The financial crisis turmoil has exposed notable weakness in the risk management processes of the financial services industry. It has also led to a critical look at the scope of the various risk types as well as the classification of loss events. More importantly, the effects that incorrect risk classification might have on capital requirements are now also examined and taken into account. Boundary events between credit risk and operational risk continue to be a significant source of concern for regulators and the industry in general. The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) requires that boundary events should be treated as credit risk for the purposes of calculating minimum regulatory capital under the Basel II Framework. Such losses will, therefore, not be subject to any operational risk capital charges. However, for the purposes of internal operational risk management, banks are required to identify all material operational risk losses. Boundary events should be flagged separately within a bank’s internal operational risk database. The Basel II Framework does not provide any further guidelines as to what constitutes boundary events and, therefore, consistent guiding principles that banks can follow for accurately classifying and subsequently flagging such events do not exist. The potential exists that actual boundary events might be classified as purely credit risk, and correctly be included in the credit risk capital charge, but not be flagged separately within the bank’s internal operational risk database. Alternatively, boundary events might be classified as operational risk and, therefore, be subject to the operational risk capital charge, instead of the credit risk capital charge. The former instance might give rise to an operational risk manager not being completely informed of the operational risks that the business is facing. The emphasis should always be on the management of risks and for this reason it is important that a financial institution indicates and flags all boundary events in their operational risk systems. To remedy this lack of guidance on the boundary event issue, guidelines are provided that banks can utilise within their risk classification processes. The approach utilised is to consider mechanisms and tools for classification, guidance from the Operational Risk Data Exchange (ORX) and the BCBS, as well as the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). By compiling and submitting questionnaires to five South African banks, an investigation is conducted in order to obtain a view of the current mechanisms, tools and approaches that South African Advanced Measurement Approach (AMA) banks currently utilise within their classification processes. The effectiveness of boundary event classification is assessed by analysing the percentage of losses classified as boundary. In addition, the degree of uniformity or disparity in the classification of typical boundary event scenarios is considered. This analysis is performed by providing respondents with a total of 16 typical boundary event risk descriptions, and requesting the respondents to classify each of the losses in the scenarios as credit risk, operational risk or boundary event type. / Thesis (M.Com. (Risk management))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2012.

Basel II provides banks with four options that may be used to calculate regulatory capital for operational risk. Each of these options (except the most basic approach) requires an underlying risk measurement and management system, with increasing complexity and more refined capital calculations under the more advanced approaches. Approaches available are BIA, TSA, ASA and AMA. The most advanced and complex option under Basel II is the AMA. This approach allows a bank to calculate its regulatory and economic capital requirements (using internal models) based on internal risk variables and profiles, rather than exposure proxies like gross income. This is the only risk–sensitive approach allowed by and described in Basel II. Accompanying internal models, complex and sophisticated measurement instruments, risk management processes and frameworks, as well as a robust governance structure need to be implemented. This study focuses on the practical design and implementation of an AMA capital model. This includes a beginning–to–end solution for capital modelling and covers all elements of data analysis, capital calculation and capital allocation. The proposed capital model is completely risk–based, leading to risk–sensitive capital calculations and allocations for all business lines in a bank. The model was constructed to comply fully with all Basel II requirements and standards. The proposed model was subsequently applied to one South African bank’s operational risk data, i.e. risk scenario and internal loss data of the bank were used as inputs into the proposed capital model. Regulatory capital requirements were calculated for all business lines in the bank and for the bank as a whole on a group level. Total capital requirements were also allocated to all business lines in the bank. For regulatory capital purposes, this equated to the stand–alone capital requirement of each business line. Calculations excluded the modelling and incorporation of insurance, expected loss offsets and correlation. These capital mitigation techniques were, however, proposed as part of the comprehensive capital model. AMA based capital calculations for the bank’s business lines resulted in significant capital movements compared to TSA capital requirements for the same calculation periods. The retail banking business line was allocated less capital compared to corresponding TSA estimates. This is mainly attributable to lower levels of tail risk exposure given high income levels (which are the bases for TSA capital calculations). AMA–based capital for the investment banking business line was higher than corresponding TSA estimates, due to high levels of extreme risk exposure relative to income generated. Employing capital modelling results in operational risk management and performance measurement was discussed and proposals made. This included the use of capital requirements (modelling results) in day–to–day operational risk management and in strategic decision making processes and strategic risk management. Proposals were also made on how to use modelling results and capital allocations in performance measurement. It was proposed that operational risk capital costs should be included in risk–adjusted performance measures, which can in turn be linked to remuneration principles and processes. Ultimately this would incentivise sound operational risk management practices and also satisfy the Basel II use test requirements with regards to model outputs, i.e. model outputs are actively used in risk management and performance measurement. / Thesis (Ph.D. (Risk management))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2012.

