Blog

gray concrete road between green grass field during daytime

When the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision unveiled the BCBS 239 principles for risk data aggregation and risk reporting (RDARR) back in January 2013, its ambitious nature sparked controversy within the financial industry. The stringent requirements and significant changes it demanded, particularly for institutions with complex and fragmented data systems, raised concerns about practical implementation.On top of this, the original timeline for compliance and the potential costs associated with system upgrades led to notable objections and a subsequent glacial pace of adoption. The global pandemic and recent stress events have not only likely extended the timeline for progress, but they have also served as a clear reminder of the critical importance of banks' capacity to handle risk-related data for making sound decisions. Central banks around the world are pushing for progress, but firms still face significant challenges in tackling the practical pitfalls surrounding RDARR.The blog delves into the challenges of BCBS 239 implementation, examining the ongoing efforts of central banks and financial institutions to progress along this arduous road. Additionally, it introduces three strategic steps proposed to streamline BCBS 239 compliance and enhance risk data aggregation and reporting practices.ECB's Latest Guide: Easier Read Than Done?On May 3, 2024, the European Central Bank (ECB) issued its ‘Guide on effective risk data aggregation and risk reporting,’ urging significant banks, banking groups, and other financial institutions under its Eurozone supervision to enhance their data aggregation capabilities and internal risk reporting practices.Emphasising compliance with minimum supervisory expectations mandated by current laws, the guide addresses deficiencies identified through supervisory activities, with a focus on project management and the role of the management body. It offers industry best practices to strengthen RDARR capabilities, reiterating the ECB's expectations for tangible results.While the guide acts as a roadmap for institutions aiming to assist their RDARR capabilities, it may overlook the specific hurdles encountered during implementation. Much like a roadmap provides a general route without highlighting road conditions, the guide offers an overarching framework without addressing the practical challenges firms face along the way.Our hands-on experience has given us a clear understanding of RDARR implementation which enables us to identify and discuss the main hurdles firms face in achieving compliance. Next, we will explore these challenges, and end on how firms can overcome them.Common RDARR RoadblocksWe have found that the primary challenge lies in the complexity of overhauling IT systems and data management practices to meet the rigorous standards set by BCBS 239. Banks often struggle with integrating and standardising data across disparate systems and business units, which is essential for accurate and comprehensive risk reporting.Resource constraints also significantly hamper progress. The extensive investment required in terms of time, money, and skilled personnel to redesign data architecture and reporting mechanisms has been a considerable barrier. Many institutions have had to balance these demands with other regulatory requirements and business priorities, further delaying full compliance.Another practical problem that institutions often encounter when implementing RDARR compliance is the issue of data quality assurance. Despite efforts to overhaul IT systems and integrate data across various platforms, ensuring the accuracy, completeness, and reliability of the aggregated data remains a persistent challenge. Firms often struggle with identifying and rectifying data inconsistencies, errors, and gaps, which can undermine the effectiveness of risk reporting and decision-making processes.Compounding this issue is maintaining data quality over time, which requires ongoing monitoring, validation, and remediation efforts, adding to the complexity and resource burden of compliance initiatives.While navigating the multifaceted landscape of RDARR, institutions encounter a myriad of practical challenges. However, overcoming these obstacles is essential for achieving regulatory compliance and ensuring robust risk management practices.Three Key Steps to Strategic ImplementationNavigating the intricacies of RDARR implementation often feels like a daunting journey, demanding significant investments in both time and resources. Yet, achieving compliance does not always require extensive modifications to existing systems.Instead, it calls for a strategic approach that unfolds through three key steps, each serving as a foundation for simplifying the compliance process and ensuring precision and effectiveness in risk data aggregation and reporting.1) Firstly, leveraging existing systems taps into the wealth of data already present within the organisation's risk and finance infrastructure. These systems provide a solid foundation, housing invaluable information that can be repurposed for compliance objectives.2) Next, applying intelligent aggregation techniques maximises the utility of existing data. This method retains granularity where essential, addressing specific user needs or analytical requirements, while applying broader aggregation to the remaining portfolio/balance sheet. Through this process, concentration factors and weighted-average values are meticulously computed, ensuring subsequent analyses produce meaningful and precise outcomes.3) Finally, aligning aggregated model results with source system data is a pivotal step. This calibration process ensures the consistency of analyses, effectively bridging the gap between aggregated data and its original sources. The outcome is a precisely balanced approach that seamlessly integrates speed and granularity, facilitating interactive multi-year projections, stress testing, and rapid what-if analyses. It also expedites detailed optimisations of the full balance sheet or credit portfolio, thereby enhancing the efficiency of the compliance process.These three key steps form the cornerstone of <a data-mce-href="https://razorrisk1.mydurable.com/frc-workbench" href="https://razorrisk1.mydurable.com/frc-workbench" target="_blank" rel="noopener">how we approach strategic RDARR implementation,</a> offering organisations a route to navigate the compliance journey with precision and efficiency.The Time is Now<a data-mce-href="https://www.bankingsupervision.europa.eu/press/blog/2024/html/ssm.blog240315~aae1a39e84.en.html" href="https://www.bankingsupervision.europa.eu/press/blog/2024/html/ssm.blog240315~aae1a39e84.en.html">In a recent blog</a>, Elizabeth McCaul, Member of the Supervisory Board of the ECB, emphasises the importance of banks investing in their RDARR capabilities and why now is the best time to act. She notes, ‘Many banks are benefiting from better profitability in the current higher interest rate environment.’ This underscores the strategic opportunity for institutions to enhance their risk data aggregation and reporting capabilities.By adopting strategic RDARR implementation, banks can ensure compliance while unlocking valuable insights and efficiencies driving business growth and resilience. Armed with clear guidance and a commitment to overcoming practical challenges, institutions can confidently navigate the road to BCBS 239 compliance.

