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.
FRTB introduces a set of non-negotiable changes:
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:
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.
FRTB is often positioned as a market risk programme. In practice, it cuts across:
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:
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.
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:
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.
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:
Programmes fail where:
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.
FRTB forces alignment between:
This creates tension. Front office decisions now directly affect:
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.
FRTB directly affects trading behaviour.
This forces strategic decisions:
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.
FRTB requires coordination across multiple functions.
Common issues include:
Strong programmes ensure:
Brickendon enforces single team accountability, removing fragmented ownership and enabling governance that is aligned to delivery and capital impact.
FRTB requires parallel runs, often over extended periods.
This exposes:
The problem is rarely identifying issues.
It is resolving them at pace under pressure.
In many programmes:
Effective delivery requires:
Brickendon drives resolution at pace by ensuring issues are owned, prioritised and closed, with governance focused on execution rather than reporting.
One framework, multiple realities. FRTB implementation varies across jurisdictions.
This creates:
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:
Most programmes do not fail because FRTB is unclear.
They fail because:
Brickendon brings a single delivery lens across jurisdictions, reducing duplication, aligning interpretation and ensuring consistent execution at scale.
FRTB is comprehensive, but the challenge is not understanding it.
It is delivering:
The organisations that succeed treat it as:
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.
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.
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