Basel cuts op risk charge benchmark to 12%
Global banking regulators will base their proposed capital charge for operational risk on a 12% benchmark, down from the controversial 20% originally proposed.
The regulators are proposing that from 2005, large international banks should for the first time set aside capital to guard against the risk of financial losses from such operational hazards as the September 11 attacks on New York’s financial district as well as fraud, technology failure and trade settlement errors.
The proposal is part of the Basel II bank capital adequacy accord that will stipulate what proportion of their assets the banks should set aside as a protection against the risks of banking in general.
Today’s paper also introduces a slightly adjusted definition of operational risk, looks at a range of advanced approaches to calculating an op risk capital charge, and sets out the regulators’ views on possibly allowing op risk insurance a role in reducing the charge for those banks using advanced approaches.
The regulators originally estimated on the basis of a sample of firms that banks on average allocated 20% of their economic capital to operational risk. Economic capital is capital that a bank sets aside on the basis of its own assessment of the risks it faces, as distinct from capital reserve rules laid down by regulators.
Many banks objected that this figure was far too high. The Basel regulators said in June that they accepted the criticism, and earlier this month supervisors said the figure would be below 15%.
The working paper says preliminary analysis indicates a 12% figure. This provides a so-called alpha factor used in the basic approach to calculating an op risk charge, in the range of 17-20% of a bank’s gross income.
The basic indicator approach is the simplest of the three-stage menu of approaches to calculating op risk capital charges proposed under Basel II. In line with Basel II’s risk-sensitive philosophy, the more complex the approach used by a bank, the lower will be its capital charge.
The paper’s analysis suggests the beta factors used in the more complex second stage – the standardised approach – fall around the 17-20% range of the alphas. Under the standardised approach banks are divided into business lines and the beta factors applied to those lines.
The regulators specify a preliminary floor for banks using the advanced measurement approaches to be set at 75% of the capital requirement under the standardised approach, which implies a capital level of 9% of minimum regulatory capital under the advanced measurement approaches.
Banks will use their own loss data and internal risk models under the advanced approaches that are the most complex of the three stages.
As expected, the regulators have dropped their reference to direct and indirect losses in their definition of operational risk. The definition now reads: “The risk of loss resulting from inadequate or failed internal processes, people and systems or from external events.”
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
Fireside chat: Advancing FX clearing for safer settlement
Developments in FX clearing are supporting the creation of a safer, more scalable settlement infrastructure
FHLB Cincinnati explores AI to spot failing banks
Agentic model detects anomalies, monitors sentiment and drafts credit reports for analyst review
Iran strikes a stress test for CCP margin models
CME’s Span2 and Ice’s IRM2 are performing as advertised. The next few days could test their mettle
Most banks run physical climate scenarios beyond 2050
Risk Benchmarking data finds majority rely on geospatial asset mapping, while a third use third-party catastrophe models
Big banks love their climate vendors; small banks, not so much
Risk Benchmarking: Lenders with blue-chip loan books more likely to favour climate tools, research finds
Mob rule: populism’s rise pits banks against the people
Trump and fellow mavericks are reshaping politics, leaving banks scrambling to adjust to new and unpredictable risks
JSCC considers default fund consolidation
Japanese clearing house looks for efficiency gains amid expansion of clearing products and influx of international firms
EU clearing houses pressured to diversify cloud vendors
CROs and regulators see tech concentration risk as a barrier to operational resilience