1. bookVolume 7 (2018): Issue 3 (September 2018)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2336-9205
First Published
11 Mar 2014
Publication timeframe
3 times per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

The Implementation of Basel Committee BCBS 239: Short analysis of the new rules for Data Management

Published Online: 10 Sep 2018
Volume & Issue: Volume 7 (2018) - Issue 3 (September 2018)
Page range: 57 - 72
Received: 10 Nov 2017
Accepted: 27 Dec 2017
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2336-9205
First Published
11 Mar 2014
Publication timeframe
3 times per year
Languages
English
Abstract

In January 2013, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision issued 14 principles for effective risk data aggregation and risk reporting (BCBS 239) and outlined the paths to compliance for globally systemically important banks (G-SIBs) and domestic systemically important banks (D-SIBs).The Basel Committee devised BCBS 239 in order to ensure that banks and other financial institutions could monitor risks more effectively through superior data aggregation, enabling an overall more reliable and efficient risk management process. In a McKinsey report from June 2015 (Harreis et al, 2017) it is estimated that an average G-SIB would have to spend approximately 230 million USD and an average D-SIB 75 million USD to aggregate risk data that was previously dispersed over a wide variety of systems, geographic locations and banking groups. As the BCBS 239 for G-SIBs deadline was - at the time of writing – 10 months overdue, what approach towards compliance will prove to be more effective? In this article, the new principles according to BCBS 239 are described, criticized and one possible solution to meet the requirements is presented.

Keywords

JEL Classification

1. BCBS (January 2013a). Principles for effective risk data aggregation and risk reporting. Committee for Banking Supervision. Retrieved from http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs239.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

2. BCBS (December 2013b). Progress in adopting the principles for effective risk data aggregation and risk reporting. Retrieved from http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs268.htm.Search in Google Scholar

3. BCBS (December 2014). Fundamental review of the trading book. Committee for Banking Supervision. Retrieved from http://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d305.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

4. BCBS (December 2016). Consultative Document Pillar 3 disclosure requirements – consolidated and enhanced framework. Retrieved from http://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d356.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

5. CEIOPS Committee of European insurance and occupational pensions supervisors (2009). CEIOPS’ Advice for Level 2 Implementing Measures on Solvency II: Technical Provisions – Article 86 f Standards for Data Quality (former CP 43). Retrieved from https://eiopa.europa.eu/CEIOPS-Archive/Documents/Advices/CEIOPS-L2-Final-Advice-on-TP-Standard-for-data-quality.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

6. Chartis Research (2016). Spotlight on BCBS 239 - It was never going to happen on time. Research Report.Search in Google Scholar

7. Chisholm, M. (2014). The Implementation of Basel Committee BCBS 239: An Industry-Wide Challenge for International Data Management, Proceedings of the 2nd International Data and Information Management Conference (IDIMC), Loughborough, UK.Search in Google Scholar

8. Grody, A.D and P. Hughes (2015). The Global Risk Regime – New Roles for Auditors. Working paper Financial InterGroup (UK) Ltd.Search in Google Scholar

9. Harreis, H.; Tavakoli, A.; Ho, T.; Machado, J.; Rowshankish, K.; Merrath, P. (2017). Living with BCBS 239, retrieved from http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/risk/our-insights/living-with-bcbs-239.Search in Google Scholar

10. Hughes P., Grody A.D., Toms S. (2010). ‘Risk accounting - a next generation risk management system for financial institutions’, The Capco Institute Journal of Financial Transformation, 29 (1): 43-56.Search in Google Scholar

11. IFRS (2016). Financial instruments. International financial reporting standard. Retrieved from: http://www.ifrs.org/current-projects/iasb-projects/financial-instruments-a-replacement-of-ias-39-financial-instruments-recognitio/Pages/Financial-Instruments-Replacement-of-IAS-39.aspx.Search in Google Scholar

12. Myers, D. (2013). Dimensions of Data Quality Under the Microscope. Information Management Magazine. Retrieved from: http://www.information-management.com/news/news/dimensions-of-data-quality-under-the-microscope-10024529-1.htmlSearch in Google Scholar

13. Popovic, M. (2018). Technological Progress, Globalization, and Secular Stagnation, Journal of Central Banking Theory and Practice, 2018, 1, pp. 79-100.Search in Google Scholar

14. Thun, C. (2015). Moodys Analytics: AnaCredit Gives Banks an Opportunity to Improve Data Management, but Challenges Remain, Enterprise Risk Solutions.Search in Google Scholar

15. Vlahovic, A. (2014). Challenges to the Implementation of a New Framework for Safeguarding Financial Stability, Journal of Central Banking Theory and Practice, 2014, 3, pp.19-52.Search in Google Scholar

16. Vucinic, M. (2016). Importance of Macroprudential Policy Implementation for Safeguarding Financial Stability, Journal of Central Banking Theory and Practice, 2016, 3, pp. 79-98.Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo