Little consensus on how banks manage FVA
Skip to main content
Risk Benchmarking: Majority of dealers still mix and match methodologies for funding adjustments
This article is part of a series benchmarking bank XVA management practices. Sign up for Risk Benchmarking emails here.
It’s more than a decade since funding valuation adjustment (FVA) moved from academic controversy into the mainstream. So, swaps dealers might be expected to have coalesced around a method for adjusting the value of an uncollateralised trade to reflect its lifetime cost of funding
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Off the grid? Dealers mull XVA cloud shift
Risk Benchmarking: 69% of European banks still run core XVA calculations predominantly on-premises, and 75% of global dealers
Sell side losing fight over dirty CSAs, data shows
Risk Benchmarking exercise finds growing buy-side push for collateral flexibility
For enterprise risk, influence runs deeper than any veto
Risk Benchmarking study finds formal veto rights concentrated among the largest lenders, but used only as a last resort
Tech and data fragmentation irks enterprise risk managers
Risk Benchmarking: Often at the mercy of decisions made by other parts of the bank, ERM heads gripe at disparate systems, poor UX and reporting gaps
At bigger banks, enterprise risk owns scenario frameworks
Risk Benchmarking research finds ERM teams tasked with providing effective challenge on scenario construction across risk silos
Supervisors becoming more demanding, say ERM teams
Risk Benchmarking: More than half report rising supervisory contact, despite unchanging requirements for an ERM function
Enterprise Risk Benchmarking 2026: explore the data
View interactive charts from Risk.net’s 52-bank study, covering enterprise risk governance, appetite setting, board reporting, scenario analysis, culture and resilience
ERM’s influence is growing as its ranks are shrinking
Risk Benchmarking: Mandates expanding to include new threats like AI and geopolitical risk, but majority report flat to down headcount
Most read articles loading…
Back to Top
You need to sign in to use this feature. If you don’t have a Risk.net account, please register for a trial.
