17 Risk management framework

As part of the overall internal control framework, institutions should have a holistic institution-wide risk management framework extending across all its business lines and internal units, including internal control functions, recognising fully the economic substance of all its risk exposures. The risk management framework should enable the institution to make fully informed decisions on risk-taking. The risk management framework should encompass on- and off-balance-sheet risks as well as actual risks and future risks that the institution may be exposed to. Risks should be evaluated from the bottom up and from the top down, within and across business lines, using consistent terminology and compatible methodologies throughout the institution and at consolidated or sub-consolidated level. All relevant risks should be encompassed in the risk management framework with appropriate consideration of both financial and non-financial risks, including credit, market, liquidity, concentration, operational, IT, reputational, legal, conduct, compliance with AML/CTF and other financial crime, ESG, and strategic risks.

An institution ’s risk management framework should include policies, procedures, risk limits and risk controls ensuring adequate, timely and continuous identification, measurement or assessment, monitoring, management, mitigation and reporting of the risks at the business line, institution and consolidated or sub-consolidated levels.

An institution ’ s risk management framework should provide specific guidance on the implementation of its strategies. This guidance should, where appropriate, establish and maintain internal limits consistent with the institution ’s risk appetite and commensurate with its sound operation, financial strength, capital base and strategic goals. An institution ’s risk profile should be kept within these established limits. The risk management framework should ensure that, whenever breaches of risk limits occur, there is a defined process to escalate and address them with an appropriate follow-up procedure.

The risk management framework should be subject to independent internal review, e.g. performed by the internal audit function, and reassessed regularly against the institution ’s risk appetite, taking into account information from the risk management function and, where established, the risk committee. Factors that should be considered include internal and external developments, including balance-sheet and revenue changes; any increase in the complexity of the institution's business, risk profile or operating structure; geographic expansion; mergers and acquisitions; and the introduction of new products or business lines.

When identifying and measuring or assessing risks, an institution should develop appropriate methodologies including both forward-looking and backward-looking tools. The methodologies should allow for the aggregation of risk exposures across business lines and support the identification of risk concentrations. The tools should include the assessment of the actual risk profile against the institution ’s risk appetite , as well as the identification and assessment of potential and stressed risk exposures under a range of assumed adverse circumstances against the institution ’s risk capacity . The tools should provide information on any adjustment to the risk profile that may be required. Institutions should make appropriately conservative assumptions when building stressed scenarios.

Institutions should take into consideration that the results of quantitative assessment methodologies, including stress testing, are highly dependent on the limitations and assumptions of the models (including the severity and duration of the shock and the underlying risks). For example, models showing very high returns on economic capital may result from a weakness in the models (e.g. the exclusion of some relevant risks) rather than a superior strategy or excellent execution of a strategy on the part of the institution. The determination of the level of risk taken should not therefore be based only on quantitative information or model outputs; it should also comprise a qualitative approach (including expert judgement and critical analysis). Relevant macroeconomic environmental trends and data should be explicitly addressed to identify their potential impact on exposures and portfolios.

The ultimate responsibility for risk assessment lies solely with the institution, which, accordingly, should evaluate its risks critically and should not rely exclusively on external assessments. For example, an institution should validate a purchased risk model and calibrate it to its own individual circumstances to ensure that the model accurately and comprehensively captures and analyses the risk.

Institutions should be fully aware of the limitations of models and metrics and use not only quantitative but also qualitative risk assessment tools (including expert judgement and critical analysis).

In addition to the institutions ’ own assessments, institutions may use external risk assessments (including external credit ratings or externally purchased risk models). Institutions should be fully aware of the exact scope of such assessments and their limitations.

Regular and transparent reporting mechanisms should be established so that the management body, its risk committee, where established, and all relevant units in an institution are provided with reports in a timely, accurate, concise, understandable and meaningful manner and can share relevant information about the identification, measurement or assessment, monitoring and management of risks. The reporting framework should be well defined and documented.

Effective communication and awareness regarding risks and the risk strategy is crucial for the whole risk management process, including the review and decision-making processes, and helps prevent decisions that may unknowingly increase risk. Effective risk reporting involves sound internal consideration and communication of risk strategy and relevant risk data (e.g. exposures and key risk indicators), both horizontally across the institution and up and down the management chain.