1 / 16

Risk scoring: Risk Based Supervision in Practice

This session discusses the risk scoring process in risk-based supervision, focusing on the PAIRS model, main risk areas, net risk and significance weights, and adapting PAIRS for pension funds.

jcline
Download Presentation

Risk scoring: Risk Based Supervision in Practice

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Risk scoring:Risk Based Supervision in Practice Ross Jones Deputy Chairman, Australian Prudential Regulation Authority President of International Organisation of Pension Supervisors (IOPS)

  2. Outline • Introduction • Continuous supervision process • Range of supervisory activities • PAIRS model • Framework • Main risk areas for PAIRS assessment • Net risk and significance weights • Impact rating • SOARS model (next session) • Adapting PAIRS for pension funds • Ensuring quality and consistency

  3. Supervision process - APRA • Supervision Activities • Prudential consultation • Prudential reviews • Targeted reviews • Ad hoc meetings • Risk Assessment • Offsite analysis • PAIRS Update • Supervision Strategy • Supervisory action plans

  4. Supervisory Activities - APRA • Prudential reviews – on-site • Analysis of financial and other data • Superannuation funds with >$50M assets, data is received on a quarterly and annual basis • Examination of exceptions and outliers • Analysis of other market and regulatory information

  5. PAIRS (Probability & Impact Rating System • Ratings tool used by APRA to determine the probability of failure of a regulated institution and the potential impact on the financial system of the failure. • Five probability rating categories: Low; Lower-Medium; Upper-Medium; High; and Extreme. • Four impact rating categories (based on total assets): Low < $400m; Medium - between $400m and $4.0bn; High - between $4.0bn and $40bn; Extreme - above $40bn • APRA assesses the likelihood of an institution’s failure based on the “inherent risk” of the institution, balanced by the “management and controls” and the “capital support” available in the absence of APRA intervention. • Rating is based on the accumulated knowledge from APRA’s onsite reviews and offsite analysis

  6. PAIRS Conceptual Framework

  7. Main risk areas for PAIRS assessment PAIRS Board NOTE - For DC superannuation funds, the Capital components do not apply Management Risk Governance Strategy & Planning # Liquidity Risk # NOTE - Significant risks for superannuation funds Operational Risk # Credit Risk Mk & Investment Risk # NOTE – guidance manuals for supervisors on each PAIRS component Insurance Risk Capital - Coverage Capital - Earnings Capital – Access to Add

  8. Risk Mitigants - APRA

  9. Example – Module 7 - Operational risk

  10. Net risk and significance weightings

  11. Impact rating Size, measured by assets under management, is the sole determinant of impact NOTE: Impact rating drives frequency of review NOTE: Impact rating determines whether specialist risk experts join supervision staff in review of institution

  12. Outcome of PAIRS process = SOARS

  13. Supervisory Approach

  14. PAIRS & SOARS - quality and consistency • Dedicated support unit for supervisors • Predictive analysis tools • Portfolio reports and watch lists • Peer review and assessment • Reporting changes in assessment to top management in APRA • The combination of these four support levels and the reporting framework leads to better risk assessments and strategy setting practices in APRA and overall improvements in supervisory judgements.

  15. Consistency of Scores Australia • Individual supervisor inputs scores for risk categories + mitigants and decides on weightings • Guided by benchmarks / reference points • Supervisors may have to defend their ratings at a review panel

  16. Thank You • Questions?

More Related