The Long Road to BCBS 239 – Are We There Yet?

a close up of a cable with a black background

In a world where market turmoil and systemic risks are pervasive, effective counterparty credit risk management (CCR) becomes increasingly vital. Recent events, such as the collapse of Archegos Capital Management which caused over $10 billion in losses, commodity market volatility after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, and UK gilt market disruption in late 2022 and early 2023, have underscored the critical need for enhanced guidelines CCR management.&nbsp;This time last week, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) responded to this ongoing challenge by issuing a consultation document aimed at addressing systemic vulnerabilities exposed by these tumultuous market events. The document proposes comprehensive guidelines aimed at bolstering the management of CCR and is focused on four key areas – due diligence, credit risk mitigation strategies, improved measurement of CCR and a strong CCR governance framework. Here we will explore each of these areas and what they mean for banks. &nbsp;1. Vigilant Oversight at Every Stage&nbsp;The Basel Committee's consultation document emphasises the importance of conducting thorough assessments of counterparties from the outset of any relationship, advocating for a deep understanding of counterparties' business models, risk exposures, and risk management practices. Unsurprisingly the document also stresses the need to continuously monitor counterparties throughout the relationship. &nbsp;Beyond initial onboarding and ongoing monitoring, the document advocates for periodic reviews and reassessments to adapt to evolving market conditions, along with scenario analysis and stress testing to identify vulnerabilities. It also highlights the importance of leveraging external data sources and intelligence gathering to augment internal assessments and encourages peer benchmarking and best practices to refine due diligence approaches. &nbsp;2. Strategies for Mitigation and Resilience&nbsp;This section includes insights into mitigating CCR through robust risk mitigation strategies. A key recommendation is the utilisation of advanced margining techniques, mandating counterparties to provide collateral, whether cash or securities, to offset potential losses in the event of default. The document emphasises the need for enforceable and resilient collateral agreements, ensuring that financial institutions are adequately safeguarded.&nbsp;Additionally, the document promotes the deployment of supplementary financial safeguards, such as guarantees and credit derivatives, to augment the risk mitigation toolkit which offer additional layers of protection and bolster resilience against CCR. &nbsp;3. Elevated CCR Measurement &nbsp;Next, the document outlines guidelines aimed at refining the measurement and management of exposure to CCR emphasises the importance of employing quantitative metrics, such as potential future exposure (PFE) and stress testing, to assess the impact of adverse scenarios. &nbsp;Specifically, the document underscores the critical role of these metrics in comprehending the maximum possible loss under extreme yet plausible market conditions. By incorporating these advanced quantitative techniques into their risk management frameworks, banks can gain a nuanced understanding of their exposure to CCR. &nbsp;4. Strengthening Governance Frameworks&nbsp;Finally, the BCBS highlights the importance of establishing a robust governance framework for managing CCR to ensure that responsibilities are clearly defined, and procedures are in place to effectively manage CCR. This includes establishing oversight mechanisms at both senior management and board levels to monitor and assess CCR exposures. &nbsp;Further, the document emphasises the need for a strong risk culture within financial institutions, where CCR management is integrated into the strategic goals of the organisation. &nbsp;Call to Action&nbsp;Financial institutions and regulatory bodies are urged to adopt and implement these new guidelines swiftly and rigorously. By doing so, they will not only align with best practices for managing CCR but also contribute to the overall resilience and stability of the global financial system. &nbsp;Banks are encouraged to revise their current risk management frameworks, enhance training for risk officers, and invest in better risk assessment tools as guided by these recommendations. Supervisors are also called upon to ensure compliance and to foster a proactive approach to risk management within the banking sector. This collective effort will help mitigate the risks of future financial disruptions and protect against potential losses from counterparty failures.&nbsp;The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision welcomes comments on all aspects of the proposed guidelines. Comments should be submitted by 28 August 2024.&nbsp;

