Executive Overview
The Fundamental Review of the Trading Book (FRTB) represents one of the most significant reforms to market risk capital requirements under Basel III. This sets a clear expectation for banks which must fundamentally change how they measure, manage, and capitalise market risk.
This is not a refinement of existing frameworks. It is a structural reset. It directly impacts capital requirements, trading strategy, and profitability.
FRTB is widely understood at a conceptual level. The challenge, and where most programmes fail, is execution under pressure, across fragmented organisations and under regulatory scrutiny. This is where Brickendon operates.
Regulatory Context and Market Exposure
FRTB introduces a set of non-negotiable changes:
- Replacement of Value-at-Risk (VaR) with Expected Shortfall (ES)
- A stricter boundary between trading book and banking book
- New Standardised Approach (SA) and Internal Models Approach (IMA)
- Capital charges for non-modellable risk factors (NMRFs)
These reforms increase capital requirements and require significant upgrades to infrastructure and data.
For global banks, with a large global markets business spanning rates, FX, equities, and credit, the impact is particularly material:
- Large and diverse trading portfolios
- Cross-jurisdictional regulatory requirements (EU, UK, Asia)
- Heavy reliance on internal models.
For these institutions, the issue is not understanding regulatory intent. It is delivering change across complex, interdependent environments where failure has direct capital and regulatory consequences.
The Reality of FRTB Implementation
FRTB is often positioned as a market risk programme. In practice, it cuts across:
- Front office
- Risk
- Finance
- Technology
- Data
It introduces new dependencies between these functions, under tight timelines and evolving regulatory interpretation.
Most firms are not starting from a clean slate. They are layering FRTB onto:
- Fragmented data architecture
- Legacy risk systems
- Inconsistent desk structures
- Existing capital constraints
This is where delivery risk emerges.
Brickendon is typically engaged at this point, when complexity, fragmentation and regulatory pressure converge, and programmes begin to move off track or stall.
1. Standardised vs Internal Models Approach
FRTB introduces two approaches:
Standardised Approach (SA) – is directly implementable, but, at the same time, carries more capital, a constraint on business decisions
Internal Models Approach (IMA) – more risk-sensitive but harder to sustain as carries less capital, but the modelling is more complex.
IMA approval is now granted at trading desk level, based on:
- Profit & Loss Attribution (PLA)
- Backtesting
Failure results in immediate fallback to SA and higher capital.
This creates a direct link between model performance, capital, and trading strategy
Brickendon supports firms in stabilising and delivering IMA programmes by aligning front office behaviour, model performance and governance to protect approval and optimise capital outcomes.
2. Data, NMRFs and Infrastructure
FRTB introduces strict modellability requirements.
Risk factors that fail become Non-Modellable Risk Factors (NMRFs), attracting significant capital charges. This makes data a critical dependency. Identifying and accurately classifying NMRFs is a challenge, as it requires a deep understanding of the bank’s trading book and available data.
Organisations must:
- Source sufficient real price observations
- Ensure consistency across systems
- Support complex Expected Shortfall calculations
Programmes fail where:
- Data ownership is unclear
- Aggregation is inconsistent
- Front office and risk data diverge
In practice, this is where most programmes struggle. The issue is not modelling logic but building a data and technology foundation that actually works at scale.
Brickendon addresses this by establishing clear data ownership, aligning front office and risk data flows, and implementing infrastructure that supports modellability and capital calculations under real world conditions.
3. Front Office Alignment with Desk Structure
FRTB forces alignment between:
- Trading desk structure
- Risk modelling
- Capital allocation
This creates tension. Front office decisions now directly affect:
- Model approval
- Capital consumption
- Profitability
In many organisations, this is not fully embedded. Desks are defined historically, not optimised for FRTB. This creates avoidable capital inefficiencies.
Brickendon works directly with front office, risk and finance to realign desk structures and embed capital aware decision making, ensuring trading strategy and regulatory requirements are fully aligned.
4. Capital Impact and Business Strategy
FRTB directly affects trading behaviour.
- Illiquid products attract higher capital
- Hedging effectiveness may reduce
- Capital consumption becomes more volatile
This forces strategic decisions:
- Which products remain viable
- How portfolios are structured
- Where capital is allocated
Organisation that treats FRTB as compliance react late and other organisations that treat it as a business problem adapt early.
Brickendon supports this transition by reframing FRTB from a regulatory exercise into a strategic lever, aligning capital efficiency with business performance.
5. Governance and Accountability
FRTB requires coordination across multiple functions.
Common issues include:
- Diffused accountability between risk, finance, and front office
- Misaligned incentives
- Escalation delays under pressure
- Weak programmes rely on committees and documentation.
Strong programmes ensure:
- Clear ownership at desk and programme level
- Aligning incentives with capital outcomes
- Enable rapid decision-making
Brickendon enforces single team accountability, removing fragmented ownership and enabling governance that is aligned to delivery and capital impact.
6. Parallel Runs and Regulatory Reporting
FRTB requires parallel runs, often over extended periods.
This exposes:
- Data inconsistencies
- Model instability
- Gaps in ownership
The problem is rarely identifying issues.
It is resolving them at pace under pressure.
In many programmes:
- Issues not properly documented
- Remediation lags
- Risk accumulates without ownership
Effective delivery requires:
- Defined clear ownership and accountability
- Align governance with delivery
- Prioritise based on capital impact
Brickendon drives resolution at pace by ensuring issues are owned, prioritised and closed, with governance focused on execution rather than reporting.
7. Global Complexity and Delivery Pressure
One framework, multiple realities. FRTB implementation varies across jurisdictions.
This creates:
- Duplication of effort
- Divergent reporting requirements
- Increased operational complexity
For global institutions, this becomes a coordination challenge.
The issue is not regulatory interpretation.
It is managing inconsistency at scale.
At the same time, FRTB competes with:
- Other regulatory programmes
- Technology transformation
- Cost pressures
Most programmes do not fail because FRTB is unclear.
They fail because:
- Execution is fragmented
- Ownership is unclear
- Priorities conflict
Brickendon brings a single delivery lens across jurisdictions, reducing duplication, aligning interpretation and ensuring consistent execution at scale.
The Reality
FRTB is comprehensive, but the challenge is not understanding it.
It is delivering:
- Across functions
- Across regions
- Under time pressure
- With real capital consequences
The organisations that succeed treat it as:
- A business transformation
- A data programme
- A front-office change initiative
Brickendon is typically engaged when programmes are already under pressure, IMA approval is at risk, or delivery has stalled. We stabilize, reset and take accountability for execution.ts fail because structural issues are avoided.
Where Brickendon Comes In
Brickendon is brought in when programmes are off-track, losing control, or too critical to fail.
We do not advise from the sidelines.
We take full accountability for recovery and delivery, embedding senior operators directly into execution. We reset governance, ownership, and delivery control, and stabilise programmes quickly before driving them through to completion.
No leveraged teams.
No separation between oversight and execution.
Just control, clarity, and delivery under pressure.
Bottom Line
FRTB does not just change how risk is measured. It changes how trading businesses operate.
Capital, data, models, and strategy become tightly linked.
And in that environment, the issue is not awareness but its execution.
Brickendon takes full accountability for FRTB delivery from programme mobilisation through to regulatory submission and approval. We assist banks in implementing more accurate data models and methodologies to capture risk factor sensitivities specific to their portfolios. This might involve refining historical data analysis, scenario generation, stress testing methodologies. This involves utilizing technology to integrate data from various sources, perform calculations, and generate regulatory reports. We ensure outcomes are delivered in environments where failure is not an option.
Confidential. No obligation. Senior conversation from day one