Credit risk is the risk of loss associated with an obligor’s potential inability or unwillingness to fulfill its contractual obligations on a timely basis and may arise directly from the risk of default of a primary obligor (e.g., issuer, debtor, counterparty, borrower or policyholder), indirectly from a secondary obligor (e.g., guarantor or reinsurer), and/or through sheet exposures, contingent credit risk, associated credit risk and/or transactional risk. Credit risk includes counterparty credit risk arising from both trading and activities. Exposure to credit risk occurs any time funds are extended, committed or invested through an actual or implied contractual agreement.

We balance our risk and return by setting the following objectives for the management of credit risk:

PD is estimated based on a average of default rates for a specific rating grade or for a particular pool of exposure. The PD assigned to a default grade(s) or pools, consistent with the definition of default, is 100%.

Gross credit risk is categorized as i) lending-related and other credit risk or ii) trading-related credit risk, and is calculated based on the Basel III framework. Under this method, EAD for all lending-related and other credit transactions and trading-related repo-style transactions is calculated before taking into account any collateral and is inclusive of an estimate of potential future changes to that credit exposure. EAD for derivatives is calculated inclusive of collateral in accordance with regulatory guidelines.

Lending-related and other credit risk includes:

Trading-related credit risk includes:

The wholesale credit risk rating system is designed to measure the credit risk inherent in our wholesale credit activities.

Each obligor is assigned a borrower risk rating (BRR), reflecting an assessment of the credit quality of the obligor. Each BRR has a PD calibrated against it. The BRR differentiates the riskiness of an obligor and represents our evaluation of the obligor’s ability and willingness to meet its contractual obligations on time over a three year time horizon. The assignment of BRRs is based on the evaluation of the obligor’s business risk and financial risk through fundamental credit analysis, as well as data-driven modelling. The determination of the PD associated with each BRR relies primarily on internal default history since 2006. PD estimates are designed to be a average of our experience across the economic cycle in accordance with regulatory guidelines.

Our rating system is designed to stratify obligors into 22 grades. The following table aligns the relative rankings of our internal risk ratings with the external ratings used by S&P and Moody’s.

Credit scoring is the primary risk rating system for assessing obligor and transaction risk for retail exposures. Scoring models use internal and external data to assess and score borrowers, predict future performance and manage limits for existing loans and collection activities. Credit scores are one of the factors employed in the acquisition of new clients and management of existing clients. The credit score of the borrower is used to assess credit risk for each independent acquisition or account management action, leading to an automated decision or guidance for an adjudicator. Credit scoring improves credit decision quality, adjudication timeframes and consistency in the credit decision process and facilitates risk-based pricing. We seek to continuously improve our credit scoring and analytic capabilities by exploring client behavioural data and advanced analytical techniques to make sound credit decisions.

To arrive at a retail risk rating, borrower scores are categorized and associated with PDs for further grouping into risk rating categories. The following table maps PD bands to various summarized risk levels for retail exposures:

Credit risk mitigation

We seek to reduce our exposure to credit risk through a variety of means, including the structuring of transactions and the use of collateral.

Specific credit policies and procedures set out the requirements for structuring transactions. Risk mitigants include the use of guarantees, collateral, seniority, LTV requirements and covenants. Product-specific guidelines set out appropriate product structuring as well as client and guarantor criteria.

When we advance credit, we often require obligors to pledge collateral as security. The extent of risk mitigation provided by collateral depends on the amount, type and quality of the collateral taken. Specific requirements relating to collateral valuation and management are set out in our credit risk management policies.

The types of collateral we use to secure credit or trading facilities within the bank are varied. For example, our securities financing and collateralized OTC derivatives activities are primarily secured by cash and highly-rated liquid government and agency securities. Wholesale lending to business clients is often secured by pledges of the assets of the business, such as accounts receivable, inventory, operating assets and commercial real estate. In Personal Banking, Commercial Banking and Wealth Management, collateral typically consists of a pledge over a real estate property, or a portfolio of debt securities and equities trading on a recognized exchange.

There were no significant changes regarding our risk management policies on collateral or to the quality of the collateral held during the period.

The Board, GE, GRC and other senior management committees work together to ensure the ECRMF and supporting policies, processes and procedures exist to manage credit risk and approve related credit risk limits. Reports are provided to the Board, the GRC, and senior executives to keep them informed of our risk profile, including significant credit risk issues, shifts in exposures and trending information, to ensure appropriate and timely actions can be taken where necessary. Our enterprise-wide credit risk policies set out the minimum requirements for the prudent management of credit risk in a variety of borrower, transactional and portfolio management contexts.

