Telephone: +44 (0)20 7920 9128
Email: info@barbicanconsulting.co.uk
Web: www.barbicanconsulting.co.uk
Main Navigation:
Sub-navigation:
Published: 1st August 2009 by William Webster
The general thrust of the CP is that Societies must prove that they have both the management and the systems capable of effectively dealing with the risks they face. This is part of the enhanced supervisory approach now adopted by the FSA. It states that systems and controls must match the level of complexity in a firm's business model. The FSA will adopt a more interventionist approach in order to ensure this is the case.
The proposal is that building societies and the regulator will determine whether the risk management policies adopted are appropriate. Where they are not the Society can either simplify its business or improve its risk management.
The FSA also intends to limit societies diversifying their business without a full assessment of capital adequacy.
The FSA has considered applying similar CP 17 guidance to the banking sector but has decided on account of the "lack of homogeneity" that this would not be practical and in their case a firm-by-firm approach is more appropriate.
The CP addresses treasury and lending. It contains five approaches to treasury management, three areas of treasury guidance and three approaches to lending.
Consultation closes on 5th September 2009 with implementation due in early 2010 when a new Building Societies Sourcebook (BSOCS) will replace IPRU-BSOC.
Register for free or login to view the full publication
Displaying 1 to 6 of 6 results in total.
21st April 2010
Policy Statement 10/5 A specialist sourcebook for building societies: Enhanced supervisory guidance on financial and credit risk management. March 2010. The following refers to treasury management What's it about? This PS follows on from CP09/17. It's about how the FSA expects building societies to manage their treasury business. The resultant Building Societies Sourcebook (BSOCS) isn't too complicated but putting it all into practice may prove to be a challenge. A society is expected to align itself with one of five approaches used to define treasury risk management.
31st January 2009
This CP sets out the FSA's plans to reform the liquidity regime. It requires firms to undertake a much more rigorous analysis of their liquidity position. This includes the effect of stressed conditions on their business. The firm will submit what it considers to be an appropriate liquidity buffer to the regulator. The FSA will then decide whether it is sufficient. In determining the buffer the FSA will also assess the firm's systems and management. If these are considered weak the buffer will be increased accordingly. The liquidity buffer can only be held in liquid assets. The FSA's view is that this primarily means Gilts, sovereign debt or central bank deposits. The FSA makes it clear, "The responsibility of adopting a sound approach to liquidity risk management is on firms and their senior management".
12th April 2009
The FSA wants to see more stress and scenario testing in firms. Senior management should be involved. Previous assumptions have been too relaxed. Stress testing should be in detail with the mitigating actions rehearsed. Reverse stress testing is introduced as a method of identifying critical events. The FSA is not going to tell you how to do this, it's up to you. However firms can expect greater challenge on the assumptions made.
15th January 2010
This presentation is about the introduction of new liquidity standards in the UK. It was delivered to bank and building society executives and NEDs in January 2010.
28th April 2009
This CP is mainly concerned with questions about what firms should report and the frequency and scope of reporting. The Individual Liquidity Guidance (ILG) will lead to a strengthening of firms' liquidity over a period of several years. The rules and guidance on liquidity risk including the transitional arrangements are to be effective in Q4 2009. New reporting arrangements are to go live in Q1 2010.
3rd February 2010
The FSA insists that firms hold more liquidity. For many firms that means more Gilts and maybe a Reserve Account and that's an immediate drag on the NII. Whilst you can't disagree with the principles of regulation putting it into practice is a completely different issue. For smaller firms the problems caused are disproportionate. Here are 19 issues you need to think about.