- In Uncertain Times, a Need for Stability
- The post-WWII baby boom: fertility cycles and economic uncertainty
- Global Forecast 2011: International Security in a Time of Uncertainty
- OECD iLibrary | Delivery Error
- This item appears in the following Collection(s)
In Uncertain Times, a Need for Stability
How to anticipate events and set clear policy goals at a time of such dynamism? The study demonstrated that while countries see the U. In fact, foreign expectations of U. The long-term worry in Europe, Asia, and the Gulf is not over U.
- Aloha Oe (Farewell to Thee).
- Of Corpse;
- Prosperity and Security: the Challenges of Uncertain Economic Times - taclaficomet.tk;
- In Uncertain Times, a Need for Stability - The New York Times.
- The difference that three decades can make.
- Annual Forecast ;
In this context, the most important effect of killing Osama bin Laden may be the signal it sends to allies and enemies alike about the continuing ability of the United States to achieve its stated national security objectives. The lasting misfortune of the past decade of conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan has been the impression overseas—rightly or wrongly—that the United States has failed to bend the environment to our stated vision.
Washington needs to signal strength, particularly in a time of uncertainty. Included are essays by more than 30 CSIS experts, offering economic, military, regional, and global perspectives on the newly emerging security landscape.
The post-WWII baby boom: fertility cycles and economic uncertainty
Product Details About the Author. Average Review. Write a Review. Related Searches. Global pandemics - or plagues that decimated the populations of the leading political, cultural and Global pandemics - or plagues that decimated the populations of the leading political, cultural and economic centers of their time - have been documented for at least 5, years. View Product. Global Forecast U. Security Policy at a. After a dozen years of war, the financial crisis, budgetary contraction inside government, and The uncertain impact on oil demand of new environmental policies and taxes in some countries have made many investment projects difficult.
In addition, there is the rising cost of materials and the shortage of manpower. Another source of uncertainty is the future of the negotiations of the U.
Global Forecast 2011: International Security in a Time of Uncertainty
First, there was the lack of consensus among participants in Copenhagen. Now it remains to be seen whether any important decisions will come out of Durban later this year. Despite these sources of uncertainty, between and OPEC members are expected to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in upstream projects to maintain current — and provide additional — spare capacity. They will also continue to invest in various downstream projects.
OPEC has always stressed that an important investment requirement is having an enabling and stable price environment. In the past few years, however, we have seen periods of record high and extremely low prices. Extremely low crude prices result in declining revenues, which can force oil producers to cut budgets and scale back projects. Similarly, high prices can lead to a reduction in oil consumption, put future demand levels in doubt and threaten investments in supply.
- A Birds Eye View!.
- Water Security in an Uncertain Future: Enhancing Water Resources Management...!
- Water Scarcity: The Most Understated Global Security Risk.
This price volatility has served as a reminder that ensuring market balance— and working to ensure security of demand as well as of supply — is absolutely essential. Without security of demand, our member countries will have difficulty ensuring supply through collective actions. And in challenging, uncertain times like today, the actions of our members — guided by a fundamental interest in balance — are necessary.
Despite what the energy map says or the global outlook shows, we can be ready to act. Tell us what you think. Please upgrade your browser. See next articles. Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address.
Please re-enter. On the other hand, there is room for improvement at many institutions on a number of issues that have recently received attention. And while regulators have recently placed greater focus on the important role that culture plays in effective risk management, the board oversight activities at many institutions did not include help establish and embed the risk culture of the enterprise 67 percent or review incentive compensation plans to consider alignment of risks with rewards 55 percent.
Placing oversight responsibility for risk management with a board risk committee is a general regulatory expectation and has come to be seen as a leading practice. The Basel Committee issued guidance in that stressed the importance of a board-level risk committee, especially for large banks and internationally active banks, and revised guidance in specifying the appropriate role of the risk committee. Sixty-three percent of institutions reported they have a risk committee of the board of directors with primary responsibility for risk oversight, up from 51 percent in As a result of the ascendance of the board risk committee, only 16 percent said the full board has primary responsibility, down from 23 percent in the prior survey.
Some respondents said oversight was a combined responsibility of the board audit and risk committees 8 percent or other board committees 9 percent. A prominent role for board risk committees is more common at banks 74 percent compared to 56 percent in , although it also rose at investment management firms 65 percent up from 44 percent and insurers 61 percent up from 49 percent.
As noted, there has been a trend for regulators to require that financial institutions include independent directors in their board risk committees. The survey found that the trend toward independent directors on the board risk committee has become pronounced.
OECD iLibrary | Delivery Error
Forty-five percent of institutions reported that their board risk committee includes two or more independent directors as well as other directors , while 36 percent said it is composed entirely of independent directors figure 8. Only 5 percent of institutions said their board risk committee contains only one independent director, while at 13 percent of institutions the risk committee does not contain any independent directors.
