
Regulators to review abolition of Basel II op risk floor
Global banking regulators have asked their technical experts to look at the conditions necessary to eliminate the floor limiting gains for banks using advanced approaches to measuring operational risk under Basel II.
Regulators with the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, the architects of Basel II, want to ensure banks have adequate incentives to adopt sophisticated methods of measuring op risk using their own risk models and loss data.
Under current proposals, op risk charges for banks using advanced measurement methods are capped at 25% below those using cruder, gross-income based approaches. Regulators said they would review this floor two years after the introduction of the Accord, where they could abolish, lower or even raise it. Regulators fear an over-generous floor might result in banks reserving insufficient capital to guard against operational losses.
But critics argue that the 75% floor is not enough to make it worthwhile for banks to invest in the systems needed to qualify for the advanced approaches. One idea is to cut the floor to 50% with a review after two years. Another is to keep the floor at 75% for two years then remove it entirely, but many supervisors believe this provides too much leeway. Yet another is that the floor could be different for individual banks, according to their supervisors’ view of the efficiency of their risk management practices.
The Basel Committee’s capital task force, the senior Basel sub-grouping, decided in late April to seek a clearer definition of the circumstances under which the floor might be abolished, rather than adopt a particular solution at this stage. The Committee’s risk management group, responsible for developing the op risk aspects of Basel II, will handle the matter. “We’re not really going to know the right answer for some time,” said one regulator.
Regulators have wrestled with the incentive dilemma since last September, when they reduced the maximum amount of op risk capital to 12% of overall protective capital, down from an earlier 20% benchmark. The 12% figure reduced the scope for devising a floor that provided an effective incentive to move to the advanced approaches, although not all bankers agree.
So yet another option is to increase the 12% benchmark, which, according to some regulators, is regarded by a number of banks as too low. A higher benchmark would mean a 25% discount for the advanced approaches would be worth more than it would with a lower benchmark.
Basel II will determine the amount of capital banks will set aside to guard against the risks of banking, which includes operational risks like fraud, technology failure and trade settlement errors for the first time.
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 Risk management
Amid tariff turmoil, banks warned not to fudge IFRS 9 overlays
Flip-flopping US policies challenge loan loss provisioning models; EU regulators take watching brief
Why AI will never predict financial markets
Laws that govern swings in asset prices are beyond statistical grasp of machine learning technology, argues academic Daniel Bloch
Caramanli quits Ion, destination unknown
Current markets head Oliviero is said to have replaced outgoing chief product officer
Treasury selloff challenges back-office systems, data feeds
FIS and Trading Technologies suffered downtime during peak activity
Market whipsaw spurs calls to rethink buy-side stress-testing
Risk Live Boston: Morgan Stanley and BlackRock urge rethink of scenario assumptions and top-down factor models
Top 10 op risks: AI arms race leaves risk teams playing catch-up
As firms invest for fear of being left behind, op risk managers urge caution on data, controls and access
Deutsche’s Americas CRO on risk-taking in choppy markets
Risk Live Boston: Risk managers must stay alive to sudden market moves, but volatility can also bring opportunity, says Jonathan Hummel
Tariff turbulence piles pressure on banks’ VAR models
Backtesting breaches start to mount, but too early to tell if regulatory intervention needed