Where has the FSA’s leadership gone?
There once was a time when the UK’s Financial Services Authority (FSA) had quite a reputation in op risk. The regulator had grudging respect from the industry – it was named ‘Regulator of the Year’ in March in our Operational Risk Achievement Awards .
This was based on the work it had undertaken in 2002 and early 2003 – it had formed an industry working group, drafted credible best-practice guidance on op risk management systems and controls, and produced a substantial volume of thought on the subject. Indeed, it is fair to say the FSA and the UK’s financial services industry worked hand-in-hand to shape the op risk capital charge in a meaningful and lasting way.
But now, the FSA’s reputation is in tatters. This month, it decided to ditch the op risk systems and controls document – less then four months before the implementation deadline. The head of op risk policy, Colin Tattersall, is departing. And the FSA has been distressingly vague about the shape the AMA approval process is going to take.
Although some bankers and association officials insist the FSA has turned the corner, others are less sure. They are worried, and perhaps rightly so. If the FSA treats op risk in such a slap-dash manner, how can they expect senior management at their own firms to give the subject the respect their salaries and budgets are so dependent on?
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