Bitte verwenden Sie diesen Link, um diese Publikation zu zitieren, oder auf sie als Internetquelle zu verweisen: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/217655 
Autor:innen: 
Erscheinungsjahr: 
2018
Quellenangabe: 
[Journal:] Journal of Central Banking Theory and Practice [ISSN:] 2336-9205 [Volume:] 7 [Issue:] 3 [Publisher:] De Gruyter Open [Place:] Warsaw [Year:] 2018 [Pages:] 57-72
Verlag: 
De Gruyter Open, Warsaw
Zusammenfassung: 
In January 2013, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision issued 14 principles for effective risk data aggregation and risk reporting (BCBS 239) and outlined the paths to compliance for globally systemically important banks (G-SIBs) and domestic systemically important banks (D-SIBs).The Basel Committee devised BCBS 239 in order to ensure that banks and other financial institutions could monitor risks more effectively through superior data aggregation, enabling an overall more reliable and efficient risk management process. In a McKinsey report from June 2015 (Harreis et al, 2017) it is estimated that an average G-SIB would have to spend approximately 230 million USD and an average D-SIB 75 million USD to aggregate risk data that was previously dispersed over a wide variety of systems, geographic locations and banking groups. As the BCBS 239 for G-SIBs deadline was - at the time of writing – 10 months overdue, what approach towards compliance will prove to be more effective? In this article, the new principles according to BCBS 239 are described, criticized and one possible solution to meet the requirements is presented.
Schlagwörter: 
BCBS 239
Principles
Finrep
Chisholm’s analysis
Risk data engine
financial stability
JEL: 
C80
G18
N20
Persistent Identifier der Erstveröffentlichung: 
Creative-Commons-Lizenz: 
cc-by-nc-nd Logo
Dokumentart: 
Article

Datei(en):
Datei
Größe





Publikationen in EconStor sind urheberrechtlich geschützt.