The financial crisis turmoil has exposed notable weakness in the risk management processes of the financial services industry. It has also led to a critical look at the scope of the various risk types as well as the classification of loss events. More importantly, the effects that incorrect risk classification might have on capital requirements are now also examined and taken into account. Boundary events between credit risk and operational risk continue to be a significant source of concern for regulators and the industry in general. The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) requires that boundary events should be treated as credit risk for the purposes of calculating minimum regulatory capital under the Basel II Framework. Such losses will, therefore, not be subject to any operational risk capital charges. However, for the purposes of internal operational risk management, banks are required to identify all material operational risk losses. Boundary events should be flagged separately within a bank’s internal operational risk database. The Basel II Framework does not provide any further guidelines as to what constitutes boundary events and, therefore, consistent guiding principles that banks can follow for accurately classifying and subsequently flagging such events do not exist. The potential exists that actual boundary events might be classified as purely credit risk, and correctly be included in the credit risk capital charge, but not be flagged separately within the bank’s internal operational risk database. Alternatively, boundary events might be classified as operational risk and, therefore, be subject to the operational risk capital charge, instead of the credit risk capital charge. The former instance might give rise to an operational risk manager not being completely informed of the operational risks that the business is facing. The emphasis should always be on the management of risks and for this reason it is important that a financial institution indicates and flags all boundary events in their operational risk systems. To remedy this lack of guidance on the boundary event issue, guidelines are provided that banks can utilise within their risk classification processes. The approach utilised is to consider mechanisms and tools for classification, guidance from the Operational Risk Data Exchange (ORX) and the BCBS, as well as the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). By compiling and submitting questionnaires to five South African banks, an investigation is conducted in order to obtain a view of the current mechanisms, tools and approaches that South African Advanced Measurement Approach (AMA) banks currently utilise within their classification processes. The effectiveness of boundary event classification is assessed by analysing the percentage of losses classified as boundary. In addition, the degree of uniformity or disparity in the classification of typical boundary event scenarios is considered. This analysis is performed by providing respondents with a total of 16 typical boundary event risk descriptions, and requesting the respondents to classify each of the losses in the scenarios as credit risk, operational risk or boundary event type. / Thesis (M.Com. (Risk management))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2012.

