medium · FRM Part 2 Operational Risk

A firm's 'Risk Appetite Statement' (RAS) defines its 'Capacity' for market loss at $500 million and its 'Appetite' at $300 million. A desk head argues that because a recent $400 million loss did not cause the firm to fail, the 'Appetite' should be retroactively adjusted to $400 million.

What is the fundamental governance error in this argument?

  1. It ignores the diversification benefit that occurs when losses are spread across multiple business lines, making the single-desk loss largely immaterial to the firm as a whole.
  2. It confuses Appetite with Capacity, since under this flawed logic Appetite must always equal the firm's total equity capital minus its applicable regulatory capital requirements, which is incorrect.
  3. It violates the three lines of defense principle, because only the Board of Directors is formally authorized to adjust risk metrics after a loss event has already occurred and been reviewed.
  4. It suffers from 'outcome bias,' where a survivable loss is wrongly used to justify a higher ex-ante risk tolerance, ignoring that the same risk could have produced a catastrophic result.

Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →

More FRM Part 2 Operational Risk practice

KomFi: Test Prep Made Easy

KomFi: Test Prep Made Easy — free adaptive practice for GMAT, GRE, SAT, ACT, National Real Estate Exam, Investment Banking, and finance with full explanations.

KomFi Academy is free GMAT prep and personalized GMAT help built as a training platform: 84,500+ practice questions, 28,500+ flashcards, on-demand video lectures, podcasts, and 4K slide decks. Flagship tracks: Free GMAT Prep, Free GMAT Resources, National Real Estate Exam Prep, Investment Banking Prep, Finance Prep, GRE, SAT, ACT, LSAT, MCAT, Financial Accounting, Private Equity, Private Credit, and Quantitative Finance.

Free GMAT Prep & Personalized GMAT Help

What's inside

Topics

View pricing · Read testimonials