1 / 10

Risk Identification in Practice

Risk Identification in Practice. Solange Berstein Chair IOPS Technical Committee Superintendent Pension Supervisor Chile. Risk Focus. Supervisory Objectives

curran-horn
Télécharger la présentation

Risk Identification in Practice

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Risk Identification in Practice SolangeBerstein Chair IOPS Technical Committee Superintendent Pension Supervisor Chile

  2. Risk Focus SupervisoryObjectives • In the case of Chile the Superintendence of Pensions is not only responsible for monitoring the whole pension system (public and private pillars) • The main focus is Fiduciary responsibility of providers which leads to Consumer Protection: is the main concern, but also solvency is overseen. • The focus of the authority is on processes, risk‐management and governance rather than outcomes, but there are systems in place that provide of performance information. • Given the system in Chile operates via commercial providers, supervisory oversight has to focus on conflicts of interest – ensuring that those with a fiduciary duty are managing the funds as well as an individual would themselves. • As there are a limited number of providers (6), the focus of the SP is to identify risk areas within funds.

  3. Risk Factors: Individual

  4. Risk Factors:Systemic • Some risks that affect the industry as a whole. There are different sources of information, such as: • Central Bank macroeconomic reports which are discussed with all financial supervisors on a monthly basis, and in the cases of special situations this becomes as often as necessary; • Information provided by other financial supervisors which are part of a committee that meets on a monthly basis; • Signals of other macroeconomic or sector analysts; • Trends identified from customer complaints. • These systemic risks are considered in the assessment at a final stage by affecting the overall rating of all or some of the supervised entities. • Some times it might imply changes in regulation.

  5. Risk Indicators: Quantitative • Currently there is a minimum return guarantee with respect to the average return of the industry. Returns are computed on a daily basis and it is checked if pension funds comply. • The probability of each pension fund hitting the minimum return is also computed to prevent non‐compliance. • The authority is investigating other quantitative measures for DC risk, because the current mechanism makes administrators focus on short term returns. Moreover, as it is a relative measure, it does not limit absolute risk, which is restricted by investment limits, which are also checked on a daily basis.

  6. Pension Risk Income Profile Contribution Profile Without Subsidy With Subsidy Average Income Last 3 years

  7. Risk Indicators: Qualitative • The different risk areas are assessed for each institution by gathering information from different sources • Compared against best practices in order to judge if the company is in adequate position. • For a qualitative indicator for each risk area the supervisor evaluates the inherent risk and assess the existence of policies that mitigate these risks • The way in which these policies are implemented and monitored in practice is also assessed.

  8. Risk Matrix by Entity • Each risk factor is ranked from 1 to 6 considering the policies that are set by the company and the way in which these policies are implemented and monitored. • Depending of the degree in which policies are developed and how these policies are in practice, the scoringis defined. Each score has associated a qualitative concept: 1= Solid, 2= Healthy, 3= Adequate, 4=Vulnerable, 5= Weak, 6= Extremely weak or no information. • These risks are weighted according to the impact they have on members. • Significance Weights – measuring inherent risk – are ranked as follows: • A: Critical • B: Very Important • C: Important • The Risk matrix is filled with the scores and weights for each risk factor.

  9. Global Scoring • A global scoring is assigned to every supervised entity taking into consideration the inherent risk of each area, sub‐area within the entity and the quality of controls for each inherent risk • The global scoring takes values between 1 (lowest net risk) and 5 (highest net risk). • The risk matrix looks at the risk level, quality of controls, global scoring and change in evaluation over time. • SP Global Scoring by Entity

  10. Risk Identification in Practice SolangeBerstein Chair IOPS Technical Committee Superintendent Pension Supervisor Chile

More Related