Australian banks issue Pillar III disclosures
Westpac and CBA publish their Pillar III disclosure requirements
SYDNEY - Westpac and Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) have both published their disclosures required under Pillar III of Basel II on their respective websites.
Pillar III of the Basel Accord requires regular disclosure to the market of both qualitative and quantitative aspects of a firm's capital adequacy and risk disclosures.
CBA was the first to publish its report on November 13, followed the next day by Westpac. National Australia Bank and ANZ Banking Group are expected to make their Pillar III disclosures at the end of November.
Both firms have set out their approach to operational risk management. Direct inputs into CBA's op risk modeling system are scenario analysis capture of business judgements (called quantitative risk assessment) and internal loss data (captured by Sonar, the group's internal loss incident management system). Indirect inputs into the model are external loss data (sourced from external providers) case studies that are used in the scenario analysis process, and risk indicators are used in the scenario analysis process.
Westpac has adopted a hybrid approach for its op risk model that involves combining historical loss data (internal and external) with forward-looking risk and control assessment and scenario analysis data to derive a capital estimate. Capital is estimated by simulating distributions of operational risk losses for each data source. The final capital estimate is a weighted average of the capital calculated for each data source.
Click on the links to see the documents:
CBA WestpacOnly 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 Basel Committee
FRTB implementation: key insights and learnings
Duncan Cryle and Jeff Aziz of SS&C Algorithmics discuss strategic questions and key decisions facing banks as they approach FRTB implementation
Basel concession strengthens US opposition to NSFR
Lobbyists say change to gross derivatives liabilities measure shows the whole ratio is flawed
Basel’s Tsuiki: review of bank rules no free-for-all
Evaluation of new framework by Basel Committee will not be excuse for tweaking pre-agreed rules
Pulling it all together: Challenges and opportunities for banks preparing for FRTB regulation
Content provided by IBM
EU lawmakers consider extending FRTB deadline
European Commission policy expert says current deadline is too ambitious
Custodians could face higher Basel G-Sib surcharges
Data shows removal of cap on substitutability in revised methodology would hit four banks
MEP: Basel too slow to deal with clearing capital clash
Isda AGM: Swinburne criticises Basel’s lethargy on clash between leverage and clearing rules
Fears of fragmentation over Basel shadow banking rules
Step-in risk guidelines could be taken more seriously in the EU than in the US