errors or biases in the estimates of the credit risk parameters, and affect the robustness and stability of the models.

3. How to comply with the Basel III and IFRS 9 standards for credit risk provisioning?

One of the most important aspects of credit risk provisioning is to comply with the regulatory frameworks that govern the banking industry. The two main standards that banks need to follow are the basel III and the ifrs 9, which have different objectives and approaches to measure and manage credit risk. In this section, we will explain the key features and requirements of these standards, and how banks can implement them in their credit risk provisioning processes. We will also compare and contrast the different perspectives and implications of these standards for banks and regulators.

1. Basel III is a set of global regulatory standards that aim to improve the resilience and stability of the banking system by increasing the quality and quantity of capital, enhancing the risk coverage and disclosure, and introducing liquidity and leverage ratios. Basel III also introduces a new framework for credit risk measurement and management, which is based on three pillars: minimum capital requirements, supervisory review, and market discipline.

2. IFRS 9 is an international accounting standard that replaces the previous IAS 39 and introduces a new model for the recognition and measurement of financial instruments, including loans and other credit exposures. IFRS 9 requires banks to use an expected credit loss (ECL) approach to estimate the credit risk and provision for their financial assets, based on forward-looking information and scenarios. IFRS 9 also changes the classification and measurement criteria and the hedge accounting rules for financial instruments.

3. The main differences between Basel III and IFRS 9 are related to the scope, purpose, and methodology of credit risk provisioning. Basel III applies to all banks and focuses on the prudential regulation and supervision of credit risk, while IFRS 9 applies to all entities that report under IFRS and focuses on the financial reporting and disclosure of credit risk. Basel III uses a standardized or an internal ratings-based (IRB) approach to calculate the risk-weighted assets (RWA) and the minimum capital requirements for credit risk, while IFRS 9 uses a three-stage model to determine the ECL and the provision for credit risk, based on the change in the credit quality of the financial assets.

4. The main challenges for banks to comply with both Basel iii and IFRS 9 are related to the data, systems, models, and governance aspects of credit risk provisioning. Banks need to ensure that they have adequate and consistent data sources, robust and integrated systems and platforms, reliable and validated models and methodologies, and effective and transparent governance and oversight mechanisms to implement and align both standards in their credit risk provisioning processes.

5. The main benefits for banks to comply with both Basel III and IFRS 9 are related to the improvement and alignment of the credit risk management and reporting practices, the enhancement of the risk culture and awareness, and the optimization of the capital and liquidity management. Banks can leverage the synergies and complementarities between both standards to achieve a more comprehensive and forward-looking assessment and provision of credit risk, a more transparent and consistent disclosure and communication of credit risk, and a more efficient and resilient allocation and utilization of capital and liquidity resources.

An example of how a bank can comply with both Basel III and ifrs 9 in its credit risk provisioning process is as follows:

- The bank identifies and classifies its financial assets according to the Basel III and IFRS 9 criteria, and assigns them to the appropriate risk buckets and stages.

- The bank estimates the probability of default (PD), the loss given default (LGD), and the exposure at default (EAD) for each financial asset, using historical and forward-looking information and scenarios, and applies the Basel III and IFRS 9 formulas to calculate the RWA and the ECL, respectively.

- The bank compares the RWA and the ECL for each financial asset, and determines the higher of the two as the basis for the credit risk provision. The bank also considers the impact of the credit risk provision on its capital adequacy ratio (CAR) and its return on equity (ROE).

- The bank records the credit risk provision in its financial statements and reports it to the regulators and the stakeholders, following the Basel III and IFRS 9 disclosure and presentation requirements. The bank also monitors and reviews the credit risk provision on a regular basis, and updates it as necessary, based on the changes in the credit risk profile and the economic environment.

Raising capital is challenging. We can help!

FasterCapital's team works on matching you with the right funding sources and presents your startup to them through warm introductions

Join us!

