
ABA’s operational loss data sharing consortium

Dear Editor,
I am writing in response to the front-page article of your September 2005 issue. The article’s characterisation of the American Bankers Association’s (ABA) Operational Loss Data Sharing Consortium was misleading.
The ABA consortium was established to focus on the US market and collect US operational risk events. It offers a high-value, customised service to members at a reasonable rate, and it is well funded.
Our consortium follows Basel II AMA guidelines in defining business lines and loss event types, and in reporting loss data. The ABA serves as the impartial managing agent that ensures data integrity and anonymity, manages collection and distribution of data, and disseminates benchmark reports.
The ABA has years of experience in collecting operational loss data and the efficiency in running and maintaining this type of programme. Indeed, the ABA has been tracking deposit account fraud losses well before Basel II (since the 1990s). In total, ABA runs 11 benchmarking groups covering an array of operational risk related issues. Membership in our working groups has grown steadily.
I would be happy to talk further about our benchmarking pro-grammes and the value they offer.
Jane C Yao, PhD.
Managing director, Benchmarking and survey research
American Bankers Association
Editor’s note:
Operational Risk
magazine happily accepts and prints letters to the editor. To submit a letter, please send by email to: ellen.davis@incisivemedia.com
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 Operational risk
Power play: how geopolitics is shaping op risk at G-Sibs
Op Risk Benchmarking: Geopolitics is a top five fear for G-Sibs, but most banks lack specialist risk staff and classical tools
Automating regulatory compliance and reporting
Flaws in the regulation of the banking sector have been addressed initially by Basel III, implemented last year. Financial institutions can comply with capital and liquidity requirements in a natively integrated yet modular environment by utilising…
No tick-the-box approach to compliance risks
Op Risk Benchmarking: G-Sibs share fear of regulatory run-ins, but lack common stance on modelling, KRIs and more
Bread-and-butter op risks at the top table
Op Risk Benchmarking: As G-Sibs are forced to do more, how can they avoid doing more wrong?
Op Risk Benchmarking: Inside the G-Sibs
New initiative scrutinises op risk measurement and management practices at the world’s largest banks
Sizing cyber: banks split on who owns and measures hack threats
Op Risk Benchmarking: G-Sibs split on risk modelling and management for IT disruption and infosec
Banks frequently breach appetite for top op risks
Op Risk Benchmarking: Five G-Sibs breached appetite in past year across four risk types, new research reveals
Investment banks: the future of risk control
This Risk.net survey report explores the current state of risk controls in investment banks, the challenges of effective engagement across the three lines of defence, and the opportunity to develop a more dynamic approach to first-line risk control