Standardised FRTB leaves banks befuddled on residual risk

Benchmarking exercises find “weak consensus” among banks over notional values for exotics

Tape measures

The regulator-set methodology for calculating capital requirements under new prudential rules for market risk is known as the standardised approach. But despite the name, implementation may end up being far from consistent. 

“There is a spectrum of interpretations and that’s not ideal, it requires some improvement and that’s really up to the regulators,” says a market risk professional at a North American bank.

The ambiguity lies within part of an extensive reform known as the Fundamental Review

Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.

To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact or view our subscription options here:

You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact to find out more.

Sorry, our subscription options are not loading right now

Please try again later. Get in touch with our customer services team if this issue persists.

New to Central Banking? View our subscription options

Register for Central Banking

All fields are mandatory unless otherwise highlighted

This address will be used to create your account

You need to sign in to use this feature. If you don’t have a Central Banking account, please register for a trial.

Sign in
You are currently on corporate access.

To use this feature you will need an individual account. If you have one already please sign in.

Sign in.

Alternatively you can request an individual account