25 September 2017
Gary Wright

Gary Wright

Gary Wright - BISS Research

277Posts 1,046,008Views 369Comments


A place to discuss MiFID

Cost v risk; a catch 22 situation

11 February 2009  |  4402 views  |  1

At Finexpo last week where I was moderating a panel session, the panel of experts representing Euroclear, LCH.Clearnet, SIS x-clear, LSE and the ECB were asked a question concerning the importance of cost reduction or risk reduction? This question is obviously vitally important to the many financial institutions having to recover from the breakdown of their risk systems and in the current climate of reduced revenue and profits.

It is normal in the finance industry for a freeze to be made on costs and any planned projects will normally have taken a back seat whilst new priorities are established. Surely a leading priority will be to beef up or replace existing risk systems within banks. To build a more secure management capability to realise what risks are being undertaken in financial products, customers, counterparties and markets and to fast track their implementation. All this should be acted upon without waiting for new laws and regulations as business goes on and the need is great.

The answer from the panel was as expected. A reduction in costs and a reduction in risks were considered of equal importance. Here then lies the dichotomy for the market! It is of course unrealistic to think that systems can be changed to help reduce risk without incurring the outlay of more costs and these costs will normally be passed down the chain and guess what, the customer will eventually have to pay. So with the current financial crisis reducing revenue and profits, where will the budgets be found to implement the necessary solutions? So it is a catch 22 situation!

It is therefore worth the government reflecting on how else to assist the finance industry to recover and if more of tax payer's money will have to be assigned to changing systems. At least this looks a worthy cause and a better use of tax payer's money rather than the payment of banking bonuses.  

TagsPost-trade & opsWholesale banking

Comments: (2)

Iosif Itkin
Iosif Itkin - Exactpro part of London Stock Exchange Group - Moscow | 12 February, 2009, 19:05

As always, my vote would be for reducing costs or investing into systems targeted at reducing costs. Better risk management can be achieved just by introducing more conservative assumptions into existing models instead of platform redesign.

Be the first to give this comment the thumbs up 0 thumb ups! (Log in to thumb up)
A Finextra member
A Finextra member | 12 February, 2009, 20:01

Thank you for your comment

I am not sure simply becoming more conservative will solve the risk problem. The existing risk models and ability to manage risk has fundementally broken down internationally and we are sure to see the regulators beef up and lay down more draconian bussiness and operations risk managment requirements

Be the first to give this comment the thumbs up 0 thumb ups! (Log in to thumb up)
Comment on this story (membership required)

Latest posts from Gary

Wealth Management - Turkeys Vote for Christmas

27 September 2013  |  3700 views  |  0 comments | recomends Recommends 0

The future of systems in financial services

29 July 2013  |  3364 views  |  0 comments | recomends Recommends 0

Social media and trust in financial markets

25 June 2013  |  5961 views  |  0 comments | recomends Recommends 0

Technology changing the markets

25 June 2013  |  3291 views  |  0 comments | recomends Recommends 0

Technology begins to change

14 June 2013  |  2821 views  |  0 comments | recomends Recommends 0

Gary's profile

job title Analyst
location London
member since 2007
Summary profile See full profile »
CEO of B.I.S.S. Research, founder of the BISS Independent Accreditation for all systems and services provided to financial services companies internationally. Guest Lecturer at Reading University and...

Gary's expertise

Member since 2007
277 posts369 comments

Who's commenting on Gary's posts