THIRD PARTY RISK MANAGEMENT TOWARDS A PRAGMATIC APPROACH

SIMON LLOYD HORTON, Head Of Third Party Risk Management , Strategy & Frame work , HSBC

Simon, can you please tell the Center for Financial Professionals’ readers about yourself and your professional background?

Simon Lloyd Horton
Simon Lloyd Horton

I joined Operational Risk in HSBC as Head of Third Party Risk Management, Strategy and Frameworks in June 2015.  Previously I was based in Singapore as the Head of Supplier Risk, Policy and Governance responsible for delivering strategic direction and leadership for Supplier Risk for the Barclays Group and designing and operating the associated control framework.  In the 15 years prior to joining Barclays I held a number of regional leadership roles in Citigroup in corporate services operations and private banking based in the UK, Switzerland, South Africa and Singapore.

Prior to moving into financial services, I was a commissioned officer in the UK Royal Navy undertaking front line operations roles at sea as a warfare officer specialising in gunnery and airborne weapons systems and project work at the UK Ministry of Defence.  I have a degree in medieval and modern history from King’s College, University of London, and investment management and administration qualifications.

We are looking forward to you presenting at the Vendor & Third Party Risk Europe Summit where you will be discussing a pragmatic approach towards intragroup entities. What are the considerations institutions should look into when deciding to outsource via a third party or an intra-group entity?

Institutions should consider the specific underlying risks of the service.  The service, and the manner in which it will be delivered, varies from engagement to engagement.  If a ‘one size fits all’ approach is taken the result can be unidentified risk exposures and inefficiency.  Conversely there will be opportunities to realise efficiencies if risk management activities are tailored.

Without giving too much away, what are the key differences in managing intra-group entities/ affiliates in comparison to other third parties?

Although regulators clearly expect the risks posed by services delivered both by third parties outside the group and those provided by entities within the group to be identified and managed, institutions should consider whether exactly the same risk management processes and treatment are required.  This remains a developing area for the industry and one that would benefit from consideration by practitioners.

You will also be joining a panel discussion at the Summit where you will be effectively categorising vendors and third parties to understand the level of risk and monitoring requirements. How does outsourcing fit the 3LoD model that is currently in vogue?

The Three Lines of Defence concept is useful for defining risk management activities clearly and identifying who is responsible for performing them.  However, transferring the performance of a process to a service provider does not transfer accountability and the Three Lines of Defence model should be applied to the activity / process end-to-end and not focus simply on who is performing each element.

How do you see the role of the third party risk professional changing over the next 6-12 months?

I don’t think that it will change fundamentally over this time frame.  Risk management is an endurance sport and not a sprint!  Longer term, I see the business placing greater emphasis on third party risk management and consequently risk professionals must develop the capabilities to engage, inform and influence management successfully.

Read Next ...
load more

 

Send this to a friend