Credit transactions are governed by our RBC Enterprise Policy on Risk Limits and Risk Approval Authorities that captures the authorities and risk limits delegated to management as well as the credit rules policy, which outlines the minimum standards for managing credit risk at the individual client relationship and/or transaction level. The credit rules policy is further supported by business and/or product-specific policies and guidelines as appropriate. Where a transaction exceeds senior management’s authorities, the approval of the Risk Committee of the Board is required.

Proposals for credit products and services are comprehensively reviewed and approved under a product risk assessment process and are subject to product and suitability risk approval authorities which increase as the level of risk increases. New and amended products must be reviewed relative to all risk drivers, including credit risk. All existing products must be reviewed on a regular basis following a risk-based assessment approach.

Market risk is defined to be the impact of market prices upon our financial condition. This includes potential gains or losses due to changes in market-determined variables such as interest rates, credit spreads, equity prices, commodity prices, foreign exchange rates and implied volatilities.

Market risk controls – FVTPL positions, including trading portfolios

As an element of the ERAF, the Board approves our overall market risk appetite. The Market and Counterparty Credit Risk function within GRM is responsible for creating and managing the controls and governance procedures that are designed to ensure that risk taken is consistent with risk appetite constraints set by the Board. These controls include limits on probabilistic measures of potential loss such as and stress tests as defined below:

is a statistical measure of potential loss for a financial portfolio computed at a given level of confidence and over a defined holding period. We measure VaR at the 99th percentile confidence level for price movements over a holding period using historic simulation of the last two years of equally weighted historic market data. These calculations are updated daily with current risk positions, with the exception of certain less material positions that are not actively traded which are updated on at least a monthly basis.Trading VaR captures potential loss for our trading portfolio that excludes the impacts of FVTPL positions such as loan underwriting commitments. Total VaR captures potential loss for all positions classified as FVTPL.

VaR is a statistical estimate based on historical market data and should be interpreted with knowledge of its limitations, which include the following:

We validate our VaR measures through a variety of means – including subjecting the models to vetting and validation by a group of independent model developers and by back-testing the VaR against daily revenue to identify and examine events in which actual outcomes in trading revenue exceed the VaR projections.

– Our market risk stress testing program is used to identify and control risk due to large changes in market prices and rates. We conduct stress testing daily on positions that are The stress tests simulate both historical and hypothetical events which are severe and long-term in duration. Historical scenarios are taken from actual market events and range in duration up to 90 days. Examples include the Pandemic of 2020, Global Financial Crisis of 2008 and the Taper Tantrum of 2013. Hypothetical scenarios are designed to be forward-looking at potential future market stresses, and are designed to be severe but plausible. We are constantly evaluating and refining these scenarios as market conditions change. Stress results are calculated assuming an instantaneous revaluation of our positions with no management action.

Market risk measures – FVTPL positions

IRRBB arises primarily from traditional customer-originated banking products such as deposits and loans, and includes related hedges and interest rate risk from securities held for liquidity management purposes. Factors contributing to IRRBB include mismatches between asset and liability repricing dates, relative changes in asset and liability rates in response to market rate scenarios, and other product features affecting the expected timing of cash flows, such as options to loans or redeem term deposits prior to contractual maturity. IRRBB sensitivities are regularly measured and reported, and subject to limits and controls with independent oversight from GRM.

The Board approves the risk appetite for IRRBB, and the Asset Liability Committee (ALCO) and GRM provide ongoing governance through IRRBB risk policies, limits, operating standards and other controls. IRRBB reports are reviewed regularly by GRM, ALCO, the GRC, the Risk Committee of the Board and the Board.

To monitor and control IRRBB, we assess two primary metrics, Net Interest Income (NII) risk and Economic Value of Equity (EVE) risk, under a range of market shocks, scenarios, and time horizons. Market scenarios include currency-specific parallel and yield curve changes, interest rate volatility shocks, and interest rate scenarios prescribed by regulators.

In measuring NII risk, detailed banking book balance sheets and income statements are dynamically simulated to estimate the impact of market stress scenarios on projected NII. Assets, liabilities and sheet positions are simulated over various time horizons. The simulations incorporate maturities, renewals, and new originations along with prepayment and redemption behaviour. Product pricing and volumes are forecasted based on past experience to determine response expectations under a given market shock scenario. EVE risk captures the market value sensitivity to changes in rates. In measuring EVE risk, deterministic (single-scenario) and stochastic (multiple-scenario) valuation techniques are applied to spot position data. NII and EVE risks are measured for a range of market risk stress scenarios which include extreme but plausible changes in market rates and volatilities. IRRBB measures assume continuation of existing hedge strategies.

Management of NII and EVE risk is complementary and supports our efforts to generate a sustainable high-quality NII stream. NII and EVE risks for specific units are measured daily, weekly or monthly depending on materiality, complexity and hedge strategy.

