Comprehensive risk measure – current challenges

Lukasz Prorokowski and Hubert Prorokowski

Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance, 2014, vol. 22, issue 3, 271-284

Abstract: Purpose - – This paper, based on case-studies with five universal banks from Europe and North America, aims to investigate which types of comprehensive risk measure (CRM) models are being used in the industry, the challenges being faced in implementation and how they are being currently rectified. Undoubtedly, CRM remains the most challenging and ambiguous measure applied to the correlation trading book. The turmoil surrounding the new regulatory framework boils down to the Basel Committee implementing a range of capital charges for market risk to promote “safer” banking in times of financial crisis. This report discusses current issues faced by global banks when complying with the complex set of financial rules imposed by Basel 2.5. Design/methodology/approach - – The current research project is based on in-depth, semi-structured interviews with five universal banks to explore the strides major banks are taking to introduce CRM modelling while complying with the new regulatory requirements. Findings - – There are three measures introduced by the Basel Committee to serve as capital charges for market risk: incremental risk charge; stressed value at risk and CRM. All of these regulatory-driven measures have met with strong criticism for their cumbersome nature and extremely high capital charges. Furthermore, with banks facing imminent implementation deadlines, all challenges surrounding CRM must be rectified. This paper provides some practical insights into how banks are finalising the new methodologies to comply with Basel 2.5. Originality/value - – The introduction of CRM and regulatory approval of new internal market risk models under Basel 2.5 has exerted strong pressure on global banks. The issues and computational challenges surrounding the implementation of CRM methodologies are currently fiercely debated among the affected banks. With little guidance from regulators, it remains very unclear how to implement, calculate and validate CRM in practice. To this end, a need for a study that sheds some light on practices with developing and computing CRM emerged. On submitting this paper to the journal, we have received news that JP Morgan is to pay four regulators $920 million as a result of a CRM-related scandal.

Keywords: Banks; Basel 2.5; CDO pricing; CRM – comprehensive risk measure; IRC – incremental risk change; Regulatory capital charge (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2014
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.110 ... d&utm_campaign=repec (text/html)
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.110 ... d&utm_campaign=repec (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

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:eme:jfrcpp:v:22:y:2014:i:3:p:271-284

DOI: 10.1108/JFRC-09-2013-0033

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance is currently edited by Prof John Ashton

More articles in Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance from Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Emerald Support ().