FSA admits Northern Rock failures and launches reforms
UK regulator admits key failings
LONDON – The UK’s Financial Services Authority (FSA) has admitted four “key failings” in a summary of its internal audit review of the organisation’s supervision of the recently nationalised bank Northern Rock. The FSA says a reform programme will be “advanced urgently”.
The first failing was a lack of supervisory engagement with Northern Rock. Specifically this means the responsible team failed to pay enough attention to the model pursued by the bank’s management as market conditions deteriorated.
The FSA’s line management then failed to provide adequate oversight and review of the quality of Northern Rock’s supervision. Key meetings went unrecorded and senior FSA management remained insufficiently engaged.
The resources specifically directed to Northern Rock’s supervision were inadequate, the report says, highlighting that there were too few people involved and more resources needed.
Lastly, the FSA did not make best use of the information and resources available, with inadequate use of intelligence in calculating the firm’s risk exposure, leading to inadequate execution of supervisory action.
The FSA says the failings found with regard to Northern Rock represent a scenario “at the extreme end of the spectrum”. As part of its wider programme of improvements, it intends to concentrate on core prudential risks, and to create a new group of supervisory specialists to review its engagement with high-impact firms.
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
Climate risk managers’ top challenge: a dearth of data
Risk Benchmarking: Banks see client engagement and lender data pooling as solutions to climate blind spots – but few expect it to happen soon
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
We’re gonna need a bigger board: geopolitical risk takes centre stage
As threats multiply, responsibility for geopolitical risk is shifting to ERM teams
At BNY, a risk-centric approach to GenAI
Centralised platform allows bank to focus on risk management, governance and, not least, talent in its AI build
CROs shoulder climate risk load, but bigger org picture is murky
Risk Benchmarking: Dedicated teams vary wildly in size, while ownership is shared among risk, sustainability and the business
Climate Risk Benchmarking: explore the data
Risk Benchmarking: View interactive charts from Risk.net’s 43-bank study, covering climate governance, physical and transition risks, stress-testing, technology, and regulation
ISITC’s Paul Fullam on the ‘anxiety’ over T+1 in Europe
Trade processing chair blames budget constraints, testing and unease over operational risk ahead of settlement move
‘The models are not bloody wrong’: a storm in climate risk
Risk Benchmarking: Risk.net’s latest benchmarking exercise shows banks confronting decades-long exposures, while grappling with political headwinds, limited resources and data gaps