GCC banks behind on Basel II requirements
Operational risk measurement systems not sufficient, says software vendor
A software vendor has warned that banks in the Gulf Cooperation Council area (GCC) are likely to miss the January deadline for compliance with Basel II due to inadequate systems for measuring operational risk.
Naresh Kothari, president and managing director of Intertec Systems, which offers a Basel II solution FlexFinance, says banks that choose not to adopt the advanced measurement approach will be at a considerable competitive disadvantage to those that do, as international banks will be more amenable to working with them.
Most GCC banks have procedures in place to measure credit risk but few have systems to deal with op risks, says Kothari. Many are relying on spreadsheets, which are not feasible to measure op risks, he adds.
Of course, Intertec Systems has an agenda to market its Basel II-compliant system but Kothari is right. Most small and mid-sized banks are only aiming for the standardised approach and are disadvantaged by a shortage of experienced op risk personnel in the region. Many internal audit managers have been sequestered by banks to set up op risk departments, and simply do not have the experience or techniques to create the most effective or cost-efficient op risk framework. Look out for the next issue of OpRisk & Compliance, which includes a feature article on op risk in the Middle East.
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
BPI says SR 11-7 should go; bank model risk chiefs say ‘no’
Lobby group wants US guidance repealed; practitioners want consistent model supervision and audit
Esma supervision proposals ensnare Bloomberg and Tradeweb
Derivatives and bonds venues would become subject to centralised supervision
Industry frowns on FCA’s single-sided trade reporting efforts
Buy side warns UK attempt to ease Mifir burden may miss target; dealers aren’t happy either
One vision, two paths: UK reporting revamp diverges from EU
FCA and Esma could learn from each other on how to cut industry compliance costs
Market doesn’t share FSB concerns over basis trade
Industry warns tougher haircut regulation could restrict market capacity as debt issuance rises
FCMs warn of regulatory gaps in crypto clearing
CFTC request for comment uncovers concerns over customer protection and unchecked advertising
UK clearing houses face tougher capital regime than EU peers
Ice resists BoE plan to move second skin in the game higher up capital stack, but members approve
ECB seeks capital clarity on Spire repacks
Dealers split between counterparty credit risk and market risk frameworks for repack RWAs