IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/halshs-01391091.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

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

Author

Listed:
  • Gareth W. Peters

    (Department of Statistical Sciences - UCL - University College of London [London])

  • Pavel V. Shevchenko

    (CSIRO - Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation [Canberra])

  • Bertrand K. Hassani

    (CES - Centre d'économie de la Sorbonne - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Ariane Chapelle

    (Department of Computer Science - UCL - University College of London [London])

Abstract

Recently, Basel Committee for Basel Committee for Banking Supervision proposed to replace all approaches, including Advanced Measurement Approach (AMA), for operational risk capital with a simple formula referred to as the Standardised Measurement Approach (SMA). This paper discusses and studies the weaknesses and pitfalls of SMA such as instability, risk insensitivity, super-additivity and the implicit relationship between SMA capital model and systemic risk in the banking sector. We also discuss the issues with 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 internal modelling 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, UK and USA, and recently at OpRisk Europe 2016 conference in London.

Suggested Citation

  • Gareth W. Peters & Pavel V. Shevchenko & Bertrand K. Hassani & Ariane Chapelle, 2016. "Should the advanced measurement approach be replaced with the standardized measurement approach for operational risk?," Post-Print halshs-01391091, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-01391091
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-01391091
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-01391091/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gareth W. Peters & Wilson Y. Chen & Richard H. Gerlach, 2016. "Estimating Quantile Families of Loss Distributions for Non-Life Insurance Modelling via L-moments," Papers 1603.01041, arXiv.org.
    2. Gareth W. Peters & Rodrigo S. Targino & Pavel V. Shevchenko, 2013. "Understanding Operational Risk Capital Approximations: First and Second Orders," Papers 1303.2910, arXiv.org.
    3. Ganegoda, Amandha & Evans, John, 2013. "A scaling model for severity of operational losses using generalized additive models for location scale and shape (GAMLSS)," Annals of Actuarial Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(1), pages 61-100, March.
    4. Dong, Alice X.D. & Chan, Jennifer S.K. & Peters, Gareth W., 2015. "Risk Margin Quantile Function Via Parametric And Non-Parametric Bayesian Approaches," ASTIN Bulletin, Cambridge University Press, vol. 45(3), pages 503-550, September.
    5. Gareth W. Peters & Wilson Ye Chen & Richard H. Gerlach, 2016. "Estimating Quantile Families of Loss Distributions for Non-Life Insurance Modelling via L-Moments," Risks, MDPI, vol. 4(2), pages 1-41, May.
    6. Gareth W. Peters & Pavel V. Shevchenko & Mario V. Wuthrich, 2009. "Dynamic operational risk: modeling dependence and combining different sources of information," Papers 0904.4074, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2009.
    7. Stasinopoulos, D. Mikis & Rigby, Robert A., 2007. "Generalized Additive Models for Location Scale and Shape (GAMLSS) in R," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 23(i07).
    8. Kabir Dutta & Jason Perry, 2006. "A tale of tails: an empirical analysis of loss distribution models for estimating operational risk capital," Working Papers 06-13, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marco Migueis, 2017. "Forward-looking and Incentive-compatible Operational Risk Capital Framework," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2017-087, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    2. Martin Eling & Kwangmin Jung, 2022. "Heterogeneity in cyber loss severity and its impact on cyber risk measurement," Risk Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 24(4), pages 273-297, December.
    3. Xiaoqian Zhu & Jianping Li & Dengsheng Wu, 2019. "Should the Advanced Measurement Approach for Operational Risk be Discarded? Evidence from the Chinese Banking Industry," Review of Pacific Basin Financial Markets and Policies (RPBFMP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 22(01), pages 1-15, March.
    4. Marco Migueis, 2019. "Evaluating the AMA and the new standardized approach for operational risk capital," Journal of Banking Regulation, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 20(4), pages 302-311, December.
    5. Lu Wei & Jianping Li & Xiaoqian Zhu, 2018. "Operational Loss Data Collection: A Literature Review," Annals of Data Science, Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 313-337, September.
