NAB releases Apra report
National Australia Bank has unexpectedly released in full a report by Australia’s banking regulator, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (Apra), on the A$360 million options trading debacle.
Like the PwC report, Apra highlights the role played in the scandal by culture and governance within the bank, and in particular, a dismissive approach towards risk management by the front office in favour of a “profit is king” mantra. The regulator also points to a “regimented” corporate culture across the bank that hindered transparency and discouraged the escalation of problems to the board.
Also identified are gaps in back-office validation procedures, the absence of formal policies for dealing with limit breaches, and a lack of clarity around who has the authority to enforce risk reductions. Apra puts much of the blame for these failures on the NAB board, which is says was “not sufficiently pro-active on risk issues”.
The regulator makes a number of recommendations in the report, including the development of appropriate escalation channels to the board and more transparent risk reporting systems. The bank has been told to review all back-office confirmation and reconciliation procedures, while the board has been instructed to review and formally approve a revised set of market risk limits across the markets division by April 30.
However, Apra has also imposed a number of tough regulatory sanctions on the bank. Most severe is an order for NAB to increase its capital adequacy ratio to 10%, “until such time Apra is satisfied that all material weaknesses identified in this report have been rectified”. The bank’s capital adequacy ratio as of September last year was 9.7%, with regulatory capital totalling A$24.5 billion against total risk-weighted assets of A$252.4 billion.
Apra has also withdrawn approval for NAB to use its own internal models for calculating market risk regulatory capital, in part because of the lack of accuracy of the bank’s VAR calculations for the currency options book. Instead, the bank has to use the standard methodology set by the regulator, which lays out pre-specified rules for determining market risk exposure. Finally, the bank is not allowed to conduct currency options business with corporate customers or proprietary trading until the new limits have been approved and the bank has addressed the issues outlined in the report.
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
Pioneers split over future of UK’s digitalised market
Tokenisation provider urges industry to stop waiting for magic to make digitally issued securities possible
Forward volatility: a model-free framework for hedging options risk
A model-free approach to extracting, hedging and managing forward volatility risk
What happens when AI gets good at your risk management job?
Risk executive Alex Golbin asks how to build a valuable career in risk as agentic AI takes on more analysis
ERM’s influence is growing as its ranks are shrinking
Risk Benchmarking: Mandates expanding to include new threats like AI and geopolitical risk, but majority report flat to down headcount
Why AI agents are like staff you can’t trust
Uncertainty implicit in GenAI systems means risk managers have to take a more adversarial approach
Regulatory risk aversion contributed to SVB failure – Bowman
Supervisors ‘knew, or should have known’ about risks a year before bank’s collapse, says Fed vice-chair
As LLMs spread, quants confront ‘lexical risk’
Users are finding the uncertainty in GenAI models is hard to measure
Risk managers go softly-softly on AI adoption
ERM teams still in testing mode for most AI use cases, latest Risk Benchmarking study shows