Op Risk database reveals fraud costs
Fraud is a far greater operational risk than banks have been prepared to admit, according to data compiled by Aon, the insurance company.
The database covers 12,000 risk events at 2,000 financial firms dating back 10 years, and throws up some sharp contrasts with the quantitative impact studies carried out by the Bank for International Settlements, which has been assessing the effect on banks of its proposals for a new Accord on regulatory capital – Basel II.
In particular, banks seem to have been reluctant to disclose details of frauds they have suffered, even privately, to each other.
The third and most recent Basel quantitative impact study – QIS3 – concluded that 98% of losses through fraud were for sums less than $1 million. But Aon says the mean size of bank fraud is $3.5 million. And that’s after stripping outlying mega-frauds, such as Nick Leeson’s and John Rusnak’s.
The reason for the different results, says Aon, is that banks don’t like reporting frauds if they don’t have to, and they certainly like to keep reports of their frauds away from the press, especially larger internal frauds. The average size of internal frauds reported by banks in QIS3 was $300,000, and $68,000 for external frauds. The Aon database finds the average to be $3 million and $1 million respectively.
The new AonOpbase will compete for attention with other op risk databases, such as those on offer from rating agency Fitch and systems and software vendor SAS. There are also some bank consortia projects, such as the Operational Risk Exchange (ORX) and the British Bankers’ Association database.
Under the Basel II regime, effective from January 1, 2007, banks will be encouraged to source external data on op risks before insuring themselves against risks or set aside appropriate levels of capital.
Aon aims to help financial firms understand how insurance prices respond to the cost of losses, says Jonathan Humphries, associate director at Aon Professional Risks in London. “You can’t expect the insurance industry to insure everything that can be classed as op risk,” he adds. “Individual banks can put the right controls in place once they fully understand the risk.”Risk
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.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
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. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
EU officials tamp down hopes for bank capital relief
Capital cuts are not a done deal in EC’s review of competitiveness, despite US deregulation
EU regulators clash over ceding supervision to Esma
Belgian and Spanish regulators differ on drive for centralised oversight of cross-border firms
Why Trump’s latest Truth should make TradFi twitchy
Wall Street is becoming the villain in US president’s crypto movie
EBA guidance prompts banks to rethink CSRBB perimeters
Banks will likely have to expand their credit spread risk coverage following recommendations
Market players warn against European repo clearing mandate
Regulators urged to await outcome of US mandate and be wary of risks to government bond liquidity
Esma won’t soften regulatory expectations for cloud and AI
CCP supervisory chair signals heightened scrutiny of third-party risk and operational resilience
BPI says SR 11-7 should go; bank model risk chiefs say ‘no’
Lobby group wants US guidance repealed; practitioners want consistent model supervision and audit
Esma supervision proposals ensnare Bloomberg and Tradeweb
Derivatives and bonds venues would become subject to centralised supervision