4. How to choose between general and specific provisions, and between expected and incurred loss approaches?

One of the key challenges in credit risk provisioning is how to determine the appropriate amount of funds to set aside for potential credit losses. There are different methods of provisioning that can have a significant impact on the financial performance and stability of a bank or a financial institution. In this section, we will compare and contrast the main provisioning methods: general and specific provisions, and expected and incurred loss approaches. We will also discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each method, and provide some examples of how they are applied in practice.

General and specific provisions are two types of provisions that are based on the classification of loans or other credit exposures. General provisions are made for a portfolio of loans or exposures that have a similar risk profile, such as mortgages, consumer loans, or corporate loans. Specific provisions are made for individual loans or exposures that are identified as impaired, meaning that there is objective evidence of a loss event, such as default, bankruptcy, or restructuring. The amount of specific provisions is usually based on the estimated recoverable amount of the loan or exposure, which is the present value of the expected future cash flows discounted at the original effective interest rate. The amount of general provisions is usually based on a percentage of the total outstanding balance of the portfolio, which reflects the average historical loss rate or the expected loss rate over a certain period.

Expected and incurred loss approaches are two different ways of measuring the credit losses for a portfolio of loans or exposures. Expected loss approach is based on the forward-looking estimate of the credit losses over the entire life of the loans or exposures, taking into account the probability of default, the loss given default, and the exposure at default. Incurred loss approach is based on the recognition of the credit losses only when there is objective evidence of a loss event, such as default, bankruptcy, or restructuring. The expected loss approach is more proactive and conservative, as it anticipates the potential credit losses before they occur and requires higher provisions. The incurred loss approach is more reactive and optimistic, as it recognizes the credit losses only when they are realized and requires lower provisions.

The choice of provisioning methods depends on various factors, such as the accounting standards, the regulatory requirements, the risk management objectives, and the business strategy of the bank or the financial institution. Some of the factors that influence the choice of provisioning methods are:

1. accounting standards: Different accounting standards have different rules and guidelines for provisioning methods. For example, the international Financial Reporting standards (IFRS) 9, which was adopted by many countries in 2018, requires the use of the expected loss approach for all financial assets, except for those measured at fair value through profit or loss. The US generally Accepted Accounting principles (GAAP), on the other hand, still allow the use of the incurred loss approach for most financial assets, except for those classified as purchased credit-impaired or troubled debt restructurings.

2. Regulatory requirements: Different regulatory frameworks have different requirements for provisioning methods. For example, the basel III framework, which is a global standard for banking regulation, requires the use of the expected loss approach for calculating the capital adequacy ratio, which is the ratio of the bank's capital to its risk-weighted assets. The capital adequacy ratio is a measure of the bank's ability to absorb losses and withstand financial shocks. The Basel III framework also requires the use of the general and specific provisions for calculating the credit risk-weighted assets, which are the assets adjusted for their credit risk.

3. Risk management objectives: Different provisioning methods have different implications for the risk management objectives of the bank or the financial institution. For example, the expected loss approach can help the bank or the financial institution to better align the provisions with the risk profile of the portfolio, to improve the transparency and accuracy of the financial reporting, and to enhance the credit risk management and mitigation. The incurred loss approach can help the bank or the financial institution to avoid excessive or premature provisioning, to smooth the earnings volatility, and to preserve the capital adequacy.

4. Business strategy: Different provisioning methods can also affect the business strategy of the bank or the financial institution. For example, the expected loss approach can encourage the bank or the financial institution to adopt a more prudent and diversified lending policy, to reduce the concentration and correlation of credit risk, and to increase the profitability and competitiveness. The incurred loss approach can encourage the bank or the financial institution to pursue a more aggressive and selective lending policy, to increase the market share and customer loyalty, and to optimize the return on equity.

