Our liquidity risk management framework has been an important factor in maintaining adequate liquidity and in managing our funding profile during 2013. As of year end 2012, Postbank’s liquidity risk management framework is integrated within that of the overall Deutsche Bank Group.
Our Group-wide reporting system tracks all contractual cash flows from wholesale funding sources on a daily basis over a 12-month horizon. We consider as wholesale funding for this purpose unsecured liabilities raised primarily by our Global Liquidity Management business as well as secured liabilities primarily raised by our Global Liquidity Management and Equities businesses. Such liabilities primarily come from corporates, banks and other financial institutions, governments and sovereigns. Wholesale funding profile limits, which are calibrated against our stress testing results and are approved by the Management Board according to internal governance, express our maximum tolerance for liquidity risk. The wholesale funding limits apply to the respective cumulative global cash outflows as well as the total volume of unsecured wholesale funding and are monitored on a daily basis. Our Liquidity Reserves are the primary mitigant against stresses in short-term wholesale funding markets. At an individual entity level we may set liquidity outflow limits across a broader range of cash flows where this is considered to be meaningful or appropriate.
We use stress testing and scenario analysis to evaluate the impact of sudden and severe stress events on our liquidity position. The scenarios we apply have been based on historic events, such as the 1987 stock market crash, the 1990 U.S. liquidity crunch and the September 2001 terrorist attacks, liquidity crisis case studies and hypothetical events, as well as the lessons learned from the latest financial markets crisis.
They include a prolonged term money-market and secured funding freeze, collateral repudiation, reduced fungibility of currencies, stranded syndications as well as other systemic knock-on effects. The scenario types cover institution-specific events (i.e., rating downgrade), market related events (i.e., systemic market risk) as well as a combination of both, which links a systemic market shock with a multi-notch rating downgrade. We apply stress scenarios to selected significant currencies and entities.
Under each of these scenarios we assume a high degree of rollovers of maturing loans to non-wholesale customers (in order to support franchise value) whereas the rollover of liabilities will be partially or fully impaired resulting in a funding gap. In this context wholesale funding from the most risk sensitive sources (including unsecured funding from commercial banks, money market mutual funds, as well as asset backed commercial paper) is assumed to contractually roll off in the acute phase of stress. In addition we analyze the potential funding requirements from contingent risks which could materialize under stress. Those include drawings of credit facilities, increased collateral requirements under derivative agreements as well as outflows from deposits with a contractual rating trigger. We then model the steps we would take to counterbalance the resulting net shortfall in funding. Countermeasures would include our Liquidity Reserves, as well as potential further asset liquidity from other unencumbered securities. Stress testing is conducted at a global and individual country level and across significant non-eurozone currencies, in particular USD as the major non-EUR funding currency. We review material stress-test assumptions on a regular basis and have increased the severity of a number of these assumptions through the course of 2013.
Stress testing is fully integrated in our liquidity risk management framework. For this purpose we use the contractual wholesale cash flows per currency and product over an eight-week horizon (which we consider the most critical time span in a liquidity crisis) and apply the relevant stress case to all potential risk drivers from on balance sheet and off balance sheet products. Beyond the eight week time horizon we analyze on a monthly basis the impact of a more prolonged stress period extending out to twelve months. The liquidity stress testing provides the basis for the bank’s contingency funding plan which is approved by the Management Board.
Our stress testing analysis assesses our ability to generate sufficient liquidity under extreme conditions and is a key input when defining our target liquidity risk position. The analysis is performed monthly.
With the increasing importance of liquidity management in the financial industry, we maintain an active dialogue with central banks, supervisors, rating agencies and market participants on liquidity risk-related topics. We participate in a number of working groups regarding liquidity and support efforts to create industry-wide standards to evaluate and manage liquidity risk at financial institutions. In addition to our internal liquidity management systems, the liquidity exposure of German banks is regulated by the Banking Act and regulations issued by the BaFin.