基于作业的商业银行操作风险管理框架：实践者的视角

对无处不在的操作风险进行准确有效的界定、衡量和控制一直是商业银行没能很好解决的问题，原因之一是没能建立一个强有力的风险管理框架。本文从流程管理的角度提出了基于作业的操作风险管理框架(ABORM)。该框架将流程中的“作业”作为银行的基本业务单位，以作业为基础来寻找、确认操作风险驱动因素，进而构建(关键作业，风险动因)组合群。操作风险的衡量和控制都是在这些组合的基础上实现。基于作业的操作风险管理框架能够解决或回答操作风险管理中实践者关心的主要问题，具有较好的有效性和可操作性。     

新巴塞尔协议下我国商业银行操作风险防范与控制

银行操作风险是一种内源性风险,具有复杂性和多样性等诸多特征,是新巴塞尔协议所要控制的主要三大风险之一。我国商业银行风险控制和国外银行相比,无论是在风险防范意识、风险控制手段,还是操作风险人员开发和管理方面都存在诸多问题。本文认为我国商业银行首先应提高操作风险管理意识,建立起完善的操作风险管理框架,并在此框架之下完善操作风险管理的手段和方法,形成有效地内外并重的风险控制系统,从根本上防范和控制操作风险。     

国内中小银行操作风险管理存在的闻题及建议

盘点国内中小银行操作风险管理现状及存在的问题,大致可以归纳为风险管理文化不健全、操作风险管理组织框架不完善、政策体系不健全以及对重点环节的操作风险关注不够,人员使用不当。操作风险管理创新不足,信息化水平制约、专业管理人才匮乏等几个方面。因此,中小银行操作风险管理改进的方向是：将操作风险管理置于战略高度,积极培育风险管理文化;努力完善操作风险管理组织框架;不断优化制度流程,实现操作风险的精细化管理;关注操作风险的重点环节;从人员角度切入管理操作风险;加强操作风险管理创新;提高信息化水平完善操作风险管理;加强风险管理人才的培养。     

商业银行的操作风险

银行的操作风险,主要指的是银行在进行金融操作过程中,出现操作流程不规范的情况.中国国有商业银行现在执行的操作风险管理制度,有很多的问题,实际上,国有商业银行的经营是存在很大风险的.所以,要制定全新操作风险管理制度,改革商业银行的领导结构,打造操作风险管理的组织体系,强化操作风险管理制度的根本,以求达到对各种风险精确且及时地分析、控制、避免和解决.根据银行业操作风险的特征我们可以及时判断银行是否存在操作风险的威胁.所以本文针对商业银行操作风险管理进行了以下探索.     

操作风险管理从粗放到精细的飞跃

随着社会经济的发展，商业银行操作风险事件呈高发态势，《巴塞尔新资本协议》和银监会监管要求各商业银行逐步推进全面风险管理体系建设。为建立能覆盖风险识别、评估、控制与缓释、监测报告整个风险管理流程全方位的操作风险管理框架，风险管理系统应提供统一接口采集核心业务系统、财务报表、审计等商业银行内部系统金融数据和同业外部数据．     

关于我国商业银行操作风险管理框架设计的探讨

2007年,中国银监会颁布了《商业银行操作风险管理指引》,明确要求我国商业银行应建立与本行的业务性质、规模和复杂程度相适应的操作风险管理体系,有效地识别、评估、监测和控制/缓释操作风险。本文从操作风险管理体系(以下称框架)构建的理论基础、系统特征、设计思路和管理框架构成与层次等方面进行了探讨,以期对我国的操作风险管理提供有益帮助。     

关于我国商业银行操作风险管理框架设计的探讨

2007年,中国银监会颁布了<商业银行操作风险管理指引>,明确要求我国商业银行应建立与本行的业务性质、规模和复杂程度相适应的操作风险管理体系,有效地识别、评估、监测和控制/缓释操作风险.本文从操作风险管理体系(以下称框架)构建的理论基础、系统特征、设计思路和管理框架构成与层次等方面进行了探讨,以期对我国的操作风险管理提供有益帮助.     

