Deloitte’s reports
Deloitte’s reports
On 1 November 2018, Deloitte issued its preliminary report, entitled “the RWA calculation and the COREP reporting process”. It was based on the first two weeks of work, which involved “meetings with key people across Finance, Risk and Operations, walking through the calculation spreadsheets with the process owner, and reviewing significant aspects of rule interpretation”. The “key messages” were as follows:
“► The most significant mis-statement in the RWA calculation is due to the incorrect risk weighting of commercial property at 50% rather than 100%. Impact c. £600m RWA.
► There are multiple other data issues leading to mis-statements, but these are unlikely to be of similar size either individually or in aggregate (based on [Deloittes’] experience with other banks).
► Notwithstanding the above, currently it is virtually impossible to evidence the integrity of the RWA calculation or the COREP reports. This is because there are multiple gaps in the controls framework at every stage of the process, from data sourcing through to report generation.
► The data issues cannot be sustainably mitigated by the regulatory reporting team, and will need fixing upstream at source.
► This means that there are currently no firm grounds for providing attestation over COREP reporting.
► Inability to evidence controls has been a key concern in the PRA’s thematic work around regulatory reporting, and has led to supervisory action against some firms.
► Lack of controls over regulatory reporting is likely to come up as an obstacle in the IRB application process.”
The report also said that “there is currently no requirement [at the Bank] for upstream creators/providers of data sourced for regulatory reporting to attest to the quality of that data” and that one of the problems encountered by the regulatory reporting team was that:
“The entire commercial loans portfolio had to be manually re-classified because lack of source data/inconsistencies in the recording of loan purpose/facility type meant that the data was unfit for regulatory reporting.”
Under the heading “current state assessment”, Deloitte said that the bank was “potentially non-compliant with the CRR” in a number of areas, including:
“The bank has been incorrectly risk weighting commercial real estate lending at 50% whereas many other banks who had previously adopted this approach have already moved to a 100% risk weight. The Bank has quantified the RWA impact of applying the 100% risk weight at c. £600m.”
In relation to the remainder of the project work, Deloitte said that it would “focus on quick wins” but that “the data quality issues – in particular – will require longer term strategic remediation including system and process changes to how loan data is captured up-front”.
On 20 December 2018, Deloitte presented their final report to Mr Arden. An accompanying slide-deck said that a total RWA adjustment of £960m was required, of which £563m related to CLIP Loans, £312m to PBTL and the balance of around £25m was other adjustments, and concluding:
“it is estimated that, in aggregate, the issues identified in the RWA calculation will increase RWA by £0.9-1.0bn, and an increase in capital requirements of c.£100m, at a target capital ratio of 12.6%.”
- Heading
- Introduction
- The jurisdiction of the Tribunal
- The burden and standard of proof
- The PRA and capital requirements
- The Bank’s lending
- CRE loans
- CLIP loans
- PBTL loans
- COREP reporting
- The Authority
- Listing Rule 1.3.3R
- The MAR
- The evidence
- Approach to the evidence
- Mr Arden
- Mr Donaldson
- Ms Gillan
- Ms Roberts
- Mr Somers and Mr Dransfield
- Mr Sutherland
- Mr Lane
- Mr Brierley
- Individuals who were not called as witnesses
- Findings of fact
- The early years
- Linklaters
- Key personnel during the period from March 2018
- Relationship with the PRA and the Authority
- 2016 and 2017
- The COREP audit and the CRE loans
- Mr Arden, the Board and the committees
- KPMG appointed
- April to June 2018
- July 2018
- The 2018 capital raise and half year results
- August 2018: PBTL and CLIP
- Communicating with the PRA
- KPMG decision trees
