I should add that the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS), a fellow association of supervisors in the insurance area, is now discussing a supervisory framework that would apply to all insurance regulatory systems globally. Evolution in risk management and the reform of financial supervision should complement and reinforce each other, and the progress in each area will be influenced by the work underway globally to revise accounting guidelines. The Geneva Association has taken a great interest in this topic, so I will conclude my remarks with some brief thoughts from my perspective on the convergence of accounting standards, advances in risk management, and supervision. II. Trends across financial services sector  Allow me to begin with an overview of recent trends in risk management. Last year, a body representing major financial supervisory agencies conducted a study of 31 banks, securities firms, and insurance companies in 12 jurisdictions. This body - called the “Joint Forum” - consists of expert supervisors from member agencies of the Basel Committee, the International Organisation of  BIS Review 32/2004  1  Securities Commissioners (IOSCO), and the IAIS. The Joint Forum seeks to identify best practices and develop guidance for activities across the financial services sector. In its report, which was published in August 2003, the Joint Forum identified two important and recent trends among large, complex firms engaged in banking, securities, or insurance, or in some mix of these activities. a.
Extraordinary growth in practices such as securitisation and in the use of sophisticated derivative products allowed banks to transfer credit risk in ways that the 1988 Accord does not capture. In addition, some banks began to manage their exposures to operational risk separately and as a comprehensive practice comparable to the management of credit or market risk. By the late 1990s, it became increasingly clear to leading banks and their supervisors that the original Accord no longer provided meaningful measures of risk for the most sophisticated banking organisations. As a result, the Basel Committee and others began to discuss ways to revise the existing capital rules to account for these advances. Supervisors sought more than a simple revision of the existing framework. We wanted to align our capital requirements more closely with the best measures of economic risks that banks actually face. We sought furthermore to fortify the stability of the banking sector so that banks could continue to serve as a source of credit through good years and bad. In our view, promoting financial stability will benefit not just banks, but also other businesses and consumers as well. To incorporate the latest advances in risk management, and to develop a more forward-looking approach to supervision, the Committee embraced a “three-pillar” approach to capital requirements. Rather than simply setting out a static minimum requirement for capital levels, the new capital framework will rely on three mutually reinforcing policy approaches.