Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Operational Risk Measurement: A Literature Review

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Measuring and Managing Operational Risk

Abstract

Operational measurement is not the only target of the overall operational risk management process, but it is a fundamental phase as it defines its efficiency; furthermore the need to measure operational risk comes from the capital regulatory framework. Taking this into account, the chapter describes and compares the different methods used to measure operational risk, both by practitioners and by academics: Loss Distribution Approach (LDA), scenario analysis and Bayesian methods. The majority of the advanced banks calculate capital requirement through LDA: the chapter focuses on how it works, analysing in detail the different phases of which it is composed and its applications, in particular the Extreme Value Theory (EVT), which is the most popular one.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alexander, C. (2000). Bayesian methods for measuring operational risk. Discussion Papers in Finance. Henley Business School, Reading University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, C. (2003). Managing operational risks with Bayesian networks. Operational Risk: Regulation, Analysis and Management, 1, 285–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amin, Z. (2016). Quantification of operational risk: A scenario-based approach. North American Actuarial Journal, 20(3), 286–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aquaro, V., Bardoscia, M., Bellotti, R., Consiglio, A., De Carlo, F., & Ferri, G. (2010). A Bayesian networks approach to operational risk. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 389(8), 1721–1728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BCBS. (2001). Operational risk. Supporting document to the New Basel Capital Accord. Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, Consultative Document. https://www.bis.org/publ/bcbsca07.pdf.

  • BCBS. (2004). International convergence of capital measurement and capital standards. Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs107.htm.

  • BCBS. (2009). Results from the 2008 loss data collection exercise for operational risk. Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. www.bis.org/publ/bcbs160a.pdf.

  • BCBS. (2011). Operational risk—Supervisory guidelines for the advanced measurement approaches. Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. www.bis.org/publ/bcbs196.htm.

