Risk monitoring tools in bank regulation and supervision – developments since the collapse of Barings Plc.

This paper consolidates the work of its predecessor, “International Framework for Liquidity Risk Measurement, Standards and Monitoring: Corporate Governance and Internal Controls”, by considering monitoring tools which are considered to be essential if risks,(and in particular liquidity risks which are attributed to a bank), are to be managed and measured effectively by its management. It also considers developments which have triggered the need for particular monitoring tools – not only in relation to liquidity risks, but also to the rise of conglomerates and consolidated undertakings. It highlights weaknesses in financial supervision – weaknesses which were revealed following the collapses of Barings and Lehman Brothers. As well as attempting to draw comparisons between the recommendations which were made by the Board of Banking Supervision (BoBS) following Barings’ collapse, and the application issues raised by the Basel Committee in its 2009 Consultative Document, International Framework for Liquidity Risk Measurement, Standards and Monitoring, it highlights the links and relevance between both recommendations. In drawing attention to the significance of corporate governance, audit committees, and supervisory boards, the importance of effective communication between management at all levels, to ensure transmission and communication of timely, accurate and complete information, is also highlighted. Through a comparative analysis of two contrasting corporate governance systems, namely, Germany and the UK, it analyses and evaluates how the design of corporate governance systems could influence transparency, disclosure, as well as higher levels of monitoring and accountability. Whilst highlighting the need for, and the growing importance of formal risk assessment models, the paper also emphasises the dangers inherent in formalism – as illustrated by a rules based approach to regulation. It will however, demonstrate that detailed rules could still operate within a system of principles based regulation – whilst enabling a consideration of the substance of the transactions which are involved. In addressing the issues raised by principles based regulation, the extent to which such issues can be resolved, to a large extent, depends on adequate compliance with Basel Core Principle 17 (for effective banking supervision) – and particularly on the implementation, design and compliance with “clear arrangements for delegating authority and responsibility.