The rules contained in the MaRisk in the area of credit business stipulate minimum requirements in particular for the segregation of duties and voting (BTO 1.1, including with regard to the involvement of the front office and back office in risk-relevant exposures) and for credit business processes (BTO 1.2.). The latter concerns the granting of loans (BTO 1.2.1), intensified loan management (BTO 1.2.4) and the treatment of problem loans (BTO 1.2.5). BTO 1.2.4 stipulates in particular the necessity of fixed criteria governing when an exposure is to be subjected to heightened observation and intensified loan management: responsibility for the development of these criteria, as well as their regular review, must lie outside the front office. In defining these criteria, the institution must in particular include in its analysis exposures subjected to forbearance measures. For normal and intensified loan management, the organisational requirements and processes applied are similar, but the intensity of observation with regard to the credit exposure is different. The minimum organisational requirements applicable to the treatment of problem loans and recovery loans differ from this. In particular, responsibility for the treatment and management of such loans must lie outside the front office (BTO 1.2.5).

The current valid version of the MaRisk governs the requirements relating to the organisational and operational structure which institutions must comply with in connection with the granting of loans and the ongoing management of exposures. However, the MaRisk does not specify the criteria and conditions under which postponement for the benefit of the borrower or the granting of a new loan as a bridging loan would be allowed. This decision falls to the individual institutions and must be taken in line with their respective business policy within the scope of compliance with due diligence requirements customary in the industry. Naturally, in the event of a crisis or an external shock resulting in an unexpected number of problem loans and loans requiring intensified supervision, the criteria used to determine what is considered customary in the industry are different to those applicable under normal circumstances. BaFin will take this into consideration in its ongoing supervision and during later inspections, particularly where institutions grant additional loans to the same borrower within the scope of support programmes initiated by the public authorities that are intended to mitigate the effects of the crisis.

Nonetheless, institutions must also appropriately consider the associated risks when granting bridging loans (or postponements). Institutions are themselves responsible for judging, in line with their business policy, whether they are in a position to enter into these risks. As part of this, the business policy must be updated at regular intervals in response to the current crisis situation, which will have an impact on many borrowers; the business policy must also be focussed on the longevity of business relationships, for example. Furthermore, even if a bank takes account of the particular impacts of an external crisis on its borrowers and/or takes into consideration guarantees and discharges of liability, it will, even with flexible loan terms and conditions and a flexible approach to instruments customary in the industry, have to determine whether exposures exhibit material non-performing features. In line with BTO 1.2.5 item 2 of the MaRisk, the bank would then have to decide whether it can keep an exposure in intensified loan management. This is still permissible for exposures that exhibit material non-performing features provided the exposure’s counterparty and credit risk can at least be limited and the subsequent procedure (customary monitoring of the loan without recovery report) is coordinated with the staff specialised in recovery and resolution, and provided the legal risks are appropriately reviewed.