<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>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 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="j_jcbtp-2018-0023_ref_009_w2aab3b7b4b1b6b1ab1ab9Aa">Harreis et al, 2017</xref>) 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.</p></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.

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

Journal of Central Banking Theory and Practice

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

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

Publié en ligne: 10 sept. 2018

Pages: 57 - 72

Reçu: 10 nov. 2017

Accepté: 27 déc. 2017

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jcbtp-2018-0023

Mots clés
BCBS 239, Principles, Finrep - Chisholm’s analysis, Risk data engine, financial stability

© 2018 Joerg Orgeldinger, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

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

Publié en ligne: 10 sept. 2018

Pages: 57 - 72

Reçu: 10 nov. 2017

Accepté: 27 déc. 2017

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jcbtp-2018-0023

Mots clésBCBS 239, Principles, Finrep - Chisholm’s analysis, Risk data engine, financial stability

© 2018 Joerg Orgeldinger, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Mots clés
BCBS 239, Principles, Finrep - Chisholm’s analysis, Risk data engine, financial stability