    6. Xu, Chi & Zheng, Chunling & Wang, Donghua & Ji, Jingru & Wang, Nuan, 2019. "Double correlation model for operational risk: Evidence from Chinese commercial banks," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 516(C), pages 327-339.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gareth W. Peters & Pavel V. Shevchenko & Bertrand Hassani & Ariane Chapelle, 2016. "Should the advanced measurement approach be replaced with the standardized measurement approach for operational risk?," Papers 1607.02319, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2016.
    2. Gareth W. Peters & Pavel V. Shevchenko & Bertrand K. Hassani & Ariane Chapelle, 2016. "Should the advanced measurement approach be replaced with the standardized measurement approach for operational risk?," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-01391091, HAL.
    3. Gareth W. Peters & Pavel V. Shevchenko & Bertrand K. Hassani & Ariane Chapelle, 2016. "Should the advanced measurement approach be replaced with the standardized measurement approach for operational risk?," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 16065, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    4. Gareth W. Peters, 2018. "General Quantile Time Series Regressions for Applications in Population Demographics," Risks, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-47, September.
    5. Matteo Malavasi & Gareth W. Peters & Pavel V. Shevchenko & Stefan Truck & Jiwook Jang & Georgy Sofronov, 2021. "Cyber Risk Frequency, Severity and Insurance Viability," Papers 2111.03366, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2022.
    6. Marco Bee & Julien Hambuckers & Flavio Santi & Luca Trapin, 2021. "Testing a parameter restriction on the boundary for the g-and-h distribution: a simulated approach," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 2177-2200, September.
    7. Gareth W. Peters & Pavel V. Shevchenko & Bertrand K. Hassani & Ariane Chapelle, 2016. "Standardized Measurement Approach for Operational risk: Pros and Cons," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 16064, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    8. Marco Bee, 2022. "The truncated g-and-h distribution: estimation and application to loss modeling," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 1771-1794, September.
    9. Malavasi, Matteo & Peters, Gareth W. & Shevchenko, Pavel V. & Trück, Stefan & Jang, Jiwook & Sofronov, Georgy, 2022. "Cyber risk frequency, severity and insurance viability," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 90-114.
    10. Marco Bee & Julien Hambuckers & Luca Trapin, 2019. "An improved approach for estimating large losses in insurance analytics and operational risk using the g-and-h distribution," DEM Working Papers 2019/11, Department of Economics and Management.
    11. Gareth W. Peters & Pavel V. Shevchenko & Bertrand K. Hassani & Ariane Chapelle, 2016. "Standardized Measurement Approach for Operational risk: Pros and Cons," Post-Print halshs-01391062, HAL.
    12. Gareth W. Peters & Pavel V. Shevchenko & Bertrand K. Hassani & Ariane Chapelle, 2016. "Standardized Measurement Approach for Operational risk: Pros and Cons," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-01391062, HAL.
    13. Peters, Gareth W. & Shevchenko, Pavel V. & Young, Mark & Yip, Wendy, 2011. "Analytic loss distributional approach models for operational risk from the α-stable doubly stochastic compound processes and implications for capital allocation," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 565-579.
    14. Roc'io Paredes & Marco Vega, 2020. "An internal fraud model for operational losses in retail banking," Papers 2002.03235, arXiv.org.
    15. Valérie Chavez-Demoulin & Paul Embrechts & Marius Hofert, 2016. "An Extreme Value Approach for Modeling Operational Risk Losses Depending on Covariates," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 83(3), pages 735-776, September.
    16. Holly Brannelly & Andrea Macrina & Gareth W. Peters, 2021. "Stochastic measure distortions induced by quantile processes for risk quantification and valuation," Papers 2201.02045, arXiv.org.
    17. Klein, Nadja & Denuit, Michel & Lang, Stefan & Kneib, Thomas, 2014. "Nonlife ratemaking and risk management with Bayesian generalized additive models for location, scale, and shape," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 225-249.
    18. Wilson Ye Chen & Gareth W. Peters & Richard H. Gerlach & Scott A. Sisson, 2017. "Dynamic Quantile Function Models," Papers 1707.02587, arXiv.org, revised May 2021.
    19. Holly Brannelly & Andrea Macrina & Gareth W. Peters, 2019. "Quantile Diffusions for Risk Analysis," Papers 1912.10866, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2021.
    20. Gareth W. Peters & Rodrigo S. Targino & Pavel V. Shevchenko, 2013. "Understanding Operational Risk Capital Approximations: First and Second Orders," Papers 1303.2910, arXiv.org.

    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:hal:journl:halshs-01391091. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.