  • Bee, M. (2005). Copula-based multivariate models with applications to risk management and insurance. University of Trento: Department of Economics Working Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Böcker, K., & Klüppelberg, C. (2008). Modelling and measuring multivariate operational risk with Lévy copulas. The Journal of Operational Risk, 3(2), 3–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavallo, A., Rosenthal, B., Wang, X., & Yan, J. (2012). Treatment of the data collection threshold in operational risk: case study with the lognormal distribution. The Journal of Operational Risk, 7(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Chavez-Demoulin, V., & Embrechts, P. (2004a). Advanced extremal models for operational risk (p. 4). ETH, Zurich: Department of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chavez-Demoulin, V., & Embrechts, P. (2004b). Smooth extremal models in finance and insurance. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 71(2), 183–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chavez-Demoulin, V., Embrechts, P., & Hofert, M. (2016). An extreme value approach for modeling operational risk losses depending on covariates. Journal of Risk & Insurance, 83(3), 735–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chavez-Demoulin, V., Embrechts, P., & Nešlehová, J. (2006). Quantitative models for operational risk: Extremes, dependence and aggregation. Journal of Banking & Finance, 30(10), 2635–2658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornalba, C., & Giudici, P. (2004). Statistical models for operational risk management. Physical A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 338(1), 166–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daneshkhah, A. R. (2004). Uncertainty in probabilistic risk assessment: A review. The University of Sheffield, August 9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Degen, M., Embrechts, P., & Lambrigger, D. D. (2007). The quantitative modeling of operational risk: Between g-and-h and EVT. Astin Bulletin, 37(02), 265–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dionne, G., & Dahen, H. (2007). What about Underevaluating Operational Value at Risk in the Banking Sector? Cahier de recherche/Working Paper, 7, 23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutta, K. K., & Babbel, D. F. (2014). Scenario analysis in the measurement of operational risk capital: A change of measure approach. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 81(2), 303–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutta, K., & Perry, J. (2006). A tale of tails: An empirical analysis of loss distribution models for estimating operational risk capital (Working paper series). Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, pp. 6–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Embrechts, P., & Puccetti, G. (2008). Aggregating risk across matrix structured loss data: The case of operational risk. Journal of Operational Risk, 3(2), 29–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Embrechts, P., Furrer, H., & Kaufmann, R. (2003). Quantifying regulatory capital for operational risk. Derivatives Use, Trading and Regulation, 9(3), 217–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Embrechts, P., Klüppelberg, C., & Mikosch, T. (1997). Modelling extremal events. Applications of Mathematics, 33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Embrechts, P., Resnick, S. I., & Samorodnitsky, G. (1999). Extreme value theory as a risk management tool. North American Actuarial Journal, 3(2), 30–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Figini, S., Gao, L., & Giudici, P. (2013). Bayesian operational risk model. University of Pavia: Department of Economics and Management, 47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, C. R., & Clemen, R. T. (2005). Subjective probability assessment in decision analysis: Partition dependence and bias toward the ignorance prior. Management Science, 51(9), 1417–1432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frachot, A., Georges, P., & Roncalli, T. (2001). Loss distribution approach for operational ris’. Credit Lyonnais.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frachot, A., Roncalli, T., & Salomon, E. (2004). The correlation problem in operational risk (p. 38052). Germany: University Library of Munich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giacometti, R., Rachev, S., Chernobai, A., & Bertocchi, M. (2008). Aggregation issues in operational risk. Journal of Operational Risk, 3(3), 3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giudici, P. (2004). Integration of qualitative and quantitative operational risk data: A Bayesian approach. Operational Risk Modelling and Analysis, Theory and Practice, RISK Books, London, pp. 131–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guegan, D., & Hassani, B. K. (2013). Operational risk: A Basel II++step before Basel III. Journal of Risk Management in Financial Institutions, 6(1), pp. 37–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guillen, M., Gustafsson, J., Nielsen, J. P., & Pritchard, P. (2007). Using external data in operational risk. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance Issues and Practice, 32(2), 178–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafsson, J., & Nielsen, J. P. (2008). A mixing model for operational risk. Journal of Operational Risk, 3(3), 25–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckman, P. E., & Meyers, G. G. (1983). The calculation of aggregate loss distributions from claim severity and claim count distributions. In Proceedings of the Casualty Actuarial Society, 70, 133–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heideman, M., Johnson, D., & Burrus, C. (1984). Gauss and the history of the fast Fourier transform. IEEE ASSP Magazine, 1(4), 14–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillson, D. A., & Hulett, D. T. (2004). Assessing risk probability: Alternative approaches (pp. 1–5). PMI Global Congress Proceeding: Prague, Czech Republic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jobst, A. (2007). Operational risk: The sting is still in the tail but the poison depends on the dose. International Monetary Fund, pp. 7–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 263–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klugman, S. A., Panjer, H. H., & Willmot, G. E. (2008). Loss models: From data to decisions. John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambrigger, D. D., Shevchenko, P. V., & Wuthrich, M. V. (2007). The quantification of operational risk using internal data, relevant external data and expert opinion. Journal of Operational Risk, 2(3), 3–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, P. (2015). Operational risk models and maximum likelihood estimation error for small sample-sizes. arXivpreprintarXiv:1508.02824.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leadbetter, M. R. (1991). On a basis for peaks over threshold modeling. Statistics & Probability Letters, 12(4), 357–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindskog, F., & McNeil, A. J. (2003). Common Poisson shock models: Applications to insurance and credit risk modelling. Astin Bulletin, 33(02), 209–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, X., Shevchenko, P. V., & Donnelly, J. B. (2007). Addressing the impact of data truncation and parameter uncertainty on operational risk estimates. Journal of Operational Risk, 2(4), 3–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moscadelli, M. (2004). The modelling of operational risk: Experience with the analysis of the data collected by the Basel Committee. Bank of Italy: Economic Research and International Relations Area, 517.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moscadelli, M., Chernobai, A., & Rachev, S. T. (2005). Treatment of incomplete data in the field of operational risk: The effects on parameter estimates, EL, and UL figures. Operational Risk, 6, 28–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neil, M., Fenton, N., & Tailor, M. (2005). Using Bayesian networks to model expected and unexpected operational losses. Risk Analysis, 25(4), 963–972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neil, M., Häger, D., & Andersen, L. B. (2009). Modeling operational risk in financial institutions using hybrid dynamic Bayesian networks. The Journal of Operational Risk, 4(1), 3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pakhchanyan, S. (2016). Operational risk management in financial institutions: A literature review. International Journal of Financial Studies, 4(4), 20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panjer, H. H. (1981). Recursive evaluation of a family of compound distributions. ASTIN Bulletin, 12(01), 22–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, G. W., & Sisson, S. A. (2006). Bayesian inference, Monte Carlo sampling and operational risk. Journal of Operational Risk, 1(3), 27–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, G. W., Shevchenko, P. V., & Wuthrich, M. V. (2009). Dynamic operational risk: Modelling dependence and combining different sources of information. The Journal of Operational Risk, 4(2), 69–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powojowski, M. R., Reynolds, D., & Tuenter, H. J. (2002). Dependent events and operational risk. Algo Research Quarterly, 5(2), 65–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rippel, M., & Teply, P. (2011). Operational Risk-Scenario Analysis. Prague Economic Papers, 1, 23–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rozenfeld, I. (2010). Using shifted distributions in computing operational risk capital. Available at SSRN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santos, H. C., Kratz, M., & Munoz, F. M. (2012). Modelling macroeconomic effects and expert judgments in operational risk: A Bayesian approach. The Journal of Operational Risk, 7(4), 3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scenario Based AMA Working Group. (2003). Scenario-based AMA. Working paper, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shevchenko, P. V. (2010). Implementing loss distribution approach for operational risk. Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry, 26(3), 277–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shevchenko, P. V., & Peters, G. W. (2013). Loss distribution approach for operational risk capital modelling under Basel II: Combining different data sources for risk estimation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1306.1882.

  • Sklar, M. (1959). Fonctions de répartition à n dimensions et leurs marges (p. 8). No: Université Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundt, B., & Jewell, W. S. (1981). Further results on recursive evaluation of compound distributions. ASTIN Bulletin: The Journal of the IAA, 12(1), 27–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svensson, K. P. (2015). A Bayesian Approach to Modelling Operational Risk When Data is Scarce (Working Paper).

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1975). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Utility, probability, and human decision making. Springer Netherlands, pp. 141–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watchorn, E. (2007). Applying a structured approach to operational risk scenario analysis in Australia. APRA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, Y., Fenton, N., & Neil, M. (2014). Bayesian network approach to multinomial parameter learning using data and expert judgments. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 55(5), 1252–1268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sapienza University, Rome, Italy

    Francesco Giannone

Authors
  1. Francesco Giannone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francesco Giannone .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

    Paola Leone

  2. Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

    Pasqualina Porretta

  3. Poste Italiane, BancoPosta, Rome, Italy

    Mario Vellella

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Giannone, F. (2018). Operational Risk Measurement: A Literature Review. In: Leone, P., Porretta, P., Vellella, M. (eds) Measuring and Managing Operational Risk. Palgrave Macmillan Studies in Banking and Financial Institutions. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69410-8_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69410-8_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-69409-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-69410-8

  • eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation