Discover your dream Career
For Recruiters

THE OUTSIDER: Risk has become the department of no-can-do

A few months ago I rashly went on the record as saying that one of the benefits of the financial crisis was that in future investment banks would have much improved risk management functions. And I believed it.

Even now, looking back on it, it still makes sense. There was a clear disconnect not only between the rocket scientists on the trading desks who were taking on risk for their firms and the risk managers who were supposed to be supervising them, but in turn between risk management and the boards of some of the largest firms.

This was an opportunity. It was an opportunity for the board to upgrade their risk managers – hiring better people, investing in better training for the ones they had, raising their status and authority within the firm – so that they themselves could sleep at night. For the risk managers it was a chance to be better placed and of course better paid.

Even the traders who put on the positions had an interest in higher calibre risk managers who better understood the business and could work with them as a resource providing intelligent insight rather than playing the role of PC Plod.

So what has actually happened? My naivety was fully exposed the other day over lunch with a senior equity capital markets banker at one of the major firms. A lot of interesting financings are going on right now. Major restructurings in banking and mining, for example, have led to some significant capital raisings and a potential fee fest for the winners.

In the particular case my friend was talking about, his team had looked at the proposed pricing and the sizing and placed the deal in its overall market context, and they wanted as big a piece of the cake as they could get. They pitched their skills and expertise to the issuer, persuaded their own board members to call in favours with its top management to try to increase their firm’s ticket size, and eventually received an invitation to underwrite a chunky, potentially very lucrative amount.

At which point, the brave new world of risk management stepped in. Only it wasn’t a new world at all. It was the old world, but with attitude. Finally the little people were having their moment in the sun. The risk managers were essentially the same people – no new faces, no new skills – only this time they were in charge. The hot shots from the trading floor had to learn humility and prudence at the feet of black belts in the art of NoCanDo. And in the particular case my friend was bemoaning, this meant going back to the issuer – that’s right, the same issuer the chairman had called to ask for a bigger ticket – and say that in fact they felt better able to support their client with a somewhat reduced underwriting. So reduced in fact as to be almost out of sight.

At the Commitment Committee the risk managers pontificated about ‘managing exposures’. They did not actually propose any concrete measures, just wanted less of everything, because in their brave new world the safest firm is the one that does the least.

Inactivity has become a virtue, at least until the next bonus round, when perhaps somebody senior will wake up and realise that in a firm with a perfectly quiet trading floor – quiet because no-one is doing anything – nobody gets paid.

I hope this particular firm is an exception, in which case the brutally efficient evolutionary processes of the Square Mile will ensure that the necessary changes are made. If not, then a lot of hard working people are in for huge disappointment.

To all the risk managers out there, say after me: Risk is good. We like risk. Risk is what pays the overhead. We just need to price it properly. And if we don’t have the stomach for it, maybe we should be doing something else.

author-card-avatar
AUTHORDavid Charters Insider Comment
  • Pe
    Pennelope23
    4 July 2010

    To upgrade your risk management, you have to understand that risks doesn't lie only with the bankers taking risks on the trading floor. Indeed, risk is good, if it pays off. There has to be a balance of research and risk taking, and ofcourse alot of other factors need to be taken into account.

  • St
    Steve
    13 July 2009

    This article shows that the next leveraging cycle has truely started - this is the sort of rhetoric DCM people used to push their risk management to agree on everything before the crisis. What does the author want? New risk managers who are super-bright but never disagree with market? Well, don't worry - in 6 months we will be there again...

  • ri
    riskengineer
    2 July 2009

    Front Office Risk Management cannot be overlooked anymore. It is the backbone of every business organization and hence we shall see high profile recruitments taking place within the global financial industry to prevent another systemic meltdown.

    However the black swan risk and other forms of operational risks related to model validation cannot be controlled that easily. Do remember that all quant market and credit risk models are based on historical data , hence they may backfire during extreme market events ( two to three tail events) taking place. For further reading do go through Nasem Talibs cross talk with Jorion on this subject matter .

    Anyways i wouldnt put down risk professionals enthusiasms by saying outright no to modern FRM prcoesses. All I wanted to emphasize was on the need to better understand that mechnical models dont always produce the right mix of EWS - early warning signals at the right time.

    thanks

  • ga
    gammarules
    1 July 2009

    henry is fired right? no more of his silly comments

  • Ro
    Roger
    1 July 2009

    We can probably all agree that expected return increases with greater perceived risk. Clearly a lot of banks (commercial and investment) measured actual return wrongly - where they could measure it at all - and underestimated risk. It is normal, and in the interests of their shareholders, for banks now to err by overestimating risk. In practise this means allowing risk managers more authority, or at least enforcing the authority they, in theory, already had. This effective repricing of banks' capital should mean returns will pick up with real revenues restored to somewhere near previous levels. Profit expectations from most leading banks show this is happening.

    The interesting macroeconomic issue is; how can governments and regulatory authorities expect to return to a time of continued rapid economic growth without the risk of economic instability? If you try to eliminate the risk the expected return, or level of growth, must fall. It is impossible, and would be wrong to try, to eliminate 'boom and bust' - normal economic cycles - if we want to return to a period of sustained, but not necessarily sustainable, growth. The big socioeconomic and environmental question is; do we?

Sign up to Morning Coffee!

Coffee mug

The essential daily roundup of news and analysis read by everyone from senior bankers and traders to new recruits.

Sign up to Morning Coffee!

Coffee mug

The essential daily roundup of news and analysis read by everyone from senior bankers and traders to new recruits.