Where has the FSA’s leadership gone?
There once was a time when the UK’s Financial Services Authority (FSA) had quite a reputation in op risk. The regulator had grudging respect from the industry – it was named ‘Regulator of the Year’ in March in our Operational Risk Achievement Awards .
This was based on the work it had undertaken in 2002 and early 2003 – it had formed an industry working group, drafted credible best-practice guidance on op risk management systems and controls, and produced a substantial volume of thought on the subject. Indeed, it is fair to say the FSA and the UK’s financial services industry worked hand-in-hand to shape the op risk capital charge in a meaningful and lasting way.
But now, the FSA’s reputation is in tatters. This month, it decided to ditch the op risk systems and controls document – less then four months before the implementation deadline. The head of op risk policy, Colin Tattersall, is departing. And the FSA has been distressingly vague about the shape the AMA approval process is going to take.
Although some bankers and association officials insist the FSA has turned the corner, others are less sure. They are worried, and perhaps rightly so. If the FSA treats op risk in such a slap-dash manner, how can they expect senior management at their own firms to give the subject the respect their salaries and budgets are so dependent on?
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 Risk management
Four in five banks report breaching risk appetite in past year
Risk Benchmarking: Those reporting no breaches run skinnier appetite frameworks, despite similar governance mechanisms
Slimmed-down and automated, ERM seeks a seat at the top table
Latest Risk Benchmarking exercise finds ERM growing in influence, even as headcounts shrink
From Pillar to Pillar… to post: where now for op risk in Europe?
Experts think enhanced Pillar 2 charge informed by Dora would be more useful than a blunt Pillar 1
JSCC faces pushback on plans to merge futures default funds
Members say commodities products should be kept fully segregated because of different risk profile
CME aims to offer client UST cross-margining internally in 2027
CCP has filed initial proposal with SEC; wants to offer more products than joint FICC programme
Manuela Veloso on how banks can make their AI dreams reality
Former JP Morgan head of AI research says open-ended enquiry will unlock technology’s full potential
The ECB’s geopolitical stress test needs a price
Only a market can say how much it should cost to insure against losses from a geopolitical risk event, and none exists, argues academic
Risk managers grapple with hazards and benefits of intraday repo
Expected increase in collateral velocity and re-use could also boost leverage and risk in markets