商业银行操作风险管理框架研究

商业银行操作风险是银行最为古老的风险之一,日益受到监管层和银行决策层的重视。管理操作风险需要构建一个稳健的风险管理框架,通过此框架的循环实施能有效的控制并缓释商业银行操作风险。本文在综合已有研究成果之后,提出了一套全面的操作风险管理框架,希望能为风险管理者提供一定借鉴作用。     

商业银行引入操作风险管理的意义与策略分析

《巴塞尔新资本协议》征求意见稿(以下简称新协议)把操作风险、信用风险和市场风险一并纳入对金融机构的监管框架,既是近年来国际金融界日益注重操作风险管理的制度体现,同时也是从全面风险管理和保持银行体系稳定的角度对操作风险管理的新要求。因此,以新协议的公布和实施为标志,商业银行必将面临一个如何根据新的监管要求有效引入操作风险管理的现实问题。新协议将操作风险纳入监管框架的重要意义操作风险是指由不完善或有问题的内部操作过程、人员、系统或外部事件而导致的直接或间接损失风险。从这个意义上讲,操作风险并不是一个新的概…     

在企业中建立操作风险管理文化——聚焦外汇业务

在操作风险管理方面，最重要的部分是管理层对操作风险流程的承诺，此外，还要建立透明的操作风险管理框架．运用好各种识别和减小风险的工具，如自我评估、事件管理、关键风险指标的跟踪等，同时，保持后台的独立性。     

总分行制度下基于Delta-EVT模型的操作风险度量研究

总分行制度下制度设计缺陷及人员管理等方面的失误是商业银行操作风险产生的重要原因之一.在操作风险损失数据不完全的情况下,首先将损失进行分类,并选取总行对分行管理人员配备的误差、机构内部人员的组合误差、员工素质问题、分行出现问题后向总行报告的时间延误和总行及时处理问题分行的能力等特定的风险因子,继而借助Delta-EVT模型,采用Delta方法计算由以上风险因子导致的操作损失.通过计算,由于控制失效或外部事件引起的超额损失,再利用门槛值将两者结合起来,用EVT方法可以较准确地估算出在分行经营过程中和在向总行传递信息过程中由于制度设计不合理导致的操作风险.     

保险资金运用全面风险管理——基于机制建设的角度

保险资金运用对保险公司稳健经营具有支柱性作用。为保障实现保险公司经营目标,应充分研究保险资金特性,分析投资资产风险和内部管理风险,建立有效的总体风险管理制度、实施有力的风险具体控制措施。在当前风险管理现实条件下,科学投资决策和运作架构,强化交易流程控制和风险防范监测,完善激励约束机制,以持续推进保险资金运用全面风险管理具有较强的实践意义。     

金融风险网格化管理:理论基础、框架建设及实践运用

防范和化解风险对于维护金融稳定意义重大。本文借助网格化管理的思路,在微观层面上探索抓早抓小、实现监测全覆盖的有效路径,建立了金融风险网格化管理框架,将各部门金融监管权“行使”中的协同和信息技术、网格力量等“手段”的合力融入其中。本文论述了该框架的理论基础,借助系统分析法,阐释了将“网格化”思路引入金融风险监测的必要性,从理论条件、客观条件和主观条件三个方面分析了当前开展金融风险网格化管理的可行性,在此基础上,详细介绍了山东省金融风险网格化管理框架建设情况和其辖内两种网格化管理试点模式,进而指出金融风险网格化管理是一种可操作性强的风险监测方式,且具有推广借鉴意义。最后,对下一步构建“平台+网格”矩阵式管理体系提出建设性意见。     

