{"title":"Systemic Operational Risk: Does it Exist and, If So, How Do We Regulate It?","authors":"P. Mcconnell, K. Blacker","doi":"10.21314/JOP.2013.118","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since the global financial crisis, banking regulators and academics have extended the traditional, narrow definition of \"systemic risk\" to encompass concepts such as \"interconnectedness\" and \"shadow banking\". But, at the time of writing, a definition of systemic risk that covers all of the factors that precipitated the global financial crisis is still emerging. This paper first describes the debate around the emerging definition(s) of systemic risk and discusses some of the initiatives to address systemic risk by international regulators. These initiatives include microprudential regulations, such as increasing capital for systemically important banks, and macroprudential initiatives, such as the creation of the European Systemic Risk Board. Recognizing that systemic risks arise not only from credit and market risk factors, this paper views systemic risk through the lens of operational risk, arguing that key risk factors, especially people and process risks, were pervasive across the global financial industry prior to the global financial crisis and, consequently, operational risk must be considered as a contributor to, and in some instances a trigger for, systemic risk. The paper goes on to describe the microprudential approach to operational risk within the Basel II regulations and identifies and describes operational risks that were present prior to the global financial crisis. The paper concludes that there is indeed a systemic dimension to operational risk that should be recognized and addressed by banking regulators.Finally, the paper makes some suggestions as to how the management of systemic operational risks may be addressed by banks and regulators.","PeriodicalId":54030,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Operational Risk","volume":"55 1","pages":"59-99"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2013-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"25","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Operational Risk","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21314/JOP.2013.118","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 25
Abstract
Since the global financial crisis, banking regulators and academics have extended the traditional, narrow definition of "systemic risk" to encompass concepts such as "interconnectedness" and "shadow banking". But, at the time of writing, a definition of systemic risk that covers all of the factors that precipitated the global financial crisis is still emerging. This paper first describes the debate around the emerging definition(s) of systemic risk and discusses some of the initiatives to address systemic risk by international regulators. These initiatives include microprudential regulations, such as increasing capital for systemically important banks, and macroprudential initiatives, such as the creation of the European Systemic Risk Board. Recognizing that systemic risks arise not only from credit and market risk factors, this paper views systemic risk through the lens of operational risk, arguing that key risk factors, especially people and process risks, were pervasive across the global financial industry prior to the global financial crisis and, consequently, operational risk must be considered as a contributor to, and in some instances a trigger for, systemic risk. The paper goes on to describe the microprudential approach to operational risk within the Basel II regulations and identifies and describes operational risks that were present prior to the global financial crisis. The paper concludes that there is indeed a systemic dimension to operational risk that should be recognized and addressed by banking regulators.Finally, the paper makes some suggestions as to how the management of systemic operational risks may be addressed by banks and regulators.
期刊介绍:
In December 2017, the Basel Committee published the final version of its standardized measurement approach (SMA) methodology, which will replace the approaches set out in Basel II (ie, the simpler standardized approaches and advanced measurement approach (AMA) that allowed use of internal models) from January 1, 2022. Independently of the Basel III rules, in order to manage and mitigate risks, they still need to be measurable by anyone. The operational risk industry needs to keep that in mind. While the purpose of the now defunct AMA was to find out the level of regulatory capital to protect a firm against operational risks, we still can – and should – use models to estimate operational risk economic capital. Without these, the task of managing and mitigating capital would be incredibly difficult. These internal models are now unshackled from regulatory requirements and can be optimized for managing the daily risks to which financial institutions are exposed. In addition, operational risk models can and should be used for stress tests and Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR). The Journal of Operational Risk also welcomes papers on nonfinancial risks as well as topics including, but not limited to, the following. The modeling and management of operational risk. Recent advances in techniques used to model operational risk, eg, copulas, correlation, aggregate loss distributions, Bayesian methods and extreme value theory. The pricing and hedging of operational risk and/or any risk transfer techniques. Data modeling external loss data, business control factors and scenario analysis. Models used to aggregate different types of data. Causal models that link key risk indicators and macroeconomic factors to operational losses. Regulatory issues, such as Basel II or any other local regulatory issue. Enterprise risk management. Cyber risk. Big data.