Cebs: Bank risk disclosures could be better
Cebs says banks are holding back on transparency
LONDON - A new report from the Committee of European Banking Supervisors (Cebs) says the banks it examined could do better when it comes to disclosures about their business models, risks and risk management.
The report, ‘Follow-up review of banks’ transparency in 2008 half year results’, says only 45% of the banks in the Cebs sample provided detailed disclosures that met the organisation’s best practice standard for business models. Some 32% provided some disclosure, while 14% gave investors little information and 9% provided none.
The information Cebs is looking for includes “descriptions of the business model and changes, descriptions of strategies and objectives, descriptions of the importance of activities (including instruments and functioning) and descriptions of the role and the extent of the involvement of the institution)”.
Risk management disclosure was even worse, with only 32% providing detailed disclosure and 54% providing only ‘some’ disclosure. The majority of firms failed to disclose such things as market turmoil-specific information describing the nature and extent of risks incurred and liquidity risk. Only about 36% of firms were deemed to be in line with the disclosure best practices Cebs put forward in June.
The report can be found at: http://www.c-ebs.org/formupload/69/691c71d6-85cc-4c2c-81e3-a287fb7c2a4b.pdf.
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
Review of 2025: It’s the end of the world, and it feels fine
Markets proved resilient as Trump redefined US policies – but questions are piling up about 2026 and beyond
BofA urges horizontal CCP fix after CME outage, others demur
Analysts say clearing meltdown bolsters case for futures-for-futures exchange with FMX
One in five banks targets a 30-day liquidity survival horizon
ALM Benchmarking research finds wide divergence in liquidity risk appetites, even among large lenders
Bank ALM tech still dominated by manual workflows
Batch processing and Excel files still pervade, with only one in four lenders planning tech upgrades
Many banks ignore spectre of SVB in liquidity stress tests
In ALM Benchmarking exercise, majority of banks have no internal tests focusing on stress horizons of less than 30 days
Quant Finance Master’s Guide 2026
Risk.net’s guide to the world’s leading quant master’s programmes, with the top 25 schools ranked
ALM Benchmarking: explore the data
View interactive charts from Risk.net’s 46-bank study, covering ALM governance, balance-sheet strategy, stress-testing, technology and regulation
Staff, survival days, models – where banks split on ALM
Liquidity and rate risks are as old as banking; but the 46 banks in our benchmarking study have different ways to manage them