当前我国商业银行面临的主要操作风险及对策研究

随着全球经济一体化速度的不断加快,以及金融业经营规模和交易范围的不断扩大,银行的操作风险日益受到关注。本文借鉴西方商业银行操作风险分类技术,分析了目前我国商业银行发展中所面临的主要操作风险,即组织风险、执行风险、人员风险、技术风险和外部风险,并结合实际,剖析问题所在,如组织结构及管理层变化、制度设计的缺陷、随意执行、盲目执行、故意违规逆行、非主观臆行、人力资源管理缺乏科学性以及外部欺诈、竞争、突发事件和政策因素等。最后,从企业文化建设、组织体系调整及管理模式、技术和方法等方面探索操作风险管理架构及缓释风险的方法,以期提高商业银行抗御风险的能力。     

Risk Management by Securities Settlement Agents

As developing countries search for ways to promote capital formation through the establishment of organized exchanges, they will need to pay more attention to the role of risk management in the securities settlement process. The delivery-versus-payment (DVP) agents that facilitate the process of exchanging securities for funds in most world markets have both the incentive and comparative informational advantage to monitor, measure, and manage risks inherent in the securities settlement system.
Unfortunately, most DVP agents have accomplished this task to date through the cumbersome use of position and net debit limits, capital requirements, and collateral requirements. Such limits and requirements are almost everywhere based on relatively arbitrary criteria that may have no relation to the actual replacement cost, principal, or liquidity risk of the transaction, portfolio, or participant on which they are imposed.
To remedy this shortcoming in the current state of risk management at DVP agents, this article holds out the possibility of integrated, comprehensive risk management processes that emphasize and rely on forward-looking measures of risk for individual brokers and across brokers. Many risk measures could serve the settlement agent's purposes, including "value at risk" (or "VaR"), "below target risk,""below-target probability," and "downside semi-variance." The actual summary risk measure used for risk monitoring and control is not as important as the methodology used to generate that risk measure. "The goal of such a process," as the authors put it, "is to ensure that the risks to which a settlement agent and its residual claimants are exposed are those risks to which the agent's shareholders think they are and want to be exposed."     

Relative Importance of Risk Sources in Insurance Systems

Abstract

Actuaries, and other managers of uncertainty, identify factors in modeling insurance risks because they believe (1) that these factors affect the outcome of a risk or (2) that the factors can be managed, thus allowing analysts a degree of control over the insurance system. This paper shows how to use a statistical measure, the coefficient of determination, for quantifying the relative importance of a source of uncertainty. With a quantitative measure of relative importance, risk managers can sharpen their intuition about the relative importance of risk factors and become better custodians of financial security systems.

This paper shows that the coefficient of determination is intuitively appealing in assessing the effectiveness of basic risk management techniques including risk exchange, pooling, and financial risk management. A single source common to all risks reduces the effectiveness of a pool; the risk measure quantifies the relative importance of this common source. The coefficient of determination is shown to have roots in the economics as well as the statistics literature. This connection provides further motivation for using the coefficient of determination and also suggests alternative measures for quantifying relative importance. The risk measure is useful in multivariate situations in which several factors affect a risk simultaneously. The paper illustrates this usefulness by considering a pool of policies that is subject to mortality, a common disaster, and a common investment environment.     

A SENIOR MANAGER'S GUIDE TO INTEGRATED RISK MANAGEMENT

This paper provides an overview of corporate risk management for senior managers. The author discusses the integrated risk management framework, emphasizing that a company can implement its risk management objectives in three fundamental ways: modifying its operations, using targeted financial instruments, or adjusting its capital structure. "Integration" refers both to the aggregation of all risks faced by the firm into a net exposure and to the coordinated use of these three risk management techniques. The author provides a functional analysis of integrated risk management using a wide-ranging set of case illustrations to show how the risk management process influences, and is influenced by, a company's overall strategy and business activities. Based on such analysis, the article concludes by sketching a framework intended to help managers design a value-maximizing, enterprise-wide corporate risk management system.     

