Charta is on Google Play: practise on the go. Get the app
Charta

Assess how a firm's risk appetite is linked to its business strategy, including what incentives contribute.

FRM® Part I · Foundations of Risk Management · The Governance of Risk Management · FRM1.FR.3.d

The idea

Risk appetite is the aggregate amount and type of risk a firm is willing to accept to pursue its strategy. It must sit below risk capacity, the maximum loss the firm could absorb before breaching capital, liquidity or rating constraints. A good risk appetite statement is set by the board and expressed in measurable terms such as capital ratios, earnings at risk, VaR or concentration limits. It is then cascaded into limits for business units that fit the strategy. Incentives matter because pay with upside but limited downside, such as bonuses on revenue or options, pushes staff beyond the intended appetite. Aligned pay uses risk-adjusted measures, plus deferral and clawback. A common risk-adjusted measure is RAROC = (revenue − costs − expected loss) ÷ economic capital. Judging units on return before expected loss and capital is the common error.

Formulas

Risk-adjusted return on capital

RAROC = (revenue − costs − EL) ÷ economic capital

revenue
the unit's revenue
costs
its operating costs
EL
its expected loss
economic capital
the capital held against its unexpected loss

Compare it with a hurdle rate. Judging units on return before expected loss and capital rewards the ones taking the most risk.

A practice question

From the question bank, with the reason each wrong option is wrong.

Who has ultimate responsibility for setting a firm's risk appetite statement?

  1. The individual trading desksWhy not: Desks operate within limits cascaded from the appetite and do not set it.
  2. The firm's regulatorWhy not: The regulator sets minimum standards that limit capacity, but the firm chooses its own appetite.
  3. The internal audit functionWhy not: Internal audit reviews controls; it does not decide how much risk the firm accepts.
  4. The board of directors - correct

The board sets appetite in line with strategy, and management turns it into limits for the business units.

A harder one

Why do bonus schemes that pay a share of trading profits with no penalty for losses tend to push staff beyond the firm's risk appetite?

  1. The payoff is asymmetric: staff share in gains but bear little of any loss, so more risk raises expected pay - correct
  2. The bonus is paid in cash, which gives staff a lower rate of time preferenceWhy not: Cash timing is a secondary matter; the core problem is the option-like payoff, with limited downside.
  3. Staff are risk averse and prefer to diversify across many small positionsWhy not: Risk aversion would reduce risk-taking; the issue is that the convex payoff encourages more of it.
  4. The bonus pool depends on the firm's cost of equity rather than on the trading profits actually earned that yearWhy not: The scheme described pays from trading profits; a link to the cost of equity is not what induces the extra risk.

Pay with unlimited upside and floor at zero resembles a call option, whose value rises with volatility. Staff gain from added risk while the firm and shareholders bear the losses.

The hardest tier

A bank's strategy is rapid growth of its loan book, and its risk appetite statement includes a ceiling on credit losses. Loan officers are paid a bonus on origination volume at the time of booking. Which change most directly aligns incentives with the stated appetite?

  1. Making a large part of the bonus deferred and tied to the realised credit performance of the loans originated - correct
  2. Raising origination volume targets so that the strategy of rapid growth is delivered faster and market share is wonWhy not: Higher volume targets increase the incentive to book weak loans and push the book beyond the loss ceiling.
  3. Replacing the volume bonus with a share of upfront fees, which are certain at bookingWhy not: Upfront fees are earned at booking regardless of later credit losses, so the incentive problem remains.
  4. Paying part of the bonus in stock options on the firm so that staff share in the upsideWhy not: Options give a convex payoff with little downside, which can encourage rather than restrain risk-taking.

Incentives must reflect the risk taken over the life of the exposure. Deferral and linkage to actual credit outcomes make staff bear the consequences of exceeding the appetite.

In the app: 6 practice questions on this outcome, spaced review that brings it back before you forget it.

Start free →

More in The Governance of Risk Management