NAB to lose up to A$180 million on unauthorised FX options trades
National Australia Bank (NAB) is set to lose up to A$180 million ($140 million) from unauthorised foreign exchange option trades, despite efforts to improve its operational risk management in the past couple of years.
The losses resulted from trades on the Australian dollar and New Zealand dollar options markets. It wasn’t clear whether the options involved Australian dollar/New Zealand dollar cross-currency pairs or the cross-currency rates between the two currencies and other currencies.
The dealers sought to cover the initial losses with unauthorised trades on NAB’s account, said one source familiar with the NAB investigation. "It appears that there was a large number of small trades," the source said.
"NAB internal controls caught the unauthorised trading quickly but didn’t prevent it," said a Singapore-based analyst. He added that the underlying issue was related to operational risk within a large organisation that has grown rapidly through mergers and acquisitions in recent years.
Four members of the bank’s currency options trading team were involved in unauthorised options trades from October to mid-January, said NAB spokesman Robert Hadler. NAB’s board subsequently suspended the four employees and closed all outstanding trades to stop further losses.
Hadler said the next step is to complete an internal review and work with policing authorities to decide on further action.
NAB has also reviewed its risk management procedures, although no changes are planned. One on-going change that may help is NAB’s current introduction of an electronic forex options system to replace the existing manual system, Hadler said.
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
Review of 2024: as markets took a breather, firms switched focus
In the absence of major crises and rules deadlines, financial firms revamped strategy, services and practices
Dora flood pitches banks against vendors
Firms ask vendors for late addendums sometimes unrelated to resiliency, requiring renegotiation
Swiss report fingers Finma on Credit Suisse capital ratio
Parliament says bank would have breached minimum requirements in 2022 without regulatory filter
‘It’s not EU’: Do government bond spreads spell eurozone break-up?
Divergence between EGB yields is in the EU’s make-up; only a shared risk architecture can reunite them
CFTC weighs third-party risk rules for CCPs
Clearing houses could be required to formally identify and monitor critical vendors
Why there is no fence in effective regulatory relationships
A chief risk officer and former bank supervisor says regulators and regulated are on the same side
Snap! Derivatives reports decouple after Emir Refit shake-up
Counterparties find new rules have led to worse data quality, threatening regulators’ oversight of systemic risk
Critics warn against softening risk transfer rules for insurers
Proposal to cut capital for unfunded protection of loan books would create systemic risk, investors say