Risk assessment for public–private partnership projects: using a fuzzy analytic hierarchical process method and expert opinion in China

Public–private partnerships (PPP) have been widely used in China to procure public facilities and services. Complicated problems in PPP projects in China arise because of a variety of risk factors. A proper risk assessment model is needed to identify risks and provide risk response strategies for future Chinese PPP projects. The fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (F-AHP) method provides the ability to solve complex risk assessment of PPP projects. Current risk assessment models are limited to PPP projects in specific countries and do not consider unique risks in China, especially political, economic, social, and legal risks. This paper designed a risk evaluation index system for PPP projects based on the Delphi expert investigation method, and then established an optimized risk evaluation model for PPP projects in China using the F-AHP method. The risks identified are confirmed by interviewing experts from Chinese local government departments, private enterprise, third-party intermediary consulting and regulatory agencies, and academic organizations. The results show that the risks that ranked among the top ten are closely related to China’s political and economic policies and relationships among stakeholders. It can be concluded that government authorities play a critical role in providing a favorable political, social, and economic environment and an effective institutional framework for PPP projects. Furthermore, it is also important to deal with relationships among stakeholders based on the public–private ‘win–win’ principle. This study provides risk response strategies, addressing key issues from eight aspects: an impeccable legal and regulatory framework; a central coordinating and regulating PPP authority; supportive governmental authorities; institutional capacity-building; favorable economic conditions and viability; community, partner, and moral accountability; clear division of responsibilities through contracts; and effective advisory management. These effective measures may be useful in reducing the adverse effects of risk for PPP projects in China.     

Structuring an Enterprise Risk Assessment Protocol: Traditional Practice and New Methods

In a world that has become increasingly complex, enterprise risk management (ERM) has emerged as a practice for identifying reasonably foreseeable hazards that pose risks to an organization, both its physical and human assets. Due to the breadth and depth of factors that can impact an organization's risk portfolio, it is incumbent that the underlying risk assessment process that supports ERM embodies a holistic and systematic approach. This is easier said than done, however, as much of the effort in self‐acclaimed ERM programs remain entrenched in compartmentalized parts of the organization or ignore threats that are “outside of the box” of the operating environment to which management is accustomed. This environment therefore creates opportunities for key risks to go unnoticed. The authors propose a comprehensive, yet flexible framework for overcoming this challenge, an approach that can be utilized by both the public and private sector. A sample application is provided, using a free, web‐based tool developed as part of the initiative.     

VALUE AT RISK: USES AND ABUSES

Value at risk (or "VAR") is a method of measuring the financial risk of an asset, portfolio, or exposure over some specified period of time. By facilitating the consistent measurement of risk across different assets and activities, VAR allows companies to monitor, report, and control their risks in a manner that efficiently relates risk control to desired and actual economic exposures.
Nevertheless, reliance on VAR can result in serious problems when improperly used, and would-be users of VAR are advised to consider the following three pieces of advice:

• ▪

   First, VAR is a tool for firms engaged in total value risk management. Companies concerned not with the value of a stock of assets and liabilities over a specific time horizon, but rather with the volatility of a flow of funds, are often better off eschewing VAR altogether in favor of a measure of cash flow volatility.
• ▪

   Second, VAR should be applied very carefully to companies that practice "selective" risk management those firms that choose to take certain risks as a part of their primary business. When VAR is reported in such situations without estimates of corresponding expected profits, the information conveyed by the VAR estimate can be extremely misleading.
• ▪

   Third, as a number of recent derivatives disasters are used to illustrate, no form of risk measurement including VAR–is a substitute for good management. Risk management as a process encompasses much more than just risk measurement. Indeed, risk measurement (whether using VAR or some of the alternatives proposed in this article) is pointless without a well-developed organizational infrastructure and IT system capable of supporting the complex and dynamic process of risk taking and risk control.