Just a quick note on an absurdity built into the way that the capital for operational risk is calculated under the standardised methodology. If you look at the way the calculation works (for the Australian version, see page 6 of this document), for a given current size of bank, the faster it is growing the less operational risk capital it needs.
Clearly, this is a silly outcome. An organisation that is growing rapidly is more, not less, exposed to operational risk and therefore the more capital it needs.
Just another of the things that happen when you try to tie operational risk capital to bare revenue or assets, rather than a true picture of operational risk. Looks like more reasons for pillar 2 action by t