
Risk management held back by lack of clear definition
He highlighted the lack of consensus, even among the risk professionals in attendance, as to whether risk was an art or a science. He argued that for risk managers to have their business taken seriously, a clear definition of risk management would need to emerge. He offered one: “A set of actions used to contribute towards the likelihood of achieving and surpassing planned objectives over a defined period of time.”
Smith’s talk also touched on the perception held by chief executives of risk management. He argued that for something to be considered important, it must be quantifiable. Only then could the value of savings be fully appreciated, and it is saving and making money that makes people listen.
Good risk management, he said, was a better strategy than increased customer volume. "There is nothing your competitors can do to reverse the effects of your risk strategy, while market share can be won back," he said. But Smith added that a company’s chief executive was likely to see things differently.
Smith concluded that chief executives act according to the advice they receive from those around them paid to influence their decisions. The profile of risk management would be raised, Smith said, when more people understood the advantages of developing their risk strategies and co-ordinated their pressure on chief executives to prioritise 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.
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
SEC may lack legal clout to impose new dealer rule – Citadel
Adoption of quantitative dealer definition may require congressional changes to US Securities Exchange Act
US Basel endgame hits clearing with op risk capital charges
Dealers also fret about unlevel playing field compared with requirements in the EU
CFTC’s clearing house recovery rule splits industry
Some fear CCPs will fast-track recovery, others say any rule book will be ignored in emergency
EU banks ‘will play for time’ in stand-off over India’s CCPs
Lawyers say banks are unlikely to set up subsidiaries and will instead pin hopes on revised Emir fix
ECB mulls intervention on uneven banking book reporting
Inconsistency among EU banks on whether deposits and loans are in scope for credit spread risk
Iosco warns of leveraged loan ‘vulnerabilities’
As recovery rates plummet, report calls for clearer covenants and more transparency on addbacks
Narrow path to compromise on EU’s post-Brexit clearing rules
Lawmakers unlikely to support industry demand to delete Emir active accounts proposal altogether
The Fed’s stress test models are inaccurate. Something has to change
First step for US regulator to improve its bank loss forecasts would be to open up its models to public scrutiny, argue two banking industry advocates