Inconsistent FRTB model guidance vexes dealers

Risk models pulled in opposite directions by P&L attribution test and non-modellable risk factors

Opposite directions
The contradictory nature of certain elements of FRTB is leaving banks lost

Conflicting demands contained within the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision’s revised market risk capital framework have left dealers confused over how best to calibrate their internal models.

The regulatory shake-up, known as the Fundamental review of the trading book (FRTB), allows banks to use an internal models approach, or IMA, to calculate a trading desk’s market risk capital requirements – so long as they pass a series of supervisory checks.

One of these checks – the P&L attribution

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 [email protected] or view our subscription options here:

You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact [email protected] to find out more.

To continue reading...

You need to sign in to use this feature. If you don’t have a account, please register for a trial.

Sign in
You are currently on corporate access.

To use this feature you will need an individual account. If you have one already please sign in.

Sign in.

Alternatively you can request an individual account here: