Unit 3 Flashcards
Comparing traditional RM and ERM -7 differences
- Focus on risk identification/ analysis vs
Risk in the context of business strategy
Traditional vs ErM
- Risk as individual hazards
Vs
Risk portfolio development with risk interconnectivities
Traditional vs ERM
- Focus on all risks managed in separate areas
Vs
Focus on critical risks
Traditional vs ERM
Risk mitigation
Vs
Risk is entity wide
Traditional vs ERM
Risk with no owners
Vs
Identifying and defining risk responsibilities
Traditional vs ERM
Risk is insurance
Vs
Monitoring and measuring risk
Traditional bs ERM
Risk is only about ‘downside risk’
Vs
Risk encompasses upside and downside risk as well as uncertainty
Traditional vs ERM
Risk is not my responsibility
Vs
Risk is embedded into everyone’s responsibility
Solvency 2 -ERM definition
A firm must have in place an effective RM system comprising strategies, processes and reporting procedures necessary to identify, monitor, manage and report on a continuous basis the risks, at an individual and at an aggregated level, to which it is or could be exposed, and their interdependencies
Solvency 2, RM system must
-be effective and integrated into org structure and dm
- include the risks to be covered in the SCR
- cover • underwriting and reserving
•asset liability management
•investments, in particular derivatives
• liquidity and concentration risk
• operational risk management
• re-insurance and other risk mitigation techniques
- where applying matching adjustment or liquidity adjustment, set up liquidity plan
Basel 3, 4 principles of supervisory review (Pillar 2)
- Banks should have a process to assess their overall capital adequacy in relation to their risk profile as well as a strategy to maintain their capital levels
- Supervisors should review and evaluate bank internal capital adequacy assessments and strategies, as well as their ability to monitor and ensure their compliance with Reg capital ratios. Supervisors should take appropriate supervisory action if they are not satisfied with the result of the process.
- Supervisors should expect banks to operate above the minimum Reg capital ratio and they should be able to require banks to hold capital in excess of the minimum.
- Supervisors should seek to intervene at an early stage to prevent capital from falling below the minimum levels required to support the risk characteristics of a particular bank and should require rapid remedial action if capital is not maintained or restored
Features of rigorous capital assessment
-the board should set risk appetite
- should monitor compliance with internal limits and controls
- all material risk exposures should be measured and estimated (including risks not addressed in Pillar 1)
- should be a system for reporting on risks
ICAAP pillar 2 includes
- requirements on how banks should carry out their own risk and capital adequacy assessment, and document that in their ICAAP submission
- the independent supervisory review process that is used to challenge the ICAAP submission
Firm that has received internal model approval, the RM function must:
- Design and implement model
- test and validate model
- document model and any changes
- analyse performance of model
- inform governing body about performance, suggesting areas for improvement
ICAAP-regulators looking to see that:
• Board and senior management oversight: bank’s management responsible for understanding the nature and level of risk being taken and how that relates to capital requirements and for ensuring the adequacy and effectiveness of the risk management framework.
• Sound capital assessment: the bank should have in place a process for identifying, measuring and reporting all material risks (i.e. not just those addressed by Pillar 1) and for relating the level of risks to a capital level. This needs to be linked to the strategic objectives and business plans of the bank to ensure that capital held is not only adequate at the time of reporting but will remain sufficient should the bank plan to grow and/or if significant adverse events occur in the future.
• Comprehensive assessment of risks: all risks should be measured and where mathematical models are not possible, then appropriate estimation approaches should be used. Where mathematical models are used they should be subject to suitable stress tests. Concentration risk is highlighted
as requiring pro-active management
. • Monitoring and reporting: there should be mechanisms to monitor risk positions and to assess how the changing risk profile links to changing capital requirements.
• Internal control review: the capital assessment process should include independent review and, where appropriate, internal and external audit.
