The AMA method - analytical foundations of its failure

Buczak, Maciej (2026): The AMA method - analytical foundations of its failure.

Abstract

In 2024, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, implementing the CRR III regulation, withdrew the Advanced Measurement Approach for operational risk (AMA) — a model built on an actuarial foundation — ending its twenty-year history in the banking sector. The official justification was excessive dispersion of model results across institutions, undermining comparability of capital requirements. This article argues that such dispersion was merely a symptom — the deeper problem being a structural inconsistency of the framework, embedded in its assumptions from the outset. Three structural properties of the AMA framework are derived. Property (1) concerns the domination of distant quantiles of the aggregate loss distribution by a single extreme loss when heavy-tailed severity distributions are applied. Property (2) demonstrates that the AMA model outcome is determined by quantiles of the severity distribution higher by one or more orders of magnitude than the regulatory quantile of 0.999. Property (3) indicates the dependence of the extreme loss value — which determines the model outcome — on the count of minor, negligible operational events. The occurrence of these properties was verified by a numerical Monte Carlo experiment. The results indicate that the combined effect of the derived properties led to the necessity of estimation at quantiles of the order 0.9999, 0.99999 and higher — levels beyond the capabilities of reliable statistical modeling given data volumes available in banking practice. Also critical was the ambiguity in the definition of rarity, and the transfer of that concept onto the single loss distribution axis — a transfer arising from the joint occurrence of properties (1), (2), and (3). Rarity readings on this axis depended on the quantile positioning of extreme losses, which could itself depend on the count of low-value, negligible losses. The observed dispersion of results across institutions may therefore have been a consequence of these unintended structural inadequacies, rather than the result of modeling errors.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: operational risk; AMA; LDA method; heavy-tailed distributions; extreme value theory; Basel II; CRR III
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C5 - Econometric Modeling > C51 - Model Construction and Estimation; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C5 - Econometric Modeling > C52 - Model Evaluation, Validation, and Selection; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C5 - Econometric Modeling > C53 - Forecasting and Prediction Methods ; Simulation Methods; G - Financial Economics > G2 - Financial Institutions and Services > G21 - Banks ; Depository Institutions ; Micro Finance Institutions ; Mortgages; G - Financial Economics > G3 - Corporate Finance and Governance > G32 - Financing Policy ; Financial Risk and Risk Management ; Capital and Ownership Structure ; Value of Firms ; Goodwill

References

Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (2004). International Convergence of Capital Measurement and Capital Standards: A Revised Framework. Bank for International Settlements. (Basel II)

Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (2011). Operational Risk: Supervisory Guidelines for the Advanced Measurement Approaches. Bank for International Settlements.

Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (2017). Basel III: Finalising Post-Crisis Reforms. Bank for International Settlements.

Chavez-Demoulin, V., Embrechts, P., Nešlehová, J. (2006). Quantitative models for operation-al risk: extremes, dependence and aggregation. Journal of Banking and Finance, 30(10), 2635–2658.

Cruz, M.G. (2002). Modeling, Measuring and Hedging Operational Risk. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Cruz, M.G., Peters, G.W., Shevchenko, P.V. (2015). Fundamental Aspects of Operational Risk and Insurance Analytics: A Handbook of Operational Risk. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken.

Danielsson, J. (2000). The Emperor Has No Clothes: Limits to Risk Modelling. Financial Markets Group Special Paper No. 126, London School of Economics, London.

Danielsson, J. (2003). On the Feasibility of Risk Based Regulation. CESifo Economic Studies, 49(2), 157–179.

Embrechts, P., Klüppelberg, C., Mikosch, T. (1997). Modelling Extremal Events for Insurance and Finance. Springer, Berlin.

Frachot, A., Georges, P., Roncalli, T. (2001). Loss Distribution Approach for Operational Risk. Working Paper, Groupe de Recherche Opérationnelle, Crédit Lyonnais. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1032523 [accessed: 01.06.2026]

Hull, J.C. (2018). Risk Management and Financial Institutions. Fifth Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken.

Jorion, P. (2007). Value at Risk: The New Benchmark for Managing Financial Risk. Third Edi-tion. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Laubsch, A.J., Ulmer, A. (1999). Risk Management: A Practical Guide. First Edition. RiskMetrics Group.

McNeil, A.J., Frey, R., Embrechts, P. (2005). Quantitative Risk Management: Concepts, Techniques and Tools. Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford.

McNeil, A.J. (n.d.), Extreme Value Theory (QRM Chapter 5), Video Lecture, YouTube. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiOSxaF5oxo&t=3800s [accessed: 01.06.2026]

Nešlehová, J., Embrechts, P., Chavez-Demoulin, V. (2006). Infinite mean models and the LDA for operational risk. Journal of Operational Risk, 1(1), 3–25.

Panjer, H.H. (2006). Operational Risk: Modeling Analytics. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken.

Reinhart, C.M., Rogoff, K.S. (2009). This Time is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Fol-ly. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Regulation (EU) 2024/1623 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2024 amending Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 as regards requirements for credit risk, credit valuation adjustment risk, operational risk, market risk and the output floor. (CRR III)