(1) Single OTC derivative contract. Except as modified by paragraph (c) of this section, the exposure amount for a single OTC derivative contract that is not subject to a qualifying master netting agreement is equal to the sum of the Enterprise's current credit exposure and potential future credit exposure (PFE) on the OTC derivative contract.

(ii) PFE.

(A) The PFE for a single OTC derivative contract, including an OTC derivative contract with a negative fair value, is calculated by multiplying the notional principal amount of the OTC derivative contract by the appropriate conversion factor in Table 1 to paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(E) of this section.

(B) For purposes of calculating either the PFE under this paragraph (b)(1)(ii) or the gross PFE under paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) of this section for exchange rate contracts and other similar contracts in which the notional principal amount is equivalent to the cash flows, notional principal amount is the net receipts to each party falling due on each value date in each currency.

(C) For an OTC derivative contract that does not fall within one of the specified categories in table 1 to paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(E) of this section, the PFE must be calculated using the appropriate “other” conversion factor.

(D) An Enterprise must use an OTC derivative contract's effective notional principal amount (that is, the apparent or stated notional principal amount multiplied by any multiplier in the OTC derivative contract) rather than the apparent or stated notional principal amount in calculating PFE.

(E) The PFE of the protection provider of a credit derivative is capped at the net present value of the amount of unpaid premiums.

(2) Multiple OTC derivative contracts subject to a qualifying master netting agreement. Except as modified by paragraph (c) of this section, the exposure amount for multiple OTC derivative contracts subject to a qualifying master netting agreement is equal to the sum of the net current credit exposure and the adjusted sum of the PFE amounts for all OTC derivative contracts subject to the qualifying master netting agreement.

(1) An Enterprise may recognize the credit risk mitigation benefits of financial collateral that secures an OTC derivative contract or multiple OTC derivative contracts subject to a qualifying master netting agreement (netting set) by using the simple approach in § 1240.39(b).

(2) As an alternative to the simple approach, an Enterprise may recognize the credit risk mitigation benefits of financial collateral that secures such a contract or netting set if the financial collateral is marked-to-fair value on a daily basis and subject to a daily margin maintenance requirement by applying a risk weight to the uncollateralized portion of the exposure, after adjusting the exposure amount calculated under paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section using the collateral haircut approach in § 1240.39(c). The Enterprise must substitute the exposure amount calculated under paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section for ΣE in the equation in § 1240.39(c)(2).

(1) Protection purchasers. An Enterprise that purchases a credit derivative that is recognized under § 1240.38 as a credit risk mitigant for an exposure is not required to compute a separate counterparty credit risk capital requirement under this subpart provided that the Enterprise does so consistently for all such credit derivatives. The Enterprise must either include all or exclude all such credit derivatives that are subject to a qualifying master netting agreement from any measure used to determine counterparty credit risk exposure to all relevant counterparties for risk-based capital purposes.

(2) Protection providers.

(1) The exposure amount of a clearing member Enterprise for a client-facing derivative transaction or netting set of client-facing derivative transactions equals the exposure amount calculated according to paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section multiplied by the scaling factor the square root of 1⁄2 (which equals 0.707107). If the Enterprise determines that a longer period is appropriate, the Enterprise must use a larger scaling factor to adjust for a longer holding period as follows:

Where H = the holding period greater than or equal to five days.

(2) Additionally, FHFA may require the Enterprise to set a longer holding period if FHFA determines that a longer period is appropriate due to the nature, structure, or characteristics of the transaction or is commensurate with the risks associated with the transaction.