IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jmoncb/v55y2023i7p1785-1816.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Fundamental Review of the Trading Book: Implications for Portfolio and Risk Management in the Banking Sector

Author

Listed:
  • ORLA MCCULLAGH
  • MARK CUMMINS
  • SHEILA KILLIAN

Abstract

The Fundamental Review of the Trading Book (FRTB) is the promised overhaul of bankmarket risk regulation. FRTB retains the authorized use of proprietary risk models, however, it introduces two additional criteria: (i) P&L attribution (PLA) tests and (ii) desk‐level backtests. We examine empirically whether these additional criteria influence risk management and portfolio management practice, specifically portfolio construction and choice of risk model. We find that the PLA tests demand significant alignment with risk factors, however, the backtests do not incentivize use of superior risk models. This has important implications for the efficacy of the capital‐based regulatory system.

Suggested Citation

  • Orla Mccullagh & Mark Cummins & Sheila Killian, 2023. "The Fundamental Review of the Trading Book: Implications for Portfolio and Risk Management in the Banking Sector," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 55(7), pages 1785-1816, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jmoncb:v:55:y:2023:i:7:p:1785-1816
    DOI: 10.1111/jmcb.13022
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jmcb.13022
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jmcb.13022?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul H. Kupiec, 1995. "Techniques for verifying the accuracy of risk measurement models," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 95-24, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    2. Danielsson, Jon & Zhou, Chen, 2015. "Why risk is so hard to measure," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 62002, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Gordy, Michael B. & McNeil, Alexander J., 2020. "Spectral backtests of forecast distributions with application to risk management," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    4. Oliver Hermsen, 2010. "The impact of the choice of VaR models on the level of regulatory capital according to Basel II," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(10), pages 1215-1224.
    5. Matthew Pritsker, 1997. "Evaluating Value at Risk Methodologies: Accuracy versus Computational Time," Journal of Financial Services Research, Springer;Western Finance Association, vol. 12(2), pages 201-242, October.
    6. Farag, Hany M., 2017. "Bracing for the FRTB: Capital, business and operational impact," Journal of Securities Operations & Custody, Henry Stewart Publications, vol. 9(2), pages 160-177, March.
    7. O’Brien, James & Szerszeń, Paweł J., 2017. "An evaluation of bank measures for market risk before, during and after the financial crisis," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 215-234.
    8. Chiara Pederzoli & Costanza Torricelli, 2019. "The impact of the Fundamental Review of the Trading Book: A preliminary assessment on a stylized portfolio," Centro Studi di Banca e Finanza (CEFIN) (Center for Studies in Banking and Finance) 0075, Universita di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Dipartimento di Economia "Marco Biagi".
    9. Ibragimov, Rustam & Walden, Johan, 2007. "The limits of diversification when losses may be large," Scholarly Articles 2624460, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    10. Lucas, Andre, 2001. "Evaluating the Basle Guidelines for Backtesting Banks' Internal Risk Management Models," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 33(3), pages 826-846, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Farkas, Walter & Fringuellotti, Fulvia & Tunaru, Radu, 2020. "A cost-benefit analysis of capital requirements adjusted for model risk," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    2. Orla McCullagh & Mark Cummins & Sheila Killian, 2023. "Decoupling VaR and regulatory capital: an examination of practitioners’ experience of market risk regulation," Journal of Banking Regulation, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 24(3), pages 321-336, September.
    3. Jean-Paul Laurent & Hassan Omidi Firouzi, 2022. "Market Risk and Volatility Weighted Historical Simulation After Basel III," Working Papers hal-03679434, HAL.
    4. Matthew Pritsker, 2001. "The hidden dangers of historical simulation," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2001-27, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    5. Jose A. Lopez, 1999. "Methods for evaluating value-at-risk estimates," Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, pages 3-17.
    6. Silvia Stanescu & Radu Tunaru, 2013. "Quantifying the uncertainty in VaR and expected shortfall estimates," Chapters, in: Adrian R. Bell & Chris Brooks & Marcel Prokopczuk (ed.), Handbook of Research Methods and Applications in Empirical Finance, chapter 15, pages 357-372, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Chrétien, Stéphane & Coggins, Frank, 2010. "Performance and conservatism of monthly FHS VaR: An international investigation," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 19(5), pages 323-333, December.
    8. Steven Kou & Xianhua Peng, 2016. "On the Measurement of Economic Tail Risk," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 64(5), pages 1056-1072, October.
    9. Hussein Khraibani & Bilal Nehme & Olivier Strauss, 2018. "Interval Estimation of Value-at-Risk Based on Nonparametric Models," Econometrics, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-30, December.
    10. Katherine Uylangco & Siqiwen Li, 2016. "An evaluation of the effectiveness of Value-at-Risk (VaR) models for Australian banks under Basel III," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 41(4), pages 699-718, November.
    11. Sinha, Pankaj & Agnihotri, Shalini, 2014. "Sensitivity of Value at Risk estimation to NonNormality of returns and Market capitalization," MPRA Paper 56307, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 26 May 2014.
    12. Boucher, Christophe M. & Daníelsson, Jón & Kouontchou, Patrick S. & Maillet, Bertrand B., 2014. "Risk models-at-risk," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 72-92.
    13. Po-Cheng Wu & Cheng-Kun Kuo & Chih-Wei Lee, 2012. "Evaluation Of Multi-Asset Value At Risk: Evidence From Taiwan," Global Journal of Business Research, The Institute for Business and Finance Research, vol. 6(4), pages 23-34.
    14. Gordy, Michael B. & McNeil, Alexander J., 2020. "Spectral backtests of forecast distributions with application to risk management," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    15. Michael S. Gibson, 2001. "Incorporating event risk into value-at-risk," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2001-17, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    16. Peter Christoffersen, 2004. "Backtesting Value-at-Risk: A Duration-Based Approach," Journal of Financial Econometrics, Oxford University Press, vol. 2(1), pages 84-108.
    17. Pérignon, Christophe & Deng, Zi Yin & Wang, Zhi Jun, 2008. "Do banks overstate their Value-at-Risk?," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 783-794, May.
    18. Jeremy Berkowitz & James M. O'Brien, 2001. "How accurate are Value-at-Risk models at commercial banks?," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2001-31, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    19. Jeremy Berkowitz & James O'Brien, 2002. "How Accurate Are Value‐at‐Risk Models at Commercial Banks?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 57(3), pages 1093-1111, June.
    20. Pritsker, Matthew, 2006. "The hidden dangers of historical simulation," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 561-582, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jmoncb:v:55:y:2023:i:7:p:1785-1816. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0022-2879 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.