Content funding on Risk.net
Content quality is at the heart of Risk.net’s success. We employ an editorial team of 40 around the globe who are proud of the reputation we have built for objective, in-depth reporting of complex topics.
We often receive enquiries from third parties operating in the markets we cover, who want to align themselves with our quality content. This is natural and forms part of any commercial publisher’s operation. We aim to be fully transparent with our readers, so will always label this content in one of two ways.
Supported by
This content is editorially independent, but has been funded – or part-funded – by a third party that wants to align itself with a subject. This label may appear on an article, a topic, or a section of the site.
In some cases, funding is accepted for work that is already underway; in others, it is accepted for new projects. The funder may suggest topics for coverage, but the relevant commissioning editor is under no obligation to accept those suggestions. The suitability of any funder must first be approved by the editor-in-chief.
The content is written and edited by Risk.net journalists, or those we have approved, using the same processes and standards applied to the rest of our journalism. Risk.net does not show this content to funders for approval.
Sponsor content
This material is paid for by the third party and is produced without the involvement of Risk.net’s editorial team – sometimes it will be written by the third party, and sometimes by a freelance journalist at the direction of the third party. Traditionally, these pieces are known as ‘sponsored statements’ or ‘advertorials’.
All sponsor content is clearly labelled, so any reader of Risk.net can easily distinguish between a piece written by our editorial team and a piece written by a sponsor, in accordance with guidelines set by the Advertising Standards Authority (UK) and the Federal Trade Commission (US).
The acceptance of both ‘supported by’ and ‘sponsor content’ in no way affects our editorial position. Our editorial team works independently from our commercial team, and is free to challenge the activities of companies and organisations that are also our advertisers and sponsors.
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
The loneliness of the model risk manager
Boards may see them as a drag on innovation; risk functions need to show they embrace efficiency
US Treasuries clearing: a new era
What will the SEC’s clearing mandate mean for your firm? Explore the latest updates and analysis around clearing models, collateral requirements, risk tools and market structure
Seven developments shaping US Treasury clearing
As the SEC’s US Treasury clearing mandate approaches, FICC is rolling out new access models, protections and risk tools to help market participants prepare for a broader move into central clearing
Fireside chat: Advancing FX clearing for safer settlement
Developments in FX clearing are supporting the creation of a safer, more scalable settlement infrastructure
FHLB Cincinnati explores AI to spot failing banks
Agentic model detects anomalies, monitors sentiment and drafts credit reports for analyst review
Iran strikes a stress test for CCP margin models
CME’s Span2 and Ice’s IRM2 are performing as advertised. The next few days could test their mettle
Most banks run physical climate scenarios beyond 2050
Risk Benchmarking data finds majority rely on geospatial asset mapping, while a third use third-party catastrophe models
Big banks love their climate vendors; small banks, not so much
Risk Benchmarking: Lenders with blue-chip loan books more likely to favour climate tools, research finds