In banking, some risks are obvious—credit defaults, market downturns, or operational failures. Others are more subtle but equally impactful. The loss of a small, specialised team may seem manageable but, as our analysis shows, can trigger financial consequences extending beyond the immediate impact.
This article examines a scenario in which a bank loses its Credit Risk Modelling Team, leading to a gradual degradation of the accuracy of its credit models over 12 months. Using a Monte Carlo simulation, we quantify the potential financial impact of this event and explore the relationships between the various outcomes.
The Core Impact: Model Accuracy and Revenue Loss
Credit risk models are the engine behind the pricing and management of high-risk loan portfolios, such as commercial loans and subprime lending. In this simulation, a 5% reduction in model accuracy results in £125,000 in lost revenue from a £50 million portfolio over 12 months. This loss results from the bank’s struggle to price loans accurately—either being overly cautious and losing business or accepting riskier loans that may lead to future losses.
This revenue loss represents a 0.25% decline relative to the portfolio size. Although it seems small, tight margins in the competitive lending market mean even slight fluctuations can impact profitability. The bank’s lending decisions become less informed, potentially leading to a misalignment between risk and return.
The Tension Between Provisions and Revenue
One of the key insights from this scenario is the direct tension between increasing loan provisions and protecting revenue. As the model degrades, the bank’s risk assessment becomes less reliable, leading to an increase in loan loss provisions by £100,000—a 1% rise relative to the existing £10 million reserve. This adjustment is the bank’s way of cushioning itself against higher default risks due to less accurate risk predictions.
However, the need to increase provisions often competes with the drive to maintain profitability. If the bank becomes too conservative, setting aside more for potential losses, it constrains the capital available for lending, which can further depress revenue. This balancing act is one of the more nuanced aspects of managing risk in a banking environment.
Importantly, the 1% increase in provisions relative to the loan reserve is more significant than the 0.25% revenue decline, indicating the bank prioritises caution over profitability as model accuracy declines. This can protect the bank in the short term but may limit growth if revenue generation continues to slide.
Regulatory Risk: The Bigger “What If”
Perhaps the most uncertain, but potentially significant, outcome from this scenario is the risk of additional regulatory oversight. As credit models degrade, there’s a chance that regulators will scrutinise the bank’s risk management practices more closely, leading to additional costs from audits, validations, and possible corrective measures. The probability of this intervention is modeled at 10%, with an expected cost of £125,000—a sum comparable to the revenue loss.
However, this cost could rise sharply with regulatory intervention, potentially reaching £2 million in a worst-case scenario. Such intervention might lead to enforced capital charges or costly actions like external model revalidation or portfolio restructuring.
Crucially, though, the likelihood of such regulatory action is low. The simulation places a 95% threshold for total financial impact at £600,000, which is well below the £1.5 million 1-in-200 scenario loss. This suggests that while regulatory risk is a concern, it remains more of a “tail risk”—unlikely, but costly if realised.
The Real Insight: It’s About Understanding The Risk
One of the key takeaways from this scenario is that the expected financial hit from losing the Credit Risk Modelling Team—£150,000 on average—is manageable, representing only a small percentage of the overall portfolio.
The real insight lies in how moderate impacts—steady revenue decline and slight provision increases—can compound over time. Moreover, this scenario highlights how the degradation of credit risk models has a ripple effect across revenue, provisions, and compliance. These aren’t isolated costs; they interact in complex ways that require a careful balancing act. For example:
- Increasing loan provisions reduces the risk of future losses but at the cost of immediate profitability.
- Pursuing higher-risk loans to compensate for lost revenue may backfire, increasing defaults and regulatory scrutiny.
- Regulatory audits, while a low probability, could compound losses, especially if remedial actions are enforced.
Conclusion: Preparing for Understated Yet Meaningful Risks
While the loss of a Credit Risk Modelling Team doesn’t immediately spell disaster for a bank, the gradual degradation in model accuracy can lead to a series of small but meaningful financial impacts. These effects accumulate over time, putting pressure on the bank’s revenue, provisions, and compliance efforts.
The key lesson for risk managers is to recognise rare outcomes like regulatory intervention, but not to overlook how incremental degradation in operational capability can progressively undermine financial performance.
This type of analysis is particularly valuable in proactive risk management. For example, it can be leveraged as part of an Operating Model review, ensuring that key functions—like credit risk modeling—are adequately staffed and supported. It could also guide succession planning, identifying critical teams that need robust contingency plans to avoid operational disruptions.
In summary, this kind of scenario-based modeling not only helps quantify the potential risks of team loss but also serves as a strategic tool for workforce and operational planning, helping firms safeguard themselves against impacts that might otherwise go unnoticed.