- PBTL classification
- Annual Review of Commercial Lending
- September Audit Committee
- September NEDs meeting
- September Board meeting
- Engagement of Deloitte
- Internal work in support
- Communications with the PRA
- Meeting with Linklaters
- Disclosure Committee meeting
- Mr Somers’ email
- Meetings with Mr Hill and Mr Bernau
- The October CRPAC meeting
- RWA Report
- Business and Commercial Lending
- The October Audit Committee meeting
- The Q3 Update
- Accounting, reporting and control report
- The October ROC meeting
- Chief Risk Officer’s Report
- The RWA Report
- Business and Commercial Lending Review
- The October Board meeting
- Linklaters Governance Update
- Audit Committee Update
- The Q3 Update
- 2019 Budget Paper
- Whether the RWA issue was discussed
- Chief Risk Officer’s Report
- Response to PSM Letter
- The Q3 Update and analyst calls
- Deloitte’s reports
- Discussions with Linklaters
- Discussions with the PRA and the January announcement
- Subsequently
- The PRA
- The Authority
- Mr Donaldson’s and Mr Arden’s careers
- The common ground
- The Parties’ cases
- The Authority’s case
- The Applicants’ case
- ISSUE ONE: WHETHER THE BANK BREACHED LR 1.3.3R
- The PRA and the COREP Returns
- Findings of fact
- The Applicants’ position
- The Tribunal’s view
- The PRA and confidentiality
- Findings of fact
- The Applicants’ position
- The Authority’s position
- The Tribunal’s view
- Mr Lane’s advice
- Findings of fact not in dispute
- Who was at the meeting
- How long was the meeting
- Linklaters’ practice when giving advice
- Knowledge of the impending Q3 Update
- What was said by Mr Arden at the meeting
- Confidential matter?
- The Tribunal’s finding
- The purpose of the meeting
- Reasonable to rely?
- Overall conclusion on legal advice
- No breach if uncertain and under investigation?
- Mr Jaffey’s submissions
- Mr Stanley’s submissions
- The Tribunal’s view
- No material breach if unknown
- The knowledge issue
- Key findings already made
- The Authority’s overall position on the knowledge issue
- The Applicants’ overall position on the knowledge issue
- Rules on classification
- Data issues
- Nature of the data issues
- Extent of the data issues
- Effect on materiality
- SME supporting factor
- Residential property
- Conclusion on data issues
- The mitigants overall
- The AIRB application
- Pillar 2A Offset
- Submissions
- Findings of fact
- Conclusion on Pillar 2A offset
- Phasing in
- PRA discretion
- Taking all the above into account
- Overall conclusion on the Knowledge Issue
- The PBTL Loans
- Findings of fact
- Submissions and the Tribunal’s view
- Whether the alternatives were unreasonable
- The Applicants’ position
- The Authority’s submissions
- The Tribunal’s view
- Reliance on the board and the Committees
- Findings of fact
- September
- October Audit Committee
- October ROC meeting
- October Board meeting
- The position of the parties
- The Tribunal’s view
- The Audit Committee
- The Board
- Reliance on Ms James
- Findings of fact
- Submissions
- Discussion
- Overall conclusion on Issue one
- The legal principles
- The statutory provisions
- Burton v Bevan
- Scandex
- Capital Alternatives
- Avacade
- Ferreira
- Submissions on Ferreira
- The words of the provision
- The ratio of Ferreira
- The corporate veil
- Forster: meaning of “knowingly concerned”
- Forster: reliance on legal advice
- The Applicants’ submissions
- The Authority’s submissions
- The Tribunal’s view
- The principles summarised and the issues remaining
- Mr Arden
- Mr Donaldson
- The position of the parties
- The Tribunal’s view
- ISSUE THREE: PENALTIES
- The Tribunal’s approach
- The DEPP
- The Authority’s position
- The Applicants’ position
- The Tribunal’s view
- The penalty framework
- Applying the Steps
- Step 2(1)-(3): Earnings
- The Tribunal’s view
- Step 2(4)-(7): Seriousness
- Step 3: Mitigation
- DEPP
- Submissions and discussion
- Co-operation
- Remediation
- Compliance with the PRA’s requirements
- Communications with the Authority
- No negative factors
- Other consequences
- Difference between the Applicants?
- Conclusions
![[2025] UKUT 00185 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png)