Basel II provides banks with four options that may be used to calculate regulatory capital for operational risk. Each of these options (except the most basic approach) requires an underlying risk measurement and management system, with increasing complexity and more refined capital calculations under the more advanced approaches. Approaches available are BIA, TSA, ASA and AMA. The most advanced and complex option under Basel II is the AMA. This approach allows a bank to calculate its regulatory and economic capital requirements (using internal models) based on internal risk variables and profiles, rather than exposure proxies like gross income. This is the only risk–sensitive approach allowed by and described in Basel II. Accompanying internal models, complex and sophisticated measurement instruments, risk management processes and frameworks, as well as a robust governance structure need to be implemented. This study focuses on the practical design and implementation of an AMA capital model. This includes a beginning–to–end solution for capital modelling and covers all elements of data analysis, capital calculation and capital allocation. The proposed capital model is completely risk–based, leading to risk–sensitive capital calculations and allocations for all business lines in a bank. The model was constructed to comply fully with all Basel II requirements and standards. The proposed model was subsequently applied to one South African bank’s operational risk data, i.e. risk scenario and internal loss data of the bank were used as inputs into the proposed capital model. Regulatory capital requirements were calculated for all business lines in the bank and for the bank as a whole on a group level. Total capital requirements were also allocated to all business lines in the bank. For regulatory capital purposes, this equated to the stand–alone capital requirement of each business line. Calculations excluded the modelling and incorporation of insurance, expected loss offsets and correlation. These capital mitigation techniques were, however, proposed as part of the comprehensive capital model. AMA based capital calculations for the bank’s business lines resulted in significant capital movements compared to TSA capital requirements for the same calculation periods. The retail banking business line was allocated less capital compared to corresponding TSA estimates. This is mainly attributable to lower levels of tail risk exposure given high income levels (which are the bases for TSA capital calculations). AMA–based capital for the investment banking business line was higher than corresponding TSA estimates, due to high levels of extreme risk exposure relative to income generated. Employing capital modelling results in operational risk management and performance measurement was discussed and proposals made. This included the use of capital requirements (modelling results) in day–to–day operational risk management and in strategic decision making processes and strategic risk management. Proposals were also made on how to use modelling results and capital allocations in performance measurement. It was proposed that operational risk capital costs should be included in risk–adjusted performance measures, which can in turn be linked to remuneration principles and processes. Ultimately this would incentivise sound operational risk management practices and also satisfy the Basel II use test requirements with regards to model outputs, i.e. model outputs are actively used in risk management and performance measurement. / Thesis (Ph.D. (Risk management))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2012.

The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision has defined operational risk, legal risk and compliance risk. However, the definitions might not be adequate for countries with a hybrid legal system, such as South Africa. This study aims to provide a practical solution to the problems faced by countries with a hybrid legal system wishing to comply with the Basel Committee’s standards. It is argued that compliance, compliance risk and regulatory risk should all be viewed as constituent components of legal risk, and in turn necessarily also of operational risk in a hybrid legal system. Legal risk is a wide concept which includes all aspects of a legal system, while compliance risk is a narrower concept which only includes the codified aspects of a legal system. Legal risk therefore includes compliance risk. However, the opposite is not true as compliance risk does not include legal risk, and the two concepts are decidedly shown not to be synonymous in a mixed legal system. / Thesis (PhD (Law))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2013.

The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision has defined operational risk, legal risk and compliance risk. However, the definitions might not be adequate for countries with a hybrid legal system, such as South Africa. This study aims to provide a practical solution to the problems faced by countries with a hybrid legal system wishing to comply with the Basel Committee’s standards. It is argued that compliance, compliance risk and regulatory risk should all be viewed as constituent components of legal risk, and in turn necessarily also of operational risk in a hybrid legal system. Legal risk is a wide concept which includes all aspects of a legal system, while compliance risk is a narrower concept which only includes the codified aspects of a legal system. Legal risk therefore includes compliance risk. However, the opposite is not true as compliance risk does not include legal risk, and the two concepts are decidedly shown not to be synonymous in a mixed legal system. / Thesis (PhD (Law))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2013.