To illustrate the differences between the provisioning methods, let us consider a simple example of a bank that has a portfolio of 100 loans, each with a face value of $100,000 and a maturity of one year. The bank charges an interest rate of 10% per annum on the loans. The bank estimates that the probability of default for each loan is 5%, and the loss given default is 50%. The bank follows the IFRS 9 accounting standard and the basel III regulatory framework. The bank has two options for provisioning methods: general and specific provisions with the expected loss approach, or general and specific provisions with the incurred loss approach. The table below shows the comparison of the provisioning methods for the bank.

| Provisioning Method | Expected Loss Approach | Incurred Loss Approach |

| General Provisions | $250,000 (5% x 50% x $100,000 x 100) | $0 |

| Specific Provisions | $0 | $250,000 (5 x 50% x $100,000 x 10) |

| Total Provisions | $250,000 | $250,000 |

| Interest Income | $10,000,000 (10% x $100,000 x 100) | $10,000,000 |

| Interest Expense | $0 | $0 |

| net Interest income | $10,000,000 | $10,000,000 |

| Provision Expense | $250,000 | $0 |

| Net Income | $9,750,000 | $10,000,000 |

| Credit risk-Weighted assets | $47,500,000 ($100,000 x 100 - $250,000) | $50,000,000 ($100,000 x 100) |

| Capital Adequacy Ratio | 21.05% ($10,000,000 / $47,500,000) | 20% ($10,000,000 / $50,000,000) |

As we can see from the table, the expected loss approach and the incurred loss approach have the same total provisions, but different timing and allocation of the provisions. The expected loss approach makes the general provisions at the beginning of the year, based on the expected credit losses over the life of the loans. The incurred loss approach makes the specific provisions at the end of the year, based on the actual credit losses that occurred during the year. The expected loss approach reduces the net income and the credit risk-weighted assets, while the incurred loss approach increases the net income and the credit risk-weighted assets. The expected loss approach also results in a higher capital adequacy ratio than the incurred loss approach.

This example shows that the choice of provisioning methods can have a significant impact on the financial performance and stability of the bank or the financial institution. Therefore, it is important to understand the pros and cons of each method, and to choose the one that best suits the accounting standards, the regulatory requirements, the risk management objectives, and the business strategy of the bank or the financial institution.

5. How to set the criteria and thresholds for provisioning, and how to review and update them periodically?

Provisioning policies play a crucial role in allocating funds to cover potential credit losses. In this section, we will delve into the process of setting the criteria and thresholds for provisioning, as well as the importance of reviewing and updating them periodically.

When it comes to setting the criteria for provisioning, financial institutions consider various factors. These may include the type of credit, the borrower's creditworthiness, the industry in which the borrower operates, and the overall economic conditions. By analyzing these factors, institutions can determine the level of risk associated with a particular credit and allocate funds accordingly.

To ensure accuracy and relevance, provisioning policies should be periodically reviewed and updated. This allows financial institutions to adapt to changing market conditions and regulatory requirements. Regular reviews also help identify any gaps or inefficiencies in the existing policies, enabling institutions to make necessary adjustments.

Now, let's explore some key insights from different perspectives:

1. Risk Assessment: Provisioning policies should align with the institution's risk appetite and risk management framework. By conducting thorough risk assessments, institutions can identify potential credit losses and establish appropriate provisioning criteria.

2. Data Analysis: Accurate and reliable data is essential for effective provisioning. Institutions should leverage advanced analytics and modeling techniques to analyze historical credit data, identify trends, and predict future credit losses. This data-driven approach enhances the accuracy of provisioning decisions.

3. stress testing: Stress testing is a valuable tool for assessing the resilience of provisioning policies. By subjecting the policies to various hypothetical scenarios, institutions can evaluate their ability to withstand adverse economic conditions and adjust provisioning levels accordingly.

4. Regulatory Compliance: Provisioning policies must comply with regulatory guidelines and accounting standards. Institutions should stay updated with the latest regulatory requirements and ensure that their policies adhere to these standards.

6. How to deal with data quality, model uncertainty, cyclicality, and stress testing issues?

One of the most important and complex tasks in credit risk management is provisioning, which is the process of allocating funds to cover potential credit losses. Provisioning is essential for ensuring the financial stability and solvency of banks and other lending institutions, as well as for complying with regulatory requirements and accounting standards. However, provisioning also involves many challenges, such as how to deal with data quality, model uncertainty, cyclicality, and stress testing issues. In this section, we will discuss these challenges and some possible solutions from different perspectives.

