The Dashboard That Hid the Losses
A wealth management firm's monthly risk report to the executive committee shows a single 'operational loss' line that has been flat at about $200,000 for eight months. The head of compliance notices that near-miss incidents and small losses below $10,000 are logged in a separate system and never aggregated into the report. A branch manager mentions that staff have stopped reporting small errors because 'nothing happens.' The firm has 40 branches, processes 12,000 client transactions a month, and its regulator requires prompt notification of material operational incidents. The next board meeting is in three weeks, and the CEO does not want to 'alarm' the board with what may be noise.
1. Assess the reporting failure and its regulatory implications.
Read the worked answer
The flat $200,000 line is almost certainly a reporting artefact, not stability. Three signals indicate the metric is blind: sub-$10,000 losses and near-misses are logged elsewhere and never aggregated, so the reported figure captures only a subset of events; staff have stopped reporting because 'nothing happens,' which means the data feeding the metric is itself degraded; and the firm operates 40 branches and 12,000 monthly transactions, a scale at which a genuinely flat loss line over eight months is implausible. The regulatory dimension is serious: if the firm's regulator requires prompt notification of material incidents, then unreported small losses and near-misses may in aggregate be material, and the firm cannot know because it does not aggregate them. Failure to notify is a compliance breach independent of the underlying loss size. The CEO's wish to avoid alarming the board inverts the duty: the board's risk oversight depends on seeing the full picture, and withholding it exposes directors and the firm to accountability risk.
2. Recommend how to rebuild the reporting so the board gets an accurate picture in three weeks.
Read the worked answer
The rebuild has three layers: data, metric, and narrative. Data: consolidate the two logging systems into a single incident register covering all losses and near-misses regardless of size, with a defined taxonomy and root-cause field; reconcile the last eight months to produce a restated loss history. Metric: replace the single flat line with a set of indicators - total losses, loss frequency by branch, near-miss count, repeat-issue rate, and a trend line - plus a materiality threshold aligned to the regulator's notification standard. Narrative: give the board a short, honest paper explaining that the prior figure understated activity, why (unaggregated data, reporting fatigue), what has been restated, and what is being fixed with owners and dates. For the three-week deadline, present the restated history with a clear caveat on data quality and a remediation plan; do not wait for a perfect dataset. The message to the CEO is that a credible, well-explained restatement protects the board far more than a smooth number that later unravels.