RegTech IntelligenceThe Fundamental Review of the Trading Book (FRTB) final text was published in January 2016 by the Basel Committee (BCBS). The aims of the FRTB BCBS standards are to better factor market risk into trading book risk models, and to prevent banks moving instruments between the trading book and the banking book in order to
JWG analysis. Eleven of the industry’s most high-profile trade associations and ISDA this week urged regulators to adopt consistent and harmonised trade reporting requirements across jurisdictions. However, reporting rules are already on the books and the consequences are high for firms. In part 1 of our analysis on reporting, published last week, we explored
JWG analysis. Catch phrases, like ‘caveat emptor’, have been the rallying cry of the financial industry for millennia. In 2009, the G20 sought to change the status quo by introducing the notion of global transparency to all markets. After spending billions on the first wave of reporting, we are only now realising how difficult it
JWG analysis. 60 attendees across the buy and sell-sides came together at Markit’s seminar in Stockholm last month to discuss today’s industry challenges. They concluded that a new focus on establishing a flexible banking operating model to meet both business and regulatory demands for data, processes and standards, is top on their wish list for 2015.
This article originally appeared in the autumn 2014 edition of Markit Magazine. JWG analysis. The Basel Committee’s principles for effective risk data aggregation and risk reporting (BCBS 239) may be among the least well known components of the post-financial crisis reform package. Yet they could ultimately bring about the most significant changes to the
JWG analysis. The BCBS appears to be putting the screws on national regulators to expand the scope of their Risk Data Aggregation Principles to affect more banks. Now Singapore is the first to react. June has been a busy month for all regulatory agencies, and the BCBS is no exception. With 3 consultations, 2 sets
JWG analysis. Without a consolidated viewpoint on what new risk data requirements mean, firms will be at a loss when it comes to determining best practice. We are in the middle of a massive, global industry transformation with many rulebooks. With divergent regulatory timelines, standards and existing data architectures a common and holistic ‘best practice’
Counterparty classification regimes, such as CRD IV and EMIR, give banks a good reason to centralise their reference data, and the BCBS’ Risk Data Aggregation Principles provide a clear framework for doing so. From 1 January 2014, under CRD IV, firms will need to calculate CVA and hold additional capital on all derivatives contracts. However,
The European Banking Authority (EBA) has finally published its final draft Implementing Technical Standards (ITS) (here) on supervisory reporting for CRD IV. Long awaited, the technical standards set out the near-final reporting requirements, as part of COREP, for own funds, financial information, losses stemming from lending collateralised by immovable property, large exposures, leverage ratio and
Given the exponential growth of reporting requirements since the crisis, firms often ask: ‘Where does all this data go and who has the time to look through it all?’ In fact, recent statements by regulators have made this question all the more valid given that regulators’ data systems, it is increasingly apparent, often suffer from
Risk regulation is a cluster bomb – multiple devices with multiple impacts – but applying uniform risk data principles can save costs in 2013-16 With six months before the 4th Capital Requirements Directive comes into force, many will be asking what technological improvements will be necessary to efficiently manage risk going forward. Before they embark
Managing, aggregating and maintaining risk data used to be a box-ticking exercise with easily achievable targets. In 2013, landmark new global requirements mean firms will face a big step up. Over the past few years, regulation in the area of risk management information (MI) was fairly basic. In 2011, the FSA, like their US cousins,
In their latest landscape assessment of Basel III, the EBA came to a conclusion regarding a problem the industry has been grappling with for a long time: rules that aren’t detailed enough lead to uneven outcomes in data reporting, aggregation and assessment. The report finds that, while data quality from national regulators has improved and