Subject and purpose of work: The article deals with the issue of risk mainly in banking activity. Different definitions of risk were reviewed as tools for risk management in banks and for regulatory activities by institutions. Materials and methods: The research material was taken from the subject literature and official documents of financial market institutions - international organizations, as well as foreign and domestic financial institutions. They were mainly legal acts, standards and guidelines/recommendations. Particular attention was paid to documents published by banking supervision authorities. Results: As a result of the study, the multiplicity of concepts and approaches were found to define and identify banking risks as the categorizations presented by regulators seemed to be a standard to apply in risk management practices. Conclusions: Among the risk categorization used by banks, the leading ones have been presented by supervisory authorities. Defining the types of risk in operations should be the first stage of the internal risk management process which is necessary for banks’ survival. Ensuring high quality of the implementation of the first stage determines the efficiency and effectiveness of the entire process. The decisive requirements set by European and national regulators with regard to banks’ application of risk categorization as part of the risk management system contributed to mitigating the phenomena related to the global financial crisis among banks in Europe.
If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.
1. Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (2006). International Convergence of Capital Measurement and Capital Standards (A Revised Framework Comprehensive Version). Pobrane z: www.bis.org/publ/bcbs128.pdf.
2. Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (2011). Basel III: A global regulatory framework for more resilient banks and banking systems” version revised in June 2011. Pobrane z: www.bis.org/publ/bcbs189.pdf.
3. Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (2013). Basel III: The Liquidity Coverage Ratio and liquidity risk monitoring tools. Pobrane z: www.bis.org/publ/bcbs238.htm.
4. Bodie Z. Merton R.C. (2003). Finanse Warszawa: PWE.
5. Cicirko T. (2012). Efektywne zarządzanie kapitałem banku komercyjnego w Polsce w świetle standardów adekwatności kapitałowej. Warszawa: Oficyna Wydawnicza SGH w Warszawie.
6. Committee of European Banking Supervisors CEBS (2006). Guidelines of the Supervisory Review Process under Pillar 2 (CP03 revised) Pobrane z: www.eba.europa.eu/-/cebs-publishes-guidelines-on-supervisory-review-process.
7. Committee of European Banking Supervisors CEBS (2010). Guidelines for the joint assessment of the elements covered by the supervisory review and evaluation process (SREP) and the joint decision regarding the capital adequacy of cross border groups (CP3). London: CEBS.
8. Gątarek D. Maksymiuk R. Krysiak M. Witkowski Ł. (2001). Nowoczesne metody zarządzania ryzykiem finansowym. Warszawa: WIG-Press.
9. Iwanicz-Drozdowska M. (2005). Zarządzanie finansowe bankiem. Warszawa: PWE.
10. Jajuga K. (2007). Zarządzanie ryzykiem Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
11. Janasz K. (red.) (2005). Ryzyko i niepewność w projektach innowacyjnych. W: W. Janasz (red.) Innowacje w działalności przedsiębiorstw w integracji z Unią Europejską (s. 187-188). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Difin.