- Data quality: data quality is the foundation of any provisioning model, as it determines the accuracy and reliability of the inputs and outputs of the model. data quality issues can arise from various sources, such as missing values, outliers, errors, inconsistencies, or biases in the data. These issues can affect the estimation of key parameters, such as the probability of default (PD), the loss given default (LGD), and the exposure at default (EAD), which are used to calculate the expected credit loss (ECL). data quality issues can also affect the validation and backtesting of the model, as well as the reporting and disclosure of the results. Therefore, it is crucial to ensure that the data used for provisioning is complete, consistent, accurate, and timely. Some possible ways to improve data quality are:

1. implementing data governance frameworks and policies that define the roles and responsibilities of data owners, data providers, data users, and data quality managers.

2. Establishing data quality standards and metrics that specify the criteria and thresholds for data quality assessment and monitoring.

3. Applying data quality checks and controls at different stages of the data lifecycle, such as data collection, data processing, data analysis, and data reporting.

4. Performing data quality audits and reviews to identify and correct data quality issues and gaps.

5. enhancing data quality awareness and education among the stakeholders involved in the provisioning process.

- Model uncertainty: Model uncertainty refers to the uncertainty that arises from the choice and specification of the provisioning model, as well as the estimation and calibration of the model parameters. Model uncertainty can affect the accuracy and consistency of the provisioning results, as different models or parameters can produce different estimates of the ECL. Model uncertainty can also affect the comparability and transparency of the provisioning results, as different models or parameters can reflect different assumptions and judgments about the credit risk environment. Therefore, it is important to manage and mitigate model uncertainty by:

1. Choosing and designing the provisioning model that best suits the characteristics and objectives of the portfolio, such as the type, size, and diversity of the exposures, the availability and quality of the data, and the regulatory and accounting requirements.

2. Estimating and calibrating the model parameters using appropriate methods and techniques, such as historical data analysis, expert judgment, benchmarking, or scenario analysis.

3. Validating and backtesting the model and the parameters using independent data and methods, such as statistical tests, sensitivity analysis, or stress testing.

4. Documenting and disclosing the model and the parameters, as well as the assumptions and limitations of the model, the sources and methods of data and parameter estimation, and the results and implications of the model validation and backtesting.

5. Reviewing and updating the model and the parameters periodically or whenever there are significant changes in the portfolio or the credit risk environment.

- Cyclicality: Cyclicality refers to the tendency of the provisioning results to vary with the economic cycle, such as the business cycle, the credit cycle, or the market cycle. Cyclicality can affect the adequacy and stability of the provisioning level, as well as the profitability and capital adequacy of the bank. Cyclicality can also affect the procyclicality of the financial system, which is the phenomenon of the financial system amplifying the economic cycle, such as by increasing credit supply and demand during booms and decreasing them during busts. Therefore, it is essential to account for and reduce the cyclicality of the provisioning process by:

1. Adopting forward-looking and dynamic provisioning models that incorporate the expected future changes in the credit risk environment, such as the macroeconomic conditions, the industry trends, or the market indicators.

2. Applying countercyclical adjustments or buffers to the provisioning results, such as by increasing the provisioning level during good times and decreasing it during bad times, or by setting a minimum or maximum provisioning level regardless of the cycle.

3. Aligning the provisioning cycle with the economic cycle, such as by using longer or shorter time horizons, or by using more or less frequent data updates, depending on the stage and duration of the cycle.

4. Coordinating the provisioning process with other risk management processes, such as capital management, liquidity management, or stress testing, to ensure a consistent and comprehensive view of the credit risk exposure and the economic cycle.

5. Harmonizing the provisioning process with the regulatory and accounting frameworks, such as by following the Basel III or the IFRS 9 standards, which aim to promote more forward-looking and less procyclical provisioning practices.

- Stress testing: Stress testing is the process of assessing the impact of extreme but plausible scenarios on the provisioning results and the financial position of the bank. stress testing is useful for evaluating the resilience and robustness of the provisioning process, as well as for identifying and managing potential risks and vulnerabilities. Stress testing is also required by the regulators and the auditors as part of the provisioning process. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct and improve the stress testing process by:

1. Defining and selecting the stress scenarios that are relevant and realistic for the portfolio and the credit risk environment, such as the historical scenarios, the hypothetical scenarios, or the regulatory scenarios.

