7.5.1. Credit risk and concentration risk

Risk assessment in credit process

The provision of credit products is accomplished in accordance with loan granting methodologies appropriate for a given client segment and type of product. The internal rating process in both banks constitutes a significant part of assessing credit risk of both the client and the transaction. It is an important step in the credit decision-making process for new loans and for changes of lending terms, and in monitoring loan portfolio quality. Each bank has developed its own models used in the client creditworthiness assessment process, which must be completed before a credit decision is made. The models are based on external information and on internal data. Credit products are granted in the banks in accordance with the operating procedures, whose purpose is to set out the proper steps that must be taken in the credit process, identify the units responsible for those activities and the tools to be applied.

Credit decisions are made in accordance with the existing credit decision system (with decision-making powers at specific levels matching the risk level of a particular client and transaction).

In order to conduct regular assessment of accepted credit risk and to mitigate potential losses on credit exposures, the client’s standing is monitored during the lending period by identifying early warning signals and by conducting regular individual reviews of credit exposures.

To minimize credit risk, security interests are established in line with the level of exposure to credit risk, considering recovery rate from a specific type of collateral. The establishment of a security interest does not waive the requirement to examine the client’s creditworthiness.

Collateral is taken to secure repayment of the loan amount with due interest and costs if the borrower fails to settle its due debt within the dates stipulated in a loan agreement and restructuring activities are not successful. Accepted forms of collateral include: guarantees, sureties, account freezes, registered pledges, transfers of title, assignments of receivables, assignment of credit insurance, promissory notes, mortgages, powers of attorney to bank accounts and security deposits (as special forms of collateral). The assets constituting collateral are reviewed in the credit process in terms of their legal capacity to establish effective security interest and also the recoverable amount in a possible enforcement procedure.

The financial effect of the established collateral for the portfolio of exposures measured individually with recognized impairment as at 31 December 2021 is PLN 2,291 million (as at 31 December 2020: PLN 2,658 million). This is an amount by which the level of the required impairment losses for this portfolio would be higher if no discounted cash flows obtained from collateral were taken into account in their estimation.

As at 31 December 2021, the PZU Group did not register any adverse impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the quality of its loan portfolio, while taking into account elevated risks for certain industries when accepting new exposures and assigning internal ratings.

Scoring and credit rating

The rating scale differs by bank, customer segment and transaction type. The following tables present the quality of credit portfolios for exposures covered by internal rating models. Because of the different rating models employed by Pekao and Alior Bank, the data are presented for each of the banks separately.

Pekao

In 2021, Pekao launched the process of aligning its rating scale for internal rating models with the rating scale model applicable to external ratings – the so-called Masterscale, in accordance with the following table:

At the end of 2021, the rating models within the corporate/enterprise customer segment were mapped onto the Masterscale.

Alior Bank

The management principles for credit risk arising from investing activity in the PZU Group are governed by a number of documents approved by supervisory boards, management boards and dedicated committees.

Credit risk exposures to respective counterparties and issuers are subject to restrictions based on exposure limits. The limits are established by dedicated committees, based on the analyses of risks associated with a given exposure and taking into account the financial standing of entities or groups of related entities and the impact of such exposures on the occurrence of concentration risk. Qualitative restrictions on exposures established by individual committees in accordance with their powers form an additional factor mitigating the credit risk and concentration risk identified in investment activities.

The limits refer to exposure limits to a single entity or a group of affiliated entities (this applies to both credit limits and concentration limits). The use of credit risk and concentration risk limits is subject to monitoring and reporting. If the limit is exceeded, appropriate actions, as defined in internal regulations, are taken.

Credit risk assessment of an entity is based on internal credit ratings (the approach to rating differs by type of entity). Ratings are based on quantitative and qualitative analyses and form one of the key elements of the process of setting exposure limits. The credit quality of counterparties and issuers is regularly monitored. One of the basic elements of monitoring is a regular update of internal ratings.

Risk units identify, measure and monitor exposure to credit risk and concentration risk related to investment activity, in particular they give opinions on requests to set exposure limits referred to individual committees.

Information on the credit quality of assets related to investing activity is presented in section 38.

Exposure to credit risk

The following tables present the exposure of credit risk assets to credit risk broken down by ratings granted by external rating agencies. Credit risk exposures arising from conditional transactions are presented as an exposure to the issuer of the underlying securities.

The tables do not include loan receivables from clients and receivables due under insurance contracts. This was because these asset portfolios are very dispersed and therefore contains a significant percentage of receivables from unrated entities and individuals.