
Op risk past is prologue for UK banks
UK banks will not be allowed to forget past misdeeds
“The wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine” goes the ancient proverb. Risk managers at the top five UK banks had reason to recall this axiom last year, as they pondered the income-sapping effects of an aggregate £6.5 billion of legal charges – most of them relating to misdeeds committed during the financial crisis.
The US Department of Justice (DoJ) has levied hefty fines on Barclays, HSBC and RBS for mis-selling residential mortgage-backed securities in the run-up to 2008. The high street banks have also shelled out millions of pounds in compensation to customers that were mis-sold payment protection insurance, a product range discontinued over a decade ago.
Legacy misconduct issues place banks in a double-bind. Once the wrongdoing is uncovered, banks must put aside legal provisions to cover their expected fines. This cash is locked up for an uncertain amount of time, while regulators ponder the penalty, rather than being put to work elsewhere in the business.
And when the fines are handed out, they show up in the banks’ operational risk capital requirements. Past op risk losses are a key input in the advanced measurement approach (AMA) used by most large banks to calculate their risk charges. Once a fine is incurred, it sits in a bank’s loss history, influencing op risk capital requirements for years after, even when the process, system and governance failures that typically caused such losses in the first place have been fixed.
Once a fine is incurred, it sits in a bank’s loss history, influencing op risk capital requirements for years after, even when the process, system and governance failures that typically caused such losses in the first place have been fixed
This feature of the op risk framework is not going to go away once the final Basel III package comes into effect. The reforms ban the use of AMA models and replace them with a revised standardised approach (SA). One of its main features will be a 10-year lookback period for historical losses. Crucially, it’s the date on which an op risk loss or legal fine is incurred that matters in this lookback period, not the date on which the misconduct that led to the fine occurred.
This means the huge DoJ fines shouldered by HSBC, RBS and Barclays last year will factor into their op risk capital calculations until 2028 – two decades after the mis-selling scandals that triggered them took place.
The shift to the revised SA is expected to cause European banks’ op risk capital to soar, partly because this is a cruder measure of op risk than the AMA. In anticipation of the new regime, which starts to come into effect from 2022, some banks have already started abandoning their models.
Barclays started setting its op risk capital according to the current standardised approach last year. Other UK banks may follow this year in order to frontload the capital shock. The one thing they won’t be able to do, however, is escape the past.
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 Our take
Podcast: Lyudmil Zyapkov on the relativity of volatility
BofA quant’s new volatility model combines gamma processes and fractional Brownian motion
Market knee-jerks keep VAR models on their toes
With a return to volatility, increased backtesting exceptions show banks’ algos are stretched
A market-making model for an options portfolio
Vladimir Lucic and Alex Tse fill a glaring gap in European-style derivatives modelling
How AI agents could become investing’s crash test dummies
Firms mull the use of chatbot simulations to test organisational set-ups
Degree of influence 2024: volatility and credit risk keep quants alert
Quantum-based models and machine learning also contributed to Cutting Edge’s output
Podcast: Alexandre Antonov turns down the noise in Markowitz
Adia quant explains how to apply hierarchical risk parity to a minimum-variance portfolio
Why did UK keep the pension fund clearing exemption?
Liquidity concerns, desire for higher returns and clearing capacity all possible reasons for going its own way
UBS’s Iabichino holds a mirror to bank funding risks
Framing funding management as an optimal control problem affords an alternative to proxy hedging