
What's wrong with the risk-based approach?
The risk-based approach to regulation is under fire. In the UK, the Northern Rock debacle could result in a reworking of the supervisory system, which is being criticised as too hands-off. Defenders of the system point out that a failure such as Northern Rock is inevitable, as the term 'risk-based' indicates that occasionally something will not seem very risky but prove to be dynamite. Critics say such events shouldn't be allowed to happen, as they threaten financial stability.

At the other end of the spectrum, and somehow more disturbing, is what is happening to the risk-based approach to anti-money laundering regulation in the US. At our annual AML USA event in New York, senior financial services executives complained that the risk-based framework was being used to set the bar for compliance ever higher, with negative public policy consequences.
Executives express concern that the 'best practice' sections of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council's BSA/AML examination manual is becoming the standard benchmark for compliance among bank examiners. Also, regulatory rules are being made up 'on the hoof' through enforcement actions. One example is the recent Union Bank of California enforcement action, which says banks should perform due diligence on new and existing customer accounts, and close accounts "if the information available to the bank indicates the customer's relationship with the bank would be detrimental to the reputation of the bank." Said one executive: "The last time I checked the Bank Secrecy Act examination manual, that wasn't in there." Says another: "We now have prosecutors acting as supervisors."
Executives say regulatory risk is driving firms, not the risk-based approach. That is, compliance executives are prioritising their activities not by their AML risks, but by the latest regulatory headlines and enforcement actions. Said one: "What risks are we managing, and is that the right thing?"
This approach to AML regulation and enforcement can't be good for the industry. Setting aside the stress levels imposed on compliance executives, regulations should be written by regulators, in consultation with the industry. Thought should be given to the public policy implications. A 'risk-based' approach should mean just that.
Ellen Davis, Editor
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 Regulation
FRTB may bite harder for Europe’s CVA modellers
Farther reach of advanced approach and lighter load on total requirements mean limited takeaways from Canada and Japan’s implementation
Can Europe’s FRTB refurb bring banks back to Club IMA?
Softening the NMRF regime permanently might have the most impact, but the output floor still hurts
Japan, Basel III and the pitfalls of being on time
Capital floor phase-in delay may be least-worst option for JFSA as US and Europe waver
Gould stands by OCC decision to end exams for reputation risk
Comptroller nominee also blames SVB failure on poor supervision, not tailoring rule
Adapting FRTB strategies across Apac markets
As Apac banks face FRTB deadlines, MSCI explores the insights from early adopters that can help them align with requirements
UBS takes standardised approach for FRTB – for now
Swiss bank is one of the largest to drop internal models; sources say it could switch later
Industry fears Emir 3.0 fast model approval will cause delays
More model changes could be caught by proposed criteria for defining significance
No need for repo clearing ‘cannon’ in Europe, says industry
Observers question rationale for a clearing mandate, calling for clearer incentives
Most read
- Top 10 Operational Risks for 2025
- UBS takes standardised approach for FRTB – for now
- No need for repo clearing ‘cannon’ in Europe, says industry