A number of assumptions affecting cash flows, product and the administration of rates underlie the models used to measure NII and EVE risk. The key assumptions pertain to the projected funding date of mortgage rate commitments, fixed-rate loan prepayment behaviour, term deposit redemption behaviour, and the term and rate profile of deposits. All assumptions are derived empirically based on historical client behaviour and product pricing with consideration of possible forward-looking changes. All models and assumptions used to measure IRRBB are subject to independent oversight by GRM.

The following table shows the potential impact of an immediate and sustained 100 bps increase or decrease in interest rates on projected EVE and NII, assuming no subsequent hedging. Interest rate risk measures are based on current on and sheet positions which can change over time in response to business activity and management actions.

Foreign exchange rate risk is the potential adverse impact on earnings and economic value due to changes in foreign currency rates. Our revenue, expenses and income denominated in currencies other than the Canadian dollar are subject to fluctuations as a result of changes in the value of the average Canadian dollar relative to the average value of those currencies. Our most significant exposure is to the U.S. dollar, due to our operations in the U.S. and other activities conducted in U.S. dollars. Our other significant exposure is to the British pound due to our activities conducted internationally in this currency. A strengthening or weakening of the Canadian dollar compared to the U.S. dollar and British pound could reduce or increase, as applicable, the translated value of our foreign currency denominated revenue, expenses and earnings and could have a significant effect on the results of our operations. We are also exposed to foreign exchange rate risk arising from our investments in foreign operations. For unhedged equity investments, when the Canadian dollar appreciates against other currencies, the unrealized translation losses on net foreign investments decreases our shareholders’ equity through the other components of equity and decreases the translated value of the RWA of the foreign currency-denominated asset. The reverse is true when the Canadian dollar depreciates against other currencies. Consequently, we consider these impacts in selecting an appropriate level of our investments in foreign operations to be hedged.

Liquidity and funding risk (liquidity risk) is the risk that we may be unable to generate sufficient cash or its equivalents in a timely and cost-effective manner to meet our commitments. Liquidity risk arises from mismatches in the timing and value of sheet and sheet cash flows.

Governance of liquidity risk

Our liquidity risk management activities are conducted in accordance with internal frameworks and policies, including the Enterprise Risk Management Framework (ERMF), the Enterprise Risk Appetite Framework (ERAF), the Enterprise Liquidity Risk Management Framework (LRMF), the Enterprise Liquidity Risk Policy, and the Enterprise Pledging Policy. Collectively, our frameworks and policies establish liquidity and funding management requirements appropriate for the execution of our strategy and ensuring liquidity risk remains within our risk appetite.

Liquidity risk objectives, policies and risk appetite are reviewed regularly, and updated to reflect changes in industry practice and relevant regulatory guidance. Enterprise policies are supported by subsidiary, operational, desk and product-level policies and standards that specify risk control elements, such as parameters, methodologies, limits and authorities governing the measurement and management of liquidity. Management practices, parameters, models and methodologies are also subject to regular review, and are updated to reflect market conditions and business mix. Stress testing is employed to assess the robustness of the control framework and inform liquidity contingency plans.

The Board, the Risk Committee of the Board, the Group Risk committee (GRC), the Asset Liability Committee (ALCO), and the Policy Review Committee (PRC) are accountable for the identification, assessment, control, monitoring and oversight of liquidity risk. The GRC, PRC and/or the ALCO review liquidity reporting and policies prior to review by the Board or its committees.

In addition to our committee oversight framework, liquidity risk management activities are subject to the three lines of defence governance model. Corporate Treasury, the first line of defence for the management of liquidity risk, is subject to independent second line challenge and oversight by GRM. RBC Internal Audit is the third line of defence. The three lines of defence are independent of the business whose activities generate liquidity risks.

Our liquidity management policies and practices are designed to ensure the soundness of our liquidity position. Our liquidity profile is structured to ensure that we have sufficient liquidity to satisfy current and prospective commitments in both normal and stressed conditions. For this purpose, we employ the following liquidity risk mitigation strategies and techniques:

Our dedicated liquid asset portfolios are managed and controlled in accordance with internal policies and are subject to minimum asset quality and other relevant requirements (e.g., term to maturity, diversification, and eligibility for central bank advances). These securities, along with other unencumbered liquid assets held for trading or other activities, contribute to our liquidity reserve, as reflected in the liquidity disclosures below.

Our liquidity risk appetite is reviewed at a minimum annually by ALCO, GRC, and the Risk Committee of the Board before it is recommended for approval to the Board. Risk appetite, a key element of our enterprise risk management framework, is defined as the amount and type of risk that RBC is able and willing to take in pursuit of its business objectives.

