Standardised FRTB leaves banks befuddled on residual risk
Benchmarking exercises find “weak consensus” among banks over notional values for exotics
The regulator-set methodology for calculating capital requirements under new prudential rules for market risk is known as the standardised approach. But despite the name, implementation may end up being far from consistent.
“There is a spectrum of interpretations and that’s not ideal, it requires some improvement and that’s really up to the regulators,” says a market risk professional at a North American bank.
The ambiguity lies within part of an extensive reform known as the Fundamental Review
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@centralbanking.com or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.centralbanking.com/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@centralbanking.com to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@centralbanking.com to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@centralbanking.com
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@centralbanking.com