2. Applying and adjusting the provisioning model and the parameters to the stress scenarios, such as by using different methods or techniques, or by using different assumptions or judgments, to capture the effects of the stress scenarios on the credit risk parameters and the ECL.

3. Analyzing and interpreting the stress testing results, such as by comparing the results with the baseline results, or by assessing the impact of the results on the provisioning level, the profitability, the capital adequacy, or the risk appetite of the bank.

4. Reporting and disclosing the stress testing results, as well as the methodology and assumptions of the stress testing process, to the relevant stakeholders, such as the management, the board, the regulators, the auditors, or the investors.

5. Using the stress testing results to inform and enhance the provisioning process, such as by adjusting the provisioning model or the parameters, or by taking corrective or preventive actions, based on the findings and recommendations of the stress testing process.

7. How to summarize the main points and provide some recommendations for best practices?

In this blog, we have discussed the concept of credit risk provisioning, which is the process of allocating funds to cover potential credit losses from loans and other financial instruments. We have also explored the different methods and models for estimating credit risk provisions, such as the incurred loss model, the expected loss model, and the dynamic provisioning model. We have compared the advantages and disadvantages of each model, and how they affect the financial performance and stability of banks and other lenders. We have also examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on credit risk provisioning, and how regulators and lenders have responded to the unprecedented challenges and uncertainties.

To conclude, we would like to summarize the main points and provide some recommendations for best practices in credit risk provisioning. These are:

1. Credit risk provisioning is a crucial component of sound risk management and financial reporting. It helps lenders to maintain adequate capital buffers, reflect the true value of their assets, and comply with regulatory standards.

2. Credit risk provisioning should be based on a comprehensive and forward-looking assessment of the credit quality and performance of the loan portfolio. It should also take into account the macroeconomic and sectoral conditions, and the potential scenarios and shocks that could affect the borrowers' ability to repay.

3. Credit risk provisioning should be consistent, transparent, and comparable across different lenders and jurisdictions. It should follow the relevant accounting and prudential frameworks, and adhere to the principles of prudence, reliability, and comparability.

4. Credit risk provisioning should be regularly reviewed and updated to reflect the changes in the risk profile and the expected credit losses of the loan portfolio. It should also be subject to rigorous internal and external audit and validation processes.

5. Credit risk provisioning should be aligned with the business strategy and risk appetite of the lender. It should support the lender's decision-making and risk mitigation actions, such as loan restructuring, write-offs, and recoveries.

6. Credit risk provisioning should be responsive and adaptable to the changing environment and circumstances. It should incorporate the latest information and data, and use the most appropriate methods and models for the given situation. It should also be flexible and agile to cope with the emerging risks and opportunities.

As an example, let us consider how a bank could apply these best practices in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The bank could:

- Use the expected loss model to estimate the credit risk provisions, as it captures the lifetime expected credit losses and reflects the current and future economic conditions.

- Apply the dynamic provisioning model to create a countercyclical buffer that can absorb the potential losses and reduce the procyclicality of the credit cycle.

- Use a range of scenarios and stress tests to assess the impact of the pandemic on the loan portfolio and the credit risk provisions, and update them as new information becomes available.

- Disclose the assumptions, methods, and models used for the credit risk provisioning, and the sensitivity and uncertainty of the estimates, to enhance the transparency and comparability of the financial statements.

- Monitor the credit quality and performance of the loan portfolio, and take timely and appropriate actions to mitigate the credit risk, such as offering loan moratoriums, deferrals, or concessions to the affected borrowers, or writing off or recovering the impaired loans.

- Coordinate with the regulators and supervisors to ensure the compliance and consistency of the credit risk provisioning with the accounting and prudential standards, and to receive guidance and support on the best practices and policies.

By following these best practices, the bank could improve its credit risk provisioning process and outcomes, and enhance its financial resilience and stability in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic.