
Standardised approach may receive op risk charge cut, says ECB official
Strouzas said he had seen the results of the third quantitative impact study (QIS3) and believed the Basel Committee had largely achieved the correct credit risk weighting. But he added that a reduction of operational risk charges for the standardised approach would be reduced to make it more attractive for banks around the world – and particularly in the US – to move from the current Basel I capital Accord to the Basel II standardised approach. It is unclear by how much this operational risk will be reduced, but it will be a factor by which the volume of loans of the bank is multiplied instead of the current proposal related to a multiple of gross income. This will be at the discretion of individual national regulators, said Strouzas.
The treatment of operational risk has been a thorny issue for international regulators, with a number of industry participants claiming that efforts to take established quantitative analysis techniques in market risk and apply it to operational risk is unrealistic.
Banks can implement Basel II via three methods: the most complex is the so-called internal-ratings based approach; the standardised approach is an intermediate-level implementation; and the other option is the ‘basic approach’, which largely draws on the existing Basel I capital requirement definitions. The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision – the body developing the Basel II infrastructure – has a stated objective to reward banks with more sophisticated risk management practices.
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
Europe’s lenders sail into uncharted waters of the banking book
Regulators are pushing banks to map their credit spread risk. Here be dragons?
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