Skip to content

FRM Part II · FRM Exam Part II · Risk Governance

A bank's operational risk loss events reported by business units fell 40% after the introduction of a scorecard that reduces unit bonuses by 5% for each reported event above a threshold. Audit finds no change in actual control quality, and near-miss reports have vanished. Which conclusion is most appropriate?

The drop most likely reflects under-reporting caused by the penalty, not real improvement, since control quality is unchanged and near-misses disappeared. The bank should replace the metric with incentives for timely, accurate reporting and remediation, because punishing reported events discourages the transparency risk governance depends on.

  1. AOperational risk has genuinely declined and the threshold should be tightened
  2. BThe incentive has likely induced under-reporting, so the metric should be replaced with measures rewarding timely, accurate reporting and remediationCorrect
  3. CLoss data are now more reliable because units are more accountable
  4. DNear-miss reporting should be abolished since it adds no value

Explanation

Unchanged control quality alongside a sharp drop in reports and vanished near-misses indicates behavioral response to a punitive metric, not real improvement. Penalizing reporting creates perverse incentives; reward transparent reporting and remediation instead. Tightening the threshold would worsen concealment, and near-misses are valuable leading indicators.

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