Banks’ risk management technology spending to reach $74bn by 2015 [bobsguide.com]


How much less would have to be spent upon IT and Regulation IF banks were “punished” for abandoning Governance, became more transparent and the apparent flaws of the current model were addressed once and for all?

I can’t help but think that this is an obscene amount. So much of it will only be “necessary” as a result of the operational complexity created in an effort to mask activities intended to extract every last penny of value for the bank.  Perhaps, paying some attention to the thoughts of Andy Haldane (see link below) and Sir Mervyn King, on the lessons we can learn from nature, can deliver better value to customers…whether at individual or sovereign levels.

Technology investments in risk management infrastructure by banks will reach $74 billion by 2015, a report has revealed.

A study by IDC Financial Insights showed that growth in risk management spending will be faster than the total amount of investment in technology within the financial services sector.

In 2012, risk management will account for more than 15 per cent of IT spending within the industry, the report revealed…

via Banks’ risk management technology spending to reach $74bn by 2015 – bobsguide.com.

“Helping Banks is Hurting Insurance Industry” Geneva Association Tells G20


Collapse_smallPlease forgive me for not reaching for the paper tissues  THE real story is that helping banks is hurting …SOCIETY!

Without doubt, the activities of billions of ordinary citizens did not give rise to systemic risk! FACT!

Do we really need to ask, in whose interest is it for the insurance industry to tell only half a story?

OK, so the language is clever “…traditional insurance activities do not give rise to systemic risk”. Hard to argue with. But this communiqué smacks of insurers’ girding their loins in anticipation of the fallout from further, inevitable, global financial turmoil.

Presumably choosing to distance themselves and pointing their fingers at the banks is intended to stave off the threat of further regulation. Even if that is, ultimately, unsuccessful, it may serve to delay unwanted scrutiny and provide the opportunity to adapt the current model. It could also be touted to hard-pressed businesses as a “justification” of a potential tsunami of premium increases that may follow the next financial earthquake: growing seismic activity in the markets serve as a warning.

The insurance industry is, hardly, in the “innocent bystander” category!

Read more of this post