Summaries in English, Afrikaans and Zulu / The significance for a bank to determine its risk appetite has become crucial over the years, based on past and recent risk events in the financial services sector. Regulatory pressure, a focus on corporate governance and risk management have been stimuli for many changes in the financial industry. An example is the need to establish an operational risk appetite framework. It is against this background that the study aimed to identify guiding principles for an operational risk appetite framework that can be used to determine the operational risk appetite of a bank. The study entailed a literature review and an empirical analysis of the principles for an operational risk appetite framework for the banking industry of South Africa. A survey was used to collate the data. Also, the researcher endeavoured to establish a gap between the principles and the current status of implementation of the confirmed principles. The descriptive and inferential results indicated that most of the identified principles were viewed as important and crucial for an operational risk appetite framework for a South African bank, although some were not yet fully implemented. The study also confirmed the principles for an effective operational risk appetite framework to comply with regulatory requirements and to ensure a sound risk management process to support the achievement of business objectives. / Dat 'n bank in staat is om sy risikoaptyt in die finansiëledienstesektor vas te stel, is betekenisvol en dit het oor jare heen vanweë vorige en onlangse risikogebeurtenisse van kritieke belang geword. Die druk van regulering, 'n fokus op korporatiewe bestuur en risikobestuur is stimuli vir talle veranderinge in die finansiële bedryf. 'n Voorbeeld hiervan is die noodsaaklikheid daarvan om 'n operasionele risikoaptytraamwerk op te stel. Teen hierdie agtergrond het die studie beoog om riglyne te identifiseer vir 'n operasionele risikoaptytraamwerk wat gebruik kan word om 'n bank se operasionele risikoaptyt te bepaal. Die studie omvat ’n literatuuroorsig en ’n empiriese ontleding van die beginsels van ’n operasionele risikoaptytraamwerk vir die bankbedryf in Suid-Afrika. ’n Opname is gebruik om die ingesamelde data te vergelyk, en die navorser het gepoog om ’n leemte tussen die beginsels en die huidige stand van implementering van die bevestigde beginsels uit te wys. In die beskrywende en inferensiële resultate word aangedui dat die meeste van die geïdentifiseerde beginsels beskou word as belangrik en kritiek vir ’n operasionele risikoaptytraamwerk vir ’n Suid-Afrikaanse bank, al word sommige beginsels nog nie ten volle geïmplementeer nie. Die studie bevestig die beginsels van ’n effektiewe operasionele risikoaptytraamwerk met die oog daarop om aan reguleringsvereistes te voldoen en ’n deurdagte risikobestuursproses te verseker en sodoende die verwesenliking van sakedoelwitte te ondersteun. / Ngokuhamba kweminyaka kuya kubaluleka kakhulu ukuba ibhanki iwujonge ngononophelo umngcipheko enokuwuthatha, ngenxa yokubona iziganeko zomngcipheko ezenzekileyo kwicandelo leenkonzo zoqoqosho. Uxinzelelo lolawulo, ugxininiso kulawulo lweenkampani kunye nolawulo lomngcipheko zizinto eziphembelele iinguqu ezininzi kurhwebo lokwenza imali. Umzekelo sisidingo sokuseka uphahla lokusebenza ngomngcipheko. Zezi zinto ezibangela ukuba esi sifundo sijolise ekufumaniseni iinqobo ezisisikhokelo sokuqwalasela umngcipheko onokuthathwa, nesinokusetyenziselwa ukulinganisela umngcipheko onokuthathwa yibhanki. Esi sifundo siphengulule uluncwadi olukhoyo ngalo mbandela kunye nohlalutyo olunobungqina lweenqobo ezinokusetyenziselwa ukulinganisela umngcipheko onokuthathwa licandelo leebhanki zoMzantsi Afrika. Kwenziwa uhlolo zimvo ekuqokeleleni iinkcukacha zolwazi. Umphandi wabuya wazama ukubonisa umahluko phakathi kweenqobo ezimiselweyo nemeko ekuyiyo ekusetyenzisweni kweenqobo ezivunyiweyo. Iziphumo ezichazayo nezicingelwayo zibonise ukuba uninzi lweenqobo zibonwa njengamanqaku abalulekileyo nangundoqo okwenza uphahla lokusebenza ngomngcipheko onokuthathwa yibhanki eMzantsi Afrika, nangona ezinye zingekasetyenziswa ngokupheleleyo. Esi sifundo siphinde sangqinisisa iinqobo zophahla olululo lokusebenza ngomngcipheko onokuthathwa ezimele ukuthobela imigaqo elawulayo nokuqinisekisa inkqubo yomgcipheko eqinileyo yokuxhasa ukufunyanwa kweenjongo zoshishino. / Business Management / M. Com. (Business Management)