Compliance systems are key to reputational risk, says Sullivan & Cromwell’s Cohen
Regulators look to the strength of a firm’s compliance system when deciding how aggressively to pursue it for rule violations, according to Rodgin Cohen, chairman of law firm Sullivan & Cromwell. Cohen, a well-known legal expert in bank acquisitions, regulation and securities matters, said investment in compliance systems – especially personnel – is the key to minimizing a firm’s reputational risk.
Cohen, speaking in Philadelphia yesterday at the sixth annual Wharton Financial Institutions Center Risk Roundtable, sponsored by the Wharton Financial Institutions Center and consulting firm Mercer Oliver Wyman, said reputational risk is the “nearly dominant” threat to financial institutions today.
The spate of scandals in the last two years, from the Enron and Worldcom meltdowns to the more recent Wall Street stock research imbroglio, has caused regulators and prosecutors to move much more quickly and aggressively to investigate and prosecute financial institutions. Regulators are also holding financial institutions to higher standards than ever before, leading to situations where “widespread industry practice is suddenly illegal”, Cohen said.
Even so, Cohen said he does not believe any firm is in mortal danger. “There is a well-reasoned, conscious concern among regulators not to create a problem that would drive a company out of business,” he said. Although he believes there is an “insidious” relationship among financial institution regulators, prosecutors and trial lawyers, who share information and leverage off of one another’s investigations, he says this will not last. “This zeal tends to burn itself out.”
But the cost to a firm of being subject to an inquiry or indictment can be large – witness the recent $1.4 billion industry settlement over allegedly tainted stock research. “Most investigations do not lead to serious repercussions unless they involve the CEO or senior staff, or are repeat infractions,” Cohen said. Even so, he said firms must respond to regulatory criticism “with alacrity” and always seek to establish and maintain credibility in the eyes of their regulators.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Printing this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Copying this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
FRTB start dates must align globally, says EC
Lawmaker could trigger delay to market risk rules in Europe if US implementation drags on
Fed green lights more capital relief trades
Five US banks authorised to issue repeat credit-linked notes backed by financial guarantees
Basel III endgame: why moving fast might prove better for banks
Republicans are pushing for reproposal, but a rapid finalisation may prove less far-reaching
Isda pushes to ‘decouple’ Simm calibration from model changes
Emir 3.0 prompts effort to separate risk-weight revisions from methodology updates
Basel war on window-dressing may smooth liquidity, at a price
Changes to G-Sib charge could curb year-end repo volatility, but also cut balance sheet capacity
One year on, regulators still want a cure for bank runs
Broad support for higher outflow assumptions on uninsured deposits, but that won’t save insolvent banks
Watchlist and adverse media monitoring solutions 2024: market update and vendor landscape
This Chartis report updates Watchlist monitoring solutions 2022 and focuses on solutions for sanctions (name and transaction) screening and monitoring adverse media and its related elements
Basel Committee reviewing design of liquidity ratios
Focus on LCR and NSFR after Silicon Valley Bank and Credit Suisse, but assumptions may not change
Most read
- Breaking out of the cells: banks’ long goodbye to spreadsheets
- Too soon to say good riddance to banks’ public enemy number one
- Industry calls for major rethink of Basel III rules