Connected Exposure: How a Bank Groups Related Borrowers

A bank lends to legal entities but loses money on businesses, and a business often runs through several entities. When the trading company fails, the property company that rents to it loses its tenant, the owners who guaranteed both are called on, and the contractor that did most of its work for them loses its customer. Treating each as a separate risk would let a bank build an exposure to one family or one enterprise far larger than anyone approved.

The group total is used in three places. It decides who may approve, because lending authorities are usually set by what the group owes, not by the loan in front of the approver. It is tested against the bank's own concentration limits, such as a single-name limit. And it is the measure for large-exposure rules: the Basel standard caps a bank's exposure to one counterparty or connected group at 25% of Tier 1 capital and requires reporting from 10%. Australia applies that cap through APS 221 from 1 January 2019, and the UK through Article 395 of the PRA Rulebook's Large Exposures (CRR) Part.

In New Zealand, connected exposures is a regulatory term with another meaning: the Reserve Bank's connected exposures policy limits a bank's exposures to its own connected persons, such as its owners and the entities they control, not to a group of customers. New Zealand's disclosure rules call a customer group closely related counterparties. Many credit desks still say connected exposure for a customer group, so a reader has to know which sense a document uses.

Control is the first test. Under the Basel standard, owning more than half the voting rights establishes it automatically, and other indicators include voting agreements, the right to appoint most of the board and contractual power over management. A group can include individuals, so an owner who controls two companies forms one group with them.

Economic dependence is the second, and it needs judgment. The Basel standard lists indicators: half or more of one party's annual gross receipts or spending comes from dealings with the other; one has guaranteed the other's debt in an amount that would likely bring it down if called; a significant part of one's output goes to the other and cannot easily be sold elsewhere; both rely on the same repayment source or funder. A bank is expected to look for such links once its exposure to a counterparty passes 5% of Tier 1, and may leave two parties ungrouped if it can show its supervisor that one could find other customers or funding in reasonable time.

What is added up also needs a rule. The Basel standard counts off-balance-sheet items such as guarantees and undrawn lines through credit conversion factors, with a 10% floor. Internal authorities are often measured on full limits rather than balances, so that an approver sees the most the bank could be owed.

A franchisee of eleven quick-service restaurants, constructed for this page like every figure in it, asks its bank for US$1.5m more to fit out two new sites. The trading company already has a term loan, an overdraft and lease guarantees with limits of US$5.8m. Its owners, a couple, also own four of the freehold sites through a separate company that leases them to the restaurants and owes the bank US$4.3m. They have a US$1.1m home loan and guarantee both companies. A cleaning contractor owned by a brother, earning 70% of its revenue from the restaurants, owes US$0.5m. Amounts in US$m, on limits.

Suppose the bank's regional credit officers may approve up to US$10m for a group, an authority that belongs to the example. The paper written for the restaurant company alone asks for 7.3 and sits inside it. The connected exposure is 12.7 by control and 13.2 once the contractor is included, and the request goes to a higher authority.

The contractor is the judgment call. Its dependence runs one way: it would struggle if the restaurants failed, but the restaurants would find another cleaner. The Basel receipts indicator would put it in the group, because 70% of its income comes from them. That test binds only for regulatory large exposures, which a group of this size is not, so here the answer comes from the bank's own grouping policy, and many policies borrow the same test.

Related-party transactions are the dealings inside the group: the rent the property company charges, the cleaner's fees, the loans between companies and owners. A lender reads them to see whether profit and cash sit where the accounts say. Connected exposure is the other side of the same structure: what the bank is owed by everyone in it, and so what it would lose if the group fell.

It is also distinct from global cash flow, which reads the group's combined ability to service its debt. Connected exposure measures size; global cash flow measures repayment. A file needs both, because a group can be within every authority and still unable to pay.

DEFINED IN ONE PARAGRAPH → · SINGLE-NAME LIMIT → · THE CREDIT SANCTIONER PAPER →

The grouping changes the approver, sometimes the price, and often the security. A bank that sees one group may ask for cross-guarantees between the companies, so that the security matches the way the risk already behaves. It may also decide that the group is large enough for its appetite and decline the extra US$1.5m, however sound the new sites look on their own.

The danger is the link nobody found. Owners hold companies through trusts, relatives and other companies; a second branch lends to a sister company under another name; a supplier's dependence shows only in the bank statements. Credit officers search company registers for shareholders and directors, compare addresses and guarantors, and read where payments go. A missed group shows itself on the day several files go bad at once.

HOW BANKS APPROVE BUSINESS LOANS → · CREDIT COMMITTEE →