在不确定性下采取行动——监管风险偏好框架的案例

Acting underuncertainty – the casefor supervisory riskappetite frameworks by Monica Balan and Raihan Zamil May 2026 JEL classification: G20, G21, G28 Keywords: supervision, banking supervision, supervisoryrisk,legal risk,supervisory judgment,risk-basedsupervision,risk appetite,risk tolerance,supervisoryculture,governance,supervisory governance,early FSI Insights are written by members of the Financial Stability Institute (FSI) of the Bank for InternationalSettlements (BIS), often in collaboration with staff from supervisory agencies and central banks. The papersaim to contribute to international discussions on a range of contemporary regulatory and supervisory This publication is available on the BIS website (www.bis.org). To contact the BIS Global Media and PublicRelationsteam,pleaseemailmedia@bis.org.Youcansignupforemailalertsat Contents Executive summary ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1Section 1 – Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 3Section 2 – Framing the RAF architecture for prudential supervision.......................................................................... 5Overview ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 5Supervisory methodologies and RAFs............................................................................................................................. 7Section 3 – Design and implementation of RAFs in supervisory authorities............................................................. 8Motivations for developing supervisory RAFs.............................................................................................................. 9RAF architecture .....................................................................................................................................................................10Embedding the RAF into the supervisory cycle .........................................................................................................13Governance and institutional ownership of the RAF ...............................................................................................15Supervisory culture................................................................................................................................................................16Section 4 – Operationalising RAFs in supervisory authorities .......................................................................................17Step 1 – Define risk taxonomy..........................................................................................................................................17Step 2 – Develop risk tolerance scales...........................................................................................................................20Step 3 – Formulate risk appetite statement(s)............................................................................................................22Step 4 – Operationalising risk appetite in the supervisory process...................................................................25Step 5 – Governance arrangements ...............................................................................................................................30Section 5 – Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................................31References..........................................................................................................................................................................................32 Acting under uncertainty – the case for supervisory risk appetite Executive summary The two major banking crises of this century – the 2007 Great Financial Crisis (GFC) and theMarch 2023 banking turmoil – exposed significant weaknesses in banks’ governance and risk management practices and the effectiveness of supervision.These crises demonstrated how poorgovernance and risk culture in firms can erode market confidence, trigger liquidity runs and destabilisefinancial systems. They also underscored the financial stability consequences of weaknesses in supervision– such as difficulties for supervisory authorities (SAs) in identifying and addressing material risks before While international standard setters such as the Financial Stability Board (FSB) and theBaselCommittee on Banking Supervision(BCBS)have introduced reforms to strengthen governance and culture within banks, similar efforts have not been widely undertaken in SAs.Whendeficiencies in supervision are identified,