Comments on the 'Standardised Measurement Approach' for Operational Risk

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benoit Genest
Keyword(s):  
Operational Risk ◽  
Measurement Approach

scholarly journals Should the advanced measurement approach be replaced with the standardized measurement approach for operational risk?

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gareth Peters ◽  
Pavel Shevchenko ◽  
Bertrand Hassani ◽  
Ariane Chapelle
Keyword(s):  
Operational Risk ◽  
Standardized Measurement ◽  
Measurement Approach

scholarly journals Calculating capital requirements for operational risk

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerd Waschbusch ◽  
Sabina Kiszka
Keyword(s):  
Financial Crisis ◽  
Operational Risk ◽  
Capital Requirements ◽  
Banking Supervision ◽  
Future Measurement ◽  
Basel Committee ◽  
Operational Risks ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Risk Potential ◽  
Measurement Approach

Operational risks have become increasingly important for banks, especially against the background of growing IT dependency and the increasing complexity of their activities. Further-more, the corona pandemic contributed to the increased risk potential. Therefore, banks have to back these risks with own funds. There are currently three measurement approaches for determining the capital requirements for operational risk. In recent years, and especially during the Great Financial Crisis of 2007/2008, however, some of the weaknesses inherent in these approaches have become apparent. Thus, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision revised the current capital framework. Therefore, this article examines the various measurement approaches, addresses inherent weaknesses and moreover, presents the future measurement approach developed by the supervisory authorities.

scholarly journals ANALISA PENGUKURAN BEBAN MODAL RISIKO OPERASIONAL METODE BASIC INDICATOR APPROACH (BIA) DAN ADVANCE MEASUREMENT APPROACH (AMA) DI BANK EFG

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-20
Author(s):  
Edian Fahmy
Keyword(s):  
Value At Risk ◽  
Goodness Of Fit ◽  
Geometric Distribution ◽  
Operational Risk ◽  
Risk Capital ◽  
Loss Distribution ◽  
Indicator Approach ◽  
External Events ◽  
Measurement Approach

This study aims to compare the magnitude of operational risk losses between the Basic Indicator Approach (BIA) method, and the loss distribution model in the Advanced Measurement Approach (AMA) approach so as to provide a more realistic picture for banks to determine the operational risk capital burden that must be provided based on the causes Operational risks are as follows Internal Process, Human and External Events. Measurement of operational risk capital burden by the AMA method is the determination of frequency of loss distribution, determination of severity of loss distribution, testing with goodness of fit test, then compilation of aggregated loss distribution, calculation of Operational Value at Risk (OpVar), testing the model with back testing and comparison of capital adequacy from the results of the calculation of the Basic Indicator Approach (BIA) and the Advance Measurement Approach (AMA). The results of research based on the BIA require an operational risk capital cost of Rp.291,652,000,000. The results of the research on the AMA approach use the frequency of loss distribution parameter for the internal causes of the process with a Geometric distribution of 0.17561, while for the human cause of 0.08511, for the cause of external events amounting to 0.83721. Determination of Frequency of Loss Distribution using Goodness of Fit for internal processes, people and external events. The results of the Operational Value at Risk (OpVar) with a geometric distribution pattern, then the maximum loss that can arise due to human factors is Rp.24,114,480,096, -, for internal process factors of Rp.6,010,929,367, whereas for external causes for Rp. 2,161,092,909. In total operational risk capital needs through the AMA method of Rp. 32,286,502,372.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document