|Home > News and Events > Speeches|
Challenges in Risk Management
|October 18, 2005||
Timothy F. Geithner, President and Chief Executive Officer
Remarks at the Institute of International Bankers Luncheon in New York City
Thanks for giving me a chance to address this meeting of the Institute of International Bankers. Your presence in our markets adds greatly to the competitiveness and dynamism of the U.S. financial system. The major international institutions contribute not just depth and liquidity to our markets, but also bring new ideas and global perspectives on developments here and abroad. And the Institute has played an important role in fostering dialogue among international bankers and policymakers on issues of mutual interest.
You are meeting at a time when the financial markets reflect
a substantial degree of confidence about the future—confidence
in the stability of future macroeconomic outcomes and confidence
in the strength of many of the world’s major financial
institutions. Against this backdrop, I thought it might be
useful to talk about our hierarchy of concerns and priorities
in the supervisory process, particularly those that relate
to the financial strength of the major intermediaries and
the functioning of the markets in which they operate.
While these topics are always at the center of our agenda, they are worthy of special attention today for two reasons.
The first relates to the overall economic and financial context in which financial institutions operate today. We have been through a period of relatively favorable overall macroeconomic conditions in the United States, low realized credit losses, lower volatility in output growth and relatively low and stable, long-term inflation expectations. This has been accompanied by a reduction in many different types of risk premia and in expectations of future volatility. This change in market perception of future risk has occurred in the context, however, of a substantial increase in leverage in the balance sheets of the United States, the federal government and the U.S. household sector. These developments are a potential source of greater macroeconomic uncertainty.
The second reason for greater attention to prudential concerns
is that we are in the midst of substantial changes in the
structure of the U.S. financial system.
These developments have contributed to what seems to be a significant improvement in the overall stability and resilience of the U.S. financial system, by reducing the vulnerability of individual institutions to a broader range of potential shocks. They may also, however, add to uncertainty about how well the system might function in the context of a major systemic shock. And in this sense, they create some exacting challenges for risk management.
Let me focus on three areas where this is the case: counterparty risk management with respect to hedge funds and other unregulated entities; risk management and market infrastructure issues in credit derivatives and other instruments; and stress testing and scenario analysis.
First, the greater role of hedge funds and other unregulated
entities in our financial system today requires more attention
by the major banks and investment banks to counterparty risk
management. The greater diversity of participants in risk
intermediation is probably on balance a positive thing for
our financial system.
We believe it is important that internal information systems
are capable of capturing the full range of exposures to individual
counterparties across the firm; that potential future credit
exposure is measured realistically, including through stress
tests at the counterparty level and across the firm’s
portfolio, and managed to prudent limits relative to capital;
that credit limits and terms reflect the quality of information
provided by the counterparty about its risk profile and risk
management systems and are not eroded by competitive pressures;
and that the risk management process tries to capture the
risk to the firm that could result from the rapid unwinding
of positions by leveraged counterparties.
Some of these shortfalls are the result of limited investments in resources and technology and the limited ability of individual firms to improve market practice without a commensurate effort by other dealers. Some are a reflection of the complexity of the products and the limited experience firms have had with how these exposures trade in more adverse market conditions. Both require a greater investment of resources and attention by senior managers.
We are encouraged by the initial commitments outlined by the major dealers earlier this month to resolve a number of these problems. In cooperation with the other principal supervisors, we will be monitoring progress closely.
The third area I’d like to discuss concerns the need
to improve stress testing and scenario analyses, which are
among the most difficult and consequential parts of the risk
Among the challenges we see today, even at the most sophisticated institutions, are the following:
Together, the three areas I’ve discussed—challenges in counterparty risk management with respect to hedge funds, developments in the credit derivatives market and infrastructure and ongoing work to improve stress testing and scenario analysis–represent areas where uncertainty is necessarily high. And assessing the probability of various outcomes and the potential losses associated with those outcomes is very complicated and hard to do well. Doing so requires care, judgment and a portfolio of different approaches. This is particularly important to do well in a context when we have had such a sustained period of relatively low credit losses and low volatility.
Across all these areas, these judgments have to be translated
into appropriate limits, an appropriate capital cushion above
the regulatory minimum and a robust liquidity management strategy.
These thresholds need to be calibrated to withstand more adverse
conditions than we’ve seen in the recent past.