When the Governance Committee Wants to Override the Risk Appetite
A mid-sized asset manager has a board-approved risk appetite statement capping firm-wide 1-day 99% VaR at 1.8% of NAV. In a strong quarter, the CIO's desk requests a temporary increase to 2.4% to capture a widening credit spread opportunity, arguing the limit was set in a low-volatility regime. The CRO notes the firm's ICAAP buffer was calibrated at 1.8% and that two of three board risk committee members rotate off in six weeks. The CEO wants a decision before the next trade window in five days. The risk policy document states that appetite changes require board approval and a documented recalibration of capital adequacy, but is silent on interim increases. The CRO has authority to grant a 10% temporary headroom under delegated authority only.
1. Advise the CRO on whether to grant headroom, escalate, or deny, and justify the governance reasoning.
Read the worked answer
The CRO should deny the 2.4% request as framed and escalate a properly documented proposal to the board risk committee. Three governance facts drive this. First, the requested ceiling (2.4%) is 33% above the approved 1.8%, far beyond the CRO's 10% delegated headroom (which tops out at 1.98%). Second, the appetite was calibrated jointly with the ICAAP buffer, so any increase without a capital recalibration severs the link between risk-taking and capital planning - a control failure the regulator would treat as a breach of the framework's integrity. Third, the imminent board rotation means an approval now would be made by members who will not own the consequences, weakening accountability. The correct path is a time-boxed, board-approved exception with a documented recalibration, not a delegated override. The CRO should communicate the denial in writing, quantify the capital impact of the proposed trade, and offer a compliant alternative (e.g., a partial allocation within 1.98%) so the commercial objective is not simply refused.
2. Identify the specific weaknesses in the risk appetite framework this episode exposes, and recommend two structural fixes.
Read the worked answer
The episode exposes four weaknesses. (1) The policy is silent on interim or temporary limit increases, creating an ambiguity that invites ad hoc pressure. (2) The delegated authority (10%) is not calibrated to the capital buffer, so a CRO could approve headroom that the ICAAP did not anticipate. (3) The appetite is expressed as a single point (1.8%) rather than a band with defined escalation triggers, so any breach becomes a negotiation. (4) There is no rule governing decisions during board transition periods. Structural fixes: first, amend the policy to define a formal exception process - temporary increases require board risk committee sign-off, a capital recalibration memo, and an automatic sunset date, with no delegated authority above a stated threshold. Second, express appetite as a band (e.g., 1.6–1.8% target with a 1.9% hard trigger) and add a transition clause requiring outgoing and incoming members to jointly ratify any change within 90 days of rotation. These convert a judgement under pressure into a governed process.