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?
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- Which of the following describes the 'One Big Loss' principle for heavy-tailed (subexponen
- Under the current Basel Standardized Measurement Approach (SMA) for operational risk, whic
- Which of the following is NOT one of them?
- What is the marginal coefficient for the portion of the BI that exceeds 30 billion euros?
- According to standard regulatory definitions (such as SR 11-7), which three components are
- A material change to a model is most likely to be triggered by which event?
- How long is the historical window required for calculating the average annual operational
- In the Bow-Tie analysis framework, where do 'Preventive Controls' sit relative to the oper