Basel Guidelines: Diving into the Four Counterparty Credit Risk Components

The International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) <a data-mce-href="https://agm.isda.org/" href="https://agm.isda.org/">annual general meeting</a> takes place in Tokyo this week. The event serves as a platform for insightful discussions, strategic collaborations, and the exchange of ideas surrounding the latest trends, challenges, and innovations in risk management.While we couldn’t be in attendance this year, several agenda items caught our eye which compelled us to write this blog. By focusing on key topics, we aim to offer comprehensive insights into the most pressing issues shaping the industry's trajectory. Let’s dive in.Navigating Novel Risk&nbsp;Unsurprisingly high on the ISDA <a data-mce-href="https://agm.isda.org/agenda/" href="https://agm.isda.org/agenda/">agenda </a>this year is how firms are managing novel risk. With inflation and interest rates climbing, the 'Global Market Outlook' panel will delve into how economies worldwide are grappling with this financial turbulence. In the aptly named ‘Managing Disruption’ session, discussion will centre on the intricate task of navigating risks amid geopolitical turmoil as exemplified by Russia's actions in Ukraine.These topics highlight the imperative for banks to fortify their strategies and resilience in an increasingly volatile landscape. But one major area that we have noticed that is being affected because of this novel risk is a rise in expected credit loss (ECL).The <a data-mce-href="https://fuse-uploads-public.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/fuse-household-default-index-2024.pdf" href="https://fuse-uploads-public.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/fuse-household-default-index-2024.pdf" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">Fuse Household Index</a>, which analysed the annual reports of 20 of the UK’s biggest lenders to assess ECL (encompassing a range of financial risks including expected customer defaults, the impact of inflation as well as changes to the size of the loan book), made some concerning findings. They found that the largest lenders are expecting to lose an added £788M over the next 12 months as the cost of living crisis continues, and borrowers face rising costs which they are struggling to meet.The discussions surrounding novel risks at the AGM underscore the critical importance for banks to enhance their strategic resilience in the face of evolving economic and geopolitical challenges. The rise in ECL serves as a stark reminder of the financial impacts stemming from global uncertainties, emphasising the need for proactive risk management strategies in navigating the complex landscape of today's financial markets.Trading Talk&nbsp;In a panel discussion titled "View from the Trading Desk," experts from leading financial institutions will be addressing the factors shaping trading strategies in 2024 and how firms are adapting to the current macroeconomic and market landscape. No doubt they will be exploring the challenges and opportunities facing traders amidst evolving economic conditions and market dynamics, and how to navigate the complexities of the trading landscape.Given the backdrop of noteworthy events in 2023, including peak inflation and interest rates, the US regional banking crisis, and the collapse of Credit Suisse, alongside softness in capital markets activity, geopolitical conflicts, ongoing energy transition and decarbonisation, and a continually evolving regulatory landscape, the discussion is bound to be rich with analysis.In 2024, there are grounds for cautious optimism, and many analysts expect a more “normal” financial markets landscape. The macroeconomic picture is improving. Inflation is easing, and central banks are expected to cut rates during the year. M&amp;A activity increased over 20% in the fourth quarter of 2023 compared to the third quarter. Risk appetite is returning among investors as evidenced by recent fund flows. Nevertheless, uncertainties remain, including high-impact elections, ongoing geopolitical turmoil, and unforeseen events, which may influence market dynamics in unexpected ways.Basel III Shake-Up Hits Trading Floors&nbsp;No industry event would be complete without a discussion on a major piece of regulation that is affecting the market - Basel III, especially as now all major jurisdictions have published proposed rules to implement the final measures. &nbsp;In a panel entitled ‘Counting the Cost of Capital Reforms’ experts will be discussing rule divergence, the increased reliance on standardised approach models and the increase in capital for market risk, ultimately debating how these will changes impact trading businesses, and how are banks are adapting to these changes.The new regulatory requirements regarding capital and liquidity will be another constraint for banks—especially their capital-intensive trading arms. The added capital needed in the recent Basel III “endgame” rules for US banks who have over US$100B in assets, will affect capital allocation to proprietary trading and plans for market expansion.Furthermore, these rules could materially constrain large banks’ ability to support capital markets activities as counterparties in financial derivatives, further elevating the cost of capital for the end users as well.Leveraging Analytical SolutionsIt's clear that the discussions and insights at this year’s ISDA will provide valuable perspectives on navigating the complexities of today's financial landscape. The emphasis on managing novel risks amidst economic turbulence and geopolitical disruptions underscores the need for banks to bolster their strategies and resilience. The rise in expected credit loss (ECL) due to the cost-of-living crisis serves as a stark reminder of the challenges faced by financial institutions in mitigating risks and adapting to changing market conditions.Further, trading strategies considering evolving economic conditions and regulatory reforms highlight the dynamic nature of the financial industry. With the Basel III shake-up looming large, banks are tasked with navigating increased capital requirements and regulatory complexities while staying agile in their trading approaches.The imperative for banks to adapt to new regulatory landscapes while effectively managing market dynamics underscores the importance of using advanced analytical solutions. These tools offer valuable insights and enable financial institutions to find vulnerabilities, optimise strategies, and enhance decision-making processes, ultimately contributing to greater resilience in the face of uncertainty. As the industry continues to evolve, proactive adaptation and strategic planning will be essential for financial institutions to thrive in an ever-changing environment.

