Follow up on Towers Watson paper

Following up on yesterday's post, Towers Watson threw in a supplementary paper to help support the quantification of value from an ERM programme (although the flaws identified in the responses from some recipients should be borne in mind, namley that more thought they had a ERM programme than had defined their Risk Appetite!)

Whilst it is not cricket to use the recipient percentages to support TW's arguments when only 2% of those invited actually participated, they have some cogent points in this doc, namely;

• Desire to quantify starts with moving away from heat maps and annual risk assessments
• Defining risk as "exposure to an adverse deviation from an expected result" - simple but strong
• Risk Appetite Statements representing "integral governance steering mechanisms" - true under full ERM and Solvency II-specific approaches
• Key Risk Indicators should be reviewed more than annually