Basel reissues op risk paper to give broader scope
Global banking regulators reissued a consultative paper on sound practices for operational risk management today, to give it a broader scope for smaller, local banks.
The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, the body that effectively regulates international banking, is seeking industry comment on the paper by September 30.
The consultative paper was originally published in December last year. The Basel Committee said several changes were made in light of comments received on the December paper. It decided to release the paper for a second, short period of consultation before finalisation. The committee said it is not issuing a revised version of the second part of the December paper on supervisory guidance for a comprehensive op risk management programme.
Principle 2 of the new paper’s 10 principles urges bank directors to ensure a bank’s op risk management is subject to effective internal audit by operationally independent and trained staff. “The internal audit function should not be directly responsible for operational risk management,” the paper said.
Principle 7 said banks should have business continuity plans to ensure they can operate as going concerns, and minimise losses in the event of severe business disruption.
The new paper has less emphasis on the measurement of operational risk. Regulators felt this was of less relevance to smaller, local banks not intending to adopt the advanced measurement approaches to operational risk under the Basel Committee’s proposed Basel II bank accord.
The Basel II capital adequacy accord will for the first time require major banks to set aside protective capital against operational risk from late 2006.
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
Don’t mention the rules: the fight against prediction market abuse
For the CFTC to regulate new venues effectively, it must first redefine insider trading
Can the US FRTB revamp make the IMA great again?
Banks are finally presented with a viable internal models framework under Basel III’s market risk rules
UK rethinking tougher capital rules for US bank subsidiaries
US endgame draft would trigger UK Basel III trap floor for foreign banks, but PRA is reviewing
EBA proposes drastic overhaul to supervisory data reporting
Revamp will cut back the number of datapoints and integrate overlapping reports
CFTC wants to regulate prediction markets. Is it up to the task?
Former officials echo state gambling authorities’ concerns over agency’s ability to police betting risks
EBA seeks to allay Simm divergence concerns
EU validator pledges to co-ordinate with global regulators, but retains ability to act alone “if needed”
FRTB models find salvation in US Basel III proposal
Changes to P&L attribution test and NMRFs make IMA viable for US banks, risk managers say
US blows the floors off Basel III
Barr criticises “downward deviations” in US rule; Bowman rejects “blind adherence” to global standards