ISDA Insights from Afar: Examining Key Agenda Items

It is around a year since Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank, and First Republic failed, and while its effects were by no means as far reaching as those in the global financial crisis over 15 years ago, it has sent substantial repercussions throughout the industry, its regulators, and governing bodies. &nbsp; &nbsp; Here, we take a look at some of the global reactions and give recommendations on what individual banks can do to protect themselves from potential contagion. &nbsp; &nbsp; APRA: Clipping the Butterfly’s Wings &nbsp; Reverberations were felt as far afield as Australia, where APRA Chair John Lonsdale1 likened the potential damage of the collapse to the ‘butterfly effect.’ Lonsdale stated, “Could the failure of a mid-size Californian bank specialising in servicing the fintech and start-up sectors impact the stability of the banking system in Australia 12,000 kilometres away?”. While local Australian banks came through the crisis unscathed, it nonetheless triggered APRA to reinforce its requirements for Interest Rate Risk in the Banking Book (IRRBB). &nbsp; &nbsp; In December ‘23, the regulator announced revisions to Prudential Standard APS 117. Previously, the regulation required ‘significant financial institutions’ to have an appropriate risk management and governance framework to manage the impact of changing interest rates on their businesses. The December changes included a short consultation – ending in March – on some aspects of APS 117 which are also relevant to smaller banks. At the same time, APRA is consulting on changes2 to Prudential Standard APS 210 Liquidity, Prudential Practice Guide APG 210 and Prudential Standard APS 111 Capital Adequacy to prevent potential contagion risk. &nbsp; &nbsp; While the full extent of APRA’s reaction to the US banking collapses is not fully realised, all signs point to a proactive, steadfast, and cautious stance. One that is immune to banking lobbyists or political pressure persuading them otherwise. Which is in stark contrast to what is currently happening elsewhere in the world… &nbsp; &nbsp; US: The Fed in Flux &nbsp; A month after the US crisis, the Federal Reserve issued stringent Basel III ‘endgame’ rules which some warned could lead to capital hikes of up to 20% for some large banks. Unsurprisingly, these rules have been under intense scrutiny and political in-fighting since they were announced, with dissident voices claiming that having extra capital would not have saved SVB et al. 3&nbsp; &nbsp; At time of writing this article, the industry is still ruminating over Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s recent testimony4 delivered to Congress, announcing that officials will be making ‘broad material changes’ to the proposed Basel III endgame rules. &nbsp; &nbsp; EU: An Indirect Effect &nbsp; Meanwhile, in the EU, the impending and wide-reaching Basel III rules on the horizon mean that no specific reactive action has been taken by regulators in response to the 2023 crisis. However, events in California will certainly serve as a cautionary backdrop for upcoming governance – a fact demonstrated by Andrea Enria, Chair of the Supervisory Board of the ECB who heralded ‘a new stage for European banking supervision’ at the Handelsblatt Annual Conference on Banking Supervision at the end of March 20235. &nbsp; &nbsp; In this speech Enria also called out the importance and ‘persistent sluggishness’ of progression around ‘BCBS 239: Risk Data Aggregation and Reporting’ that was first issued in 2013. The ECB followed this with an announcement6 that banks are expected to step up efforts and improve their capabilities in this area in a timely manner. &nbsp; &nbsp; The link between the US crisis and the EU’s sharper focus on regulation like BCBS 239 is not explicit. However, it is clear that banks operating in the EU should be ready for more scrutiny because of what happened 12 months ago. In particular, it would be prudent for all banks in the region to work within BCBS 239’s principles of generating ‘aggregate risk data to meet a broad range of on-demand, ad hoc risk management reporting requests, including requests during stress/crisis situations and requests due to changing internal needs’ 7. &nbsp; &nbsp; Charting Your Own Path &nbsp; One year on, there is no doubt Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank, and First Republic has put strong risk management firmly back into the spotlight. As we have explored here, regulators have responded in very different ways, influenced by various factors. &nbsp; &nbsp; While it goes without saying at a base level regulatory guidance must be followed and adhered to, but adopting an approach of simply waiting for yet more regulation to be debated and eventually passed comes with its own risks. Firms can also make their own decisions on arming themselves with the tools to manage and prevent risk. To survive any future crises and contagion, firms must always have a solid grasp of their position, regardless of what their regulator has asked for.&nbsp;

