Skip to content

FRM Part II · FRM Exam Part II · Risk Governance

A bank reviews a control for payment release that requires a second approver. Testing shows that approvers frequently sign off in batches without examining supporting documents, and 8% of sampled payments had errors that passed through. The control is documented and performed 100% of the time. How should the control be assessed?

The control is sound in design but ineffective in operation. Approvers sign off without reviewing documents, and 8% of sampled payments contained errors that passed through. Being performed every time does not make a control effective if the review is not meaningful.

  1. AEffective in design and operation because it is performed every time
  2. BEffective in design but ineffective in operation, since the approval is performed without meaningful review and lets errors throughCorrect
  3. CIneffective in design only, since a second approver is never adequate
  4. DNot a control, because only automated checks qualify as controls

Explanation

A second-approver design is reasonable, but operating effectiveness depends on the quality of execution. Rubber-stamp batch approvals that let 8% errors pass show the control does not work as intended. Performance frequency alone does not demonstrate effectiveness.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Risk Governance shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

More Risk Governance questions