MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400993393 · doi:10.69554/mioe5907

Strategic risk management: The failure of HBOS and its regulators

2016· article· en· W4400993393 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Patrick McConnell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk management in financial institutions · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicRisk Management in Financial Firms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRisk managementBusinessRisk analysis (engineering)Process managementFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a long awaited joint report into the failure of the UK bank, Halifax/Bank of Scotland (HBOS), the Prudential Regulatory Authority (PRA) and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) concluded that the bank had failed because the Board ‘placed inappropriate reliance on continuous growth without due regard to the risks involved [and …] The result was a flawed and unbalanced strategy and a business model with inherent vulnerabilities’ (see https://www.fca.org.uk/news/ publication-of-hbos-failure-review). This conclusion was not a surprise as, in 2004, the predecessor to the FCA reportedly told the Board of HBOS that their aggressive growth strategy was an ‘accident waiting to happen’ (see http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/ joint-select/professional-standards-in-the-banking-industry/news/an-accident-waiting-to-happenthe- failure-of-hbos/). In 2008 the accident happened and HBOS collapsed under a mountain of debt, requiring a government-backed takeover by Lloyds TSB bank and the injection of over £20bn of UK taxpayers’ support. Although HBOS did indulge in lending to some ‘sub-prime’ borrowers, this was not a major contributor to its failure; rather, to meet its growth targets, the bank had made some very risky loans to the corporate sector. Regulators concluded that this was just ‘bad banking’. Ultimately, while the initial impetus for the collapse was an inability to fund its assets, the bank failed because an economic downturn affected its corporate lending portfolio which had grown massively as a result of its misguided growth strategy. The UK parliamentary enquiry (see http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201213/jtselect/jtpcbs/144/144vw.pdf) into the HBOS collapse labelled the bank’s strategy ‘incompetent and reckless’. This paper looks at the collapse of HBOS as an example of a failure of strategic risk management (SRM), in particular the failure of the board and senior management first to identify and then to mitigate the risks that were inherent in its chosen business strategy and that eventually brought a once-thriving bank to a very messy end. The paper also considers deficiencies in the regulation of HBOS’s strategy and makes recommendations that aim to improve the regulation of risks to the strategies of large banks.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.078
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.088
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.412

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0780.088
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.016
Scholarly communication0.0190.008
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0090.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk management in financial institutionsSame topicRisk Management in Financial FirmsFrench-language works237,207