Having the risk committee chaired by an independent director and having the participation of a risk management expert are becoming regulatory expectations for larger institutions. Many institutions find that in practice it is easier to have independent directors as members of their risk committee, or even be chaired by an independent director, than to secure the participation of an identified risk management expert.
Seventy-two percent of institutions reported that their board risk committee is chaired by an independent director, while 67 percent have a risk management expert on their committee. Having an independent risk management function headed by a CRO is a regulatory expectation. Adoption of a CRO position is almost universal, with 92 percent of institutions reporting that they have a CRO or equivalent position.
There are significant benefits, and a general regulatory expectation, for the CRO to report directly to the board of directors as well as to the CEO, but this is not the case at many institutions. The CRO reports to the board of directors at 52 percent of the institutions surveyed, up slightly from 48 percent in Further, the CRO reports to the CEO at 75 percent of institutions, meaning that at one quarter of the institutions the CRO does not report to the most senior management executive in the organization. It appears that many institutions have more work to do to improve the reporting structure for their CRO.
At 90 percent of institutions, the CRO meets regularly with the board of directors or board committees responsible for risk management, although fewer 53 percent reported that their CRO meets in executive sessions with the board. Affording the CRO the opportunity to meet with the board of directors or the board risk committee without the CEO or other members of senior management present can provide the board with an opportunity to receive a frank assessment of the state of the risk management program and the specific challenges the institution faces. Latin American institutions were least likely to say their CRO reports to the board of directors 14 percent , compared to 50 percent or greater in other regions, and 52 percent of Latin American institutions said their CRO reports to the CEO, while this figure is more than two-thirds in other regions.
Twenty-nine percent of respondents at Latin American institutions said the CRO reports to the CFO, while this is the case with less than 10 percent of institutions in other regions. It is a leading practice for the CRO to be the most senior management position responsible for the risk management program, but the CRO does not universally have this role. Only 48 percent of institutions reported that the CRO or equivalent is the highest level of management responsible for the risk management program, similar to the percentage in Other common responses were the CEO 27 percent , the executive-level risk committee 16 percent , or the CFO 4 percent.
Institutions assign a broad range of responsibilities to the firm-wide, independent risk management group headed by the CRO. Many oversight activities were nearly universal including develop and implement the risk management framework, methodologies, standards, policies, and limits 94 percent , identify new and emerging risks 94 percent , and develop risk information reporting mechanisms 94 percent.
However, a number of other important oversight activities are in place at no more than two-thirds of institutions including provide input into business strategy development and the periodic assessment of the plan 65 percent and participate in day-to-day business decisions that impact the risk profile 63 percent.
Risk management considerations need to be infused into both strategy and business decisions to consider their risk implications, and more progress still needs to be made in these areas. Another area that a relatively low percentage of respondents said was a responsibility of the risk management program was approve new business or products 58 percent.
This item appears in the following Collection(s)
This may be partly explained by the fact that relatively few new products are being introduced in the current economic and regulatory environment. Finally, regulators and industry leaders have devoted considerable attention to the role that incentive compensation and culture play in risk management, yet the activity review compensation plan to assess its impact on risk appetite and culture was identified as a responsibility by 54 percent of respondents.
The idea of a risk appetite has been around for some time but has received renewed attention since the global financial crisis. The FSB issued principles for an effective risk appetite framework in November There is now wide adoption of a written, enterprise-level risk appetite statement approved by the board of directors. Eighty-five percent of institutions reported they have such a statement approved by the board of directors, up from 75 percent in The regulatory focus on risk appetite began in banking, where 91 percent reported either having a risk appetite statement approved by their board of directors or being in the process of developing a statement and securing approval.
But risk appetite statements have now also become common in investment management firms 83 percent and insurance companies 85 percent. There are challenges in developing a risk appetite statement that provides useful guidance to the business. Respondents most often said that it is extremely or very challenging to define risk appetite for newer risk types such as reputational risk 49 percent , strategic risk 48 percent , model risk 48 percent , and cybersecurity risk 46 percent figure 9.
Each of these risk types poses challenges in defining and measuring risk. Operational risk has been an area where many institutions had struggled to develop appropriate analytical approaches that would allow them to measure and set risk limits. However, more attention has been paid to this area, and it appears that progress is being made.
Twenty-seven percent of respondents said that defining risk appetite for operational risk is extremely or very challenging, down from 38 percent in In contrast, the issues that were least often seen as extremely or very challenging were defining risk appetite for traditional risk types such as liquidity risk 12 percent , market risk 10 percent , and credit risk 7 percent. Institutions generally have many years of experience in these areas and have developed data and analytical methods that allow them to quantify the risk and set appropriate risk limits.
It is also challenging to further allocate and delegate risk appetite from the overall risk appetite statement down to risk limits in the various operations and business unit activities of an institution. In some institutions, the development of risk appetite allocations and delegations to business units remains a work in progress as more granular measures are developed.