Risk accounting - part 2: The risk data aggregation and risk reporting (BCBS 239) foundation of enterprise risk management (ERM) and risk governance

Allan D. Grody and Peter J. Hughes
Additional contact information
Allan D. Grody: President, Financial InterGroup Advisors, USA

Journal of Risk Management in Financial Institutions, 2016, vol. 9, issue 3, 224-248

Abstract: In the period following the global financial crisis, high-profile regulatory breaches and other instances of banks’ misconduct triggered widespread concern that the culture and standards of conduct in banks had declined to a point of unacceptability. The crisis also brought into sharp focus the inability of banks to completely and accurately report the risks they accept in order to create shareholder value. These events and circumstances culminated in a crisis of trust between banks and their stakeholders which include governments, regulators, investors and customers. In this same period, regulators focused on their primary ‘capitalat- risk’ regimes administered through the Basel capital accords, reinforcing additional levels of capital as a bank’s primary protection against unexpected losses. At the same time, Basel introduced ‘firm-at-risk’ mandates that required improvements in banks’ control over risk data and associated technology infrastructure. The most significant game-changing post-crisis regulatory mandate in this regard is the Basel Committee’s principles for effective risk data aggregation and risk reporting, also known as BCBS 239. This new mandate requires banks: to implement controls over risk data that are as robust as those applicable to accounting data; to create accurate and single authoritative sources of risk data; and to ensure the precision, timeliness, comprehensiveness and adaptability of risk reporting. BCBS 239 effectively sets the parameters for enterprise risk management (ERM) and provides the foundation on which risk governance and risk cultures can positively evolve. Whereas BCBS 239 expressly states that a common risk metric for all forms of risk is not required, the authors challenge this thinking and argue that it is only through the adoption of a common risk metric that the objectives of BCBS 239 can be reasonably achieved. Part 1 of this paper, published in Journal of Risk Management in Financial Institutions Volume Nine, Number Two (pp. 130–146), explains why bankers — risk managers and accountants in particular — must view the need for the convergence of finance and risk systems within a common control and reporting framework as an imperative. Part 2 describes the ‘Risk Accounting’ methodology and its introduction of both a common measurement framework for all forms of risk and a common risk metric, the risk unit (RU).

Keywords: risk accounting; Basel II; Basel III; risk measurement; risk management; BCBS 239; risk data aggregation; operational risk; enterprise risk; risk appetite; risk culture; governance (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: E5 G2 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2016
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://hstalks.com/article/4295/download/ (application/pdf)
https://hstalks.com/article/4295/ (text/html)
Requires a paid subscription for full access.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:aza:rmfi00:y:2016:v:9:i:3:p:224-248

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Journal of Risk Management in Financial Institutions from Henry Stewart Publications
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Henry Stewart Talks ().