Exploring the Global Impact of the 2023 US Banking Crisis

white clouds over city buildings during daytime

The Bank of International Settlements (BIS) whose mission is to support central banks’ pursuit of financial stability through international cooperation has published two reports on climate-related financial risks.The two reports discuss transmission channels of climate-related risks to the banking system, and the measurement methodologies of climate-related financial risks. Climate risk drivers can be captured in traditional financial risk categories, but additional progress in data collection and veracity is needed to better estimate these risks.The reports provide a conceptual foundation for the BIS’s next phase of work to identify potential gaps in the Basel Framework and consider measures to address them.The two analytical reports are:<ul><li>Climate-related risk drivers and their transmission channels, (<a href="https://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d517.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-href="https://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d517.pdf">https://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d517.pdf</a>) and</li><li>Climate-related financial risks – measurement methodologies (<a href="https://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d518.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-href="https://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d518.pdf">https://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d518.pdf</a>).</li></ul>The reports are intended to be read in tandem. Climate-related risk drivers and their transmission channels explores how climate-related financial risks arise and affect both banks and the banking system. Climate-related financial risks – measurement methodologies provides an overview of conceptual issues related to climate-related financial risk measurement, and describes banks’ and supervisors’ current and emerging practices in this area.Taken together, the reports conclude that climate risk drivers can be captured in traditional financial risk categories. But additional work is needed to connect climate risk drivers to banks’ exposures and to reliably estimate such risks. While a range of methodologies is currently in use or being developed, challenges remain in the estimation process, including data gaps and uncertainty associated with the long-term nature and unpredictability of climate change.Combing these reports with the regulatory engagement that European and UK regulatory authorities have undertaken will have multiple implications across the entire financial services sector and onwards to all of the industrial sectors that they serve.Richard Bennett, CEO Razor Risk 20th April 2021

Climate change may give rise to considerable future losses for banking institutions, says BIS

Greenland : amazing iceberg on the sea, we can still see this before complete climate change

