The starting point is that the aim of risk management as
seeing in the traditional academic literature is minimising the variance in
profits. Not surprisingly, this would imply
much more hedging and risk management that it’s generally observed from surveys
and other sources, which is puzzling.
On the other hand, a company will have certain ‘comparative advantage’ in terms of skills, resources, or location that it can profitably exploit. Today, we would see this as part of the ‘business model’. If risk management seeks to reduce the
variance in profits, it will also eliminate the upside that might exist as a
result of the company’s business model.
If that upside is to be preserved, then the objective of risk management
becomes the elimination of costly lower tail outcomes while preserving as much
as possible of the upside.
The key to risk management is therefore the firm's business model (earlier posts here and
here). It shapes the strategy and creates the risks that need to be managed and probably points at those risks that will emerge. In practice, this means understanding the source of profits and being able to put this in the context of how the business operates and its strategy.
here). It shapes the strategy and creates the risks that need to be managed and probably points at those risks that will emerge. In practice, this means understanding the source of profits and being able to put this in the context of how the business operates and its strategy.
Consider the business strategy of a currency trading desk. The main question is whether profits arise
from position taking (with the firm’s capital) or from market-making. Incidentally, the evidence quoted in the
paper suggests that profits arise from market-making rather than position
taking. For an insurer, this would
involve understanding the extent to which profits arise from underwriting, investment
performance or fees and the alignment with the business strategy.
Where this understanding forms the basis of how risk
management operates, it makes financial distress less likely. In turn, this means that risk management can
be regarded as a substitute for equity capital; the same amount of equity
capital can go further in terms of supporting a wider set of profitable
activities.
Unfortunately, a similar outcome can be observed when the
risks are under-estimated. How can a company that adopts this approach to risk management distinguish itself? I don't think that there is a simple answer. It is important that risk
management takes a truly holistic perspective and seeks to demonstrate the
alignment between business model, strategy, risk assessment and senior
management incentives.
If you
work in financial services, I would be keen to hear your thoughts. If you
don’t, I would be keen to know if this articulation of the objective of risk management resonates with your experience.
If you found this interesting, you can subscribe to future posts at http://crescendo-erm.blogspot.co.uk and receive them by email - no more than once a week. You will need to provide an email address and then confirm the subscription. Your email address will not be shared. Alternatively, if we share a group in “LinkedIn” you can choose "follow" Isaac Alfon.
No comments:
Post a Comment