IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rsk/journ3/2470168.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Gareth W Peters
  • Pavel V Shevchenko
  • Bertrand Hassani
  • Ariane Chapelle

Abstract

ABSTRACT Recently, the Basel Committee for Banking Supervision proposed to replace all approaches, including the advanced measurement approach (AMA), to operational risk capital with a simple formula referred to as the standardized measurement approach (SMA). This paper discusses and studies the weaknesses and pitfalls of the SMA, such as instability, risk insensitivity, super-additivity and the implicit relationship between the SMA capital model and systemic risk in the banking sector. We also discuss issues with the closely related operational risk capital-at-risk (OpCar) Basel Committee-proposed model, which is the precursor to the SMA. In conclusion, we advocate to maintain the AMA internal model framework and suggest as an alternative a number of standardization recommendations that could be considered to unify the internal modeling of operational risk. The findings and views presented in this paper have been discussed with and supported by many OpRisk practitioners and academics in Australia, Europe, the United Kingdom and the United States, and recently at the OpRisk Europe 2016 conference in London. ; ;

Suggested Citation

Handle: RePEc:rsk:journ3:2470168
as

Download full text from publisher

File URL: https://www.risk.net/system/files/import/protected/digital_assets/10297/Should_AMA_be_replaced_with_SMA_for_operational_risk.pdf
Download Restriction: no
---><---

More about this item

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rsk:journ3:2470168. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Thomas Paine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.risk.net/journal-of-operational-risk .

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.