Risk measurement and internal liquidity reporting

We maintain robust liquidity risk measurement capabilities to support timely and frequent reporting of information for the management of our liquidity position and oversight of risk. This reporting, which includes internal and regulatory metrics, is used to monitor adherence with our risk appetite and limits, and position relative to regulatory minimums. Regulatory metrics used to manage and control liquidity risk include OSFI’s Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR), Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR) and Net Cumulative Cash Flow (NCCF). The specificity with which we measure and manage liquidity allows us to make ongoing informed assessments of the demands and mobility of liquidity, considering currency requirements, access to foreign exchange markets and commitments, and expectations under local regulations.

Internal assessments of liquidity risk include application of scenario-specific assumptions against our assets and liabilities, and various sheet commitments and obligations to project cash flows over varying time horizons and degrees of stress. For example, certain government bonds could be quickly and easily converted to cash without significant loss of value. In contrast, lower-rated securities may not be deemed appropriate sources of liquidity in times of stress, or may incur higher potential monetization costs. While relationship-based deposits contractually can be withdrawn immediately, in practice, these balances can be relatively stable sources of funding depending on several factors, such as the nature of the client and their intended use. Assumptions and methodologies informing our assessment of liquidity risk are periodically reviewed and validated to ensure alignment with our operating environment, expected economic and market conditions, rating agency preferences, regulatory requirements and generally accepted industry practices.

To manage liquidity risk within our liquidity risk appetite, we set limits on various metrics over a range of time horizons, jurisdictions and currencies. We also consider various levels of stress conditions in our development of appropriate contingency, recovery and resolution plans. Our liquidity risk measurement and control activities cover multiple areas:

We use both internal and regulatory metrics to manage and control the structural alignment between long-term illiquid assets, the availability of core relationship deposits and longer-term funding. Conversely, we aim to align the use of shorter-term wholesale funding with assets of equivalent liquidity-generating potential.

To address potential immediate cash flow risks during periods of stress, we use short-term net cash flow limits to control risk at the material unit, subsidiary and currency levels. Net cash flow positions are determined by applying internally-derived risk assumptions and parameters to known and anticipated cash flows for all material unencumbered assets, liabilities and sheet activities. Additional product-level controls and limits are employed to manage concentration risk and perceived market capacity limitations for more sensitive liquidity sources and uses. We also control tactical liquidity by adhering to relevant regulatory standards, such as LCR.

Our comprehensive stress testing program informs internal assessments of the sufficiency of liquid assets, and whether they are adequately and accessible to meet stressed liquidity needs. Our stress tests, which include elements of scenario and sensitivity analyses, measure our prospective exposure to systemic and events over periods of time. Different degrees of severity are considered for each type of crisis with some scenarios reflecting multiple downgrades to our credit ratings.

Contingency liquidity risk planning assesses the impact of sudden stress on our liquidity risk position and identifies a range of potential mitigating actions and plans. Corporate Treasury maintains the Enterprise Liquidity Contingency Plan (ELCP) and regional liquidity contingency plans (LCPs) that identify potential sources of stress and guide our responses to liquidity crises. Potential sources of stress are calibrated based on relevant historical experience and resulting contingent funding needs, including those from draws on committed credit and liquidity lines, demands for increased collateral and deposit The ELCP also identifies alternative liquidity sources and considerations for their use.

Additionally, under the leadership of Corporate Treasury, enterprise and regional Liquidity Crisis Teams (LCTs) each meet regularly to assess our liquidity status, review, and approve the LCPs and during times of stress, provide linkages to the front line and other functions to support effective and coordinated crisis management and oversight. Enterprise and local LCTs include members from key business segments, GRM, Finance, Operations, and Communications. The liquidity status assessment and monitoring process informs management, the Board and regulatory agencies of our assessment of internal and external events and their potential implications on liquidity risk.

Funding

We also raise long-term funding using Canadian Senior Notes, Kangaroo Bonds (issued in the Australian domestic market by foreign firms) and Yankee Certificates of Deposit (issued in the U.S. domestic market by foreign firms).

The following tables provide remaining contractual maturity analysis of our financial liabilities and sheet items. Disclosed amounts are the contractual undiscounted cash flows of all financial liabilities (e.g., par value or amount payable upon maturity). The amounts do not reconcile directly with those in our consolidated balance sheets as the table incorporates only cash flows relating to payments on maturity and do not recognize premiums, discounts or adjustments recognized in the instruments’ carrying values as at the balance sheet date. Financial liabilities are based upon the earliest period in which they are required to be paid. For sheet items, the undiscounted cash flows potentially payable under financial guarantees and commitments to extend credit are classified based on the earliest date they can be called.