Climate change creates risks to both the safety and soundness of individual firms and to the stability of the whole financial system. These are already starting to crystallise and have the potential to increase substantially in the future.The challenge for firms is considerable, and perhaps not unlike that posed by market risk and capital adequacy requirements in the 1990s. Then, as now, there was a pressing need for risk managers and boards to accelerate capacity to assess and manage risks and, at that time, most rose to the task.Climate change is the most pressing challenge to the financial system of modern times. The Bank of England – currently consulting on the topic – has done a fine job of pushing it up the agenda for the financial system, although the process of change remains at an early stage.To facilitate this,&nbsp;<a href="https://razor-risk.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-href="https://razor-risk.com/">Razor Risk</a>&nbsp;in partnership with its clients, is creating a climate risk management service by undertaking stress tests and scenario analysis used to explore less well-understood risks that are not neatly linked to the financial cycle – such as climate changeOur objective is to test the resilience of the current business models of firms to the physical and transition risks posed by climate change. We plan to focus on sizing risks, rather than testing firms’ capital adequacy or setting capital requirements, allowing each firm to examine and potentially adjust its business models.Climate “risk appetite”We are collaboratively working with clients to inform their climate change “risk appetite” with a model designed by our engineering and consulting team. Initially, the model will be implemented as a “proof of concept” for testing, accuracy and efficacy given the various scenarios that need to be measured for risk purposes.This is new territory. Our approach differs from traditional stress tests in several areas:<ul><li>Expert Knowledge: The central concept is to both elicit experts’ individual views regarding climate change via an interactive questionnaire and use machine learning to gain an understanding of sentiment of published scientific papers on climate change.</li></ul>Retrieving expert views in such a fashion generates many pathways of understanding. Even if opinions do not converge, a Bayesian Belief Network will compile all views and produce a unifying Bayesian graph, effectively giving a mathematically correct summary of expert opinions. Most importantly, this graph is not merely a qualitative illustration but provides. a fully computable model of the climate change domain, making it easier to simulate consistent what-if scenarios.Named after its inventor, the 18th-century Presbyterian minister Thomas Bayes, Bayes’ theorem is a method for calculating the validity of beliefs (hypotheses, claims, propositions) based on the best available evidence (observations, data, information). A simplifying, non mathematical, description could be thought of as: Initial scenario plus new evidence equates to a new and improved scenario.The theorem was one of the mathematical tools used to crack to infamous Nazi Enigma code in World War II. Alan Turing, a British mathematician, used Bayes Theorem to assess the translations culled from the Enigma encryption machine used to crack the German messaging code. Applying probability models, Turing and his staff were able to break down the almost infinite number of possible translations based on the messages that were most likely to be translatable, and ultimately crack the German Enigma code.<ul><li>Multiple scenarios: We will test the resilience of our partner firms against three climate pathways. These will include scenarios that embody the risks of ‘earlier’ and ‘later’ policy action to reach the Paris Agreement target, and a ‘no additional policy action’ scenario where the Paris Agreement target is not met, and more severe physical risks crystallise as a result.</li><li>Extended modelling horizon: we will use a 30-year modelling horizon. This is because climate change, and the policies to mitigate it, will occur over a much longer timeframe than the normal horizon for stress testing. To make these scenarios credible and tractable, we propose to examine firms resilience using a fixed balance sheet, focusing on sizing the risks and the scale of business model adjustment required to respond to these risks, rather than testing the adequacy of firms’ capital to absorb those risks.</li><li>Integrated climate and macro financial variables: we will also provide pathways for temperature, emissions, and climate policies to capture the underlying physical and transition risks in each scenario.</li><li>Counterparty-level modelling expectations:&nbsp;We will assess the vulnerability of individual counterparties’ business models to the underlying climate-related risks in each scenario.</li></ul>There are many challenges involved in such an exercise and this approach seeks to balance various trade-offs. The fact that we can generate scenarios from a Bayesian graph model the same way as a statistical model estimated from “Big Data” is both innovative and yet well proven.Although this is a new approach, we believe it is the only one viable to help firms stress-test their potential risks on climate change, because the data doesn’t exist to use a more familiar, data-based model. Fortunately, formally-encoded collective expert knowledge is now available to us and, we believe, both represents what is currently known and aligns to the challenges posed by climate change.Richard Bennett, CEO Razor Risk 19th February 2020

How should firms stress test for climate change?

Razor

Risk Management

Poppins

Roboto

This website uses cookies. Please read our Privacy Policy available in the footer.

Blog

The Long Road to BCBS 239 – Are We There Yet?

Basel Guidelines: Diving into the Four Counterparty Credi...

ISDA Insights from Afar: Examining Key Agenda Items

Exploring the Global Impact of the 2023 US Banking Crisis

Climate change may give rise to considerable future losse...

How should firms stress test for climate change?