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.
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 Risk management
Clear warning on escape hatch for optimisation trades
CCPs fear Emir clearing mandate carve-out for portfolio rebalancing could be abused
One year on, regulators still want a cure for bank runs
Broad support for higher outflow assumptions on uninsured deposits, but that won’t save insolvent banks
Falling T2 balances bode well for eurozone’s stability
Impact of fragmentation would be less severe today than in 2010s, says Marcello Minenna
For a growing number of banks, synthetics are the real deal
More lenders want to use SRTs to offload credit risk, but old hands say they have a long road ahead
Did Fed’s stress capital buffer blunt CCAR?
Experts fear flagship test’s use as a capital top-up has undermined its role in risk management
How Ally found the key to GenAI at the bottom of a teacup
Risk-and-tech chemistry – plus Microsoft’s flexibility – has seen US lender leap from experiments to execution
Industry urges focus on initial margin instead of intraday VM
CPMI-Iosco says scheduled variation margin is better than ad hoc calls by clearing houses
Consortium backs BGC’s effort to challenge CME
Banks and market-makers – including BofA, Citi, Goldman, Jump and Tower – will have a 26% stake in FMX
Most read
- Basel Committee reviewing design of liquidity ratios
- Breaking out of the cells: banks’ long goodbye to spreadsheets
- Too soon to say good riddance to banks’ public enemy number one