Anna is a senior director who manages the regulatory and accounting solutions team in the Americas. The team is responsible for solutions structuring, leveraging Moody’s Analytics products and services focusing on impairment, stress testing, and capital planning solutions. Her primary focus is on financial institutions.
Prior to her current role, she was with the enterprise risk solutions team as an engagement manager leading projects with financial institutions across the Americas in loss estimation, enhancements in internal risk rating capabilities, and counterparty credit risk management.
Before joining Moody’s Analytics in 2008, she was an analyst with Moody’s Investors Service, the sister company of Moody's Analytics. While with Moody’s Investors Service, Anna was a member of the New Instruments Committee and an analyst in the financial institutions group focused on the insurance sector. Anna has a BS and an MBA from Stern School of Business at New York University.
The FASB’s new impairment standards won’t take effect until 2020, but institutions should start planning now. This webinar outlines key considerations for early CECL preparation, including: main challenges; expectations of auditors, regulators, and investors; planning in firms of varying sizes; and how to get started.
In this webinar, we discuss what the new CECL standard is and why the FASB is changing Impairment Accounting. Key topics include the timeline for implementation, key differences are in the new impairment models compared with the existing ones, and how the allowance calculation process is likely to change.
As firms begin their implementation process for CECL, there are still more questions than answers as firms are beginning to plan for eventual implementation. However, there are some key benefits to early CECL adoption. In this live interview, Anna Krayn gives her perspective and recommendations.
In this video cast, we will discuss the implications of the final CECL standard and approaches to implementation.
In this webinar, we explore the implications of new disclosure requirements and the effective dates for CECL implementation. We explain why banks should start preparing for CECL now and what are the advantages to early implementation.
As firms prepare for CECL, there are still many questions about the best approaches to implementation and how the regulatory requirements will impact adoption. In this webcast, we answer practitioners questions and provide suggested approaches for implementation.
On June 16, FASB issued the much anticipated financial instruments impairment standards update. The implications of this standard are significant and will change the way credit losses are measured for most financial assets (e.g. receivables, debt securities and loans).
This article outlines recent approaches to managing credit risk when facing regulatory capital requirements. We explore how institutions should best allocate capital and make economically-optimized investment decisions under regulatory capital constraints, such as those imposed by Basel or CCAR-style rules.
In this article, we review the common themes reflected in recent regulatory guidelines released by the Federal Reserve and the BCBS.
December 2015 was a busy month for regulatory agencies and global standard setters. Throughout the year the industry has been waiting for additional guidance on high impact topics including capital planning and allowance methodologies, and in the final stretch of 2015 both the Federal Reserve and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) complied. This paper will primarily focus on common themes in the two releases.
In this article, we provide an overview of some common problems organizations face and introduce a solution to develop an integrated, transparent, measurable, and actionable Risk Appetite Framework.
Post-crisis regulatory drivers are giving rise to better risk management practices that will provide a competitive advantage. With this in mind, this edition of Risk Perspectives looks at the future of risk management, and the best practices of today that will form the successful risk management practices of the future.
In this webinar, Moody's Analytics experts revisit the CCAR 2015 scenarios, review industry results and discuss how to identify and quantify Systemic Risk.
This quantitative analysis of CCAR 2014 Severely Adverse scenarios, Moody's Analytics finds that the Federal Reserve Bank's (FRB's) and banks' own modeled estimates of capital ratios, revenue, net income, and loan credit losses are generally well aligned, although variations in all measures and across all banks are evident. In addition, the FRB's estimates are generally more conservative than those of the individual banks, reflecting differences in the FRB's industry-based models vs. the banks' portfolio specific models, treatment of missing or invalid data in the FRB's modeling approach, and assumptions about projected balance sheet volumes. The wide variation among bank modeled estimates and their overall alignment with FRB modeled estimates argues against banks targeting general industry benchmarks (such as average loss rates) and in favor of building models around their own business models and portfolio characteristics.
Changes to liquidity management regulations present significant challenges for organizations based in the United States. In this presentation, our experts discuss key aspects of the planned US Basel III liquidity regulations, critical challenges in implementing these regulations, and a best practice framework for delivering compliance with the US Basel III directive.
In this webinar, recorded on May 1, 2014 Anna Krayn and Olivier Brucker discuss key aspects of the planned US Basel III liquidity regulations, critical challenges in implementing these regulations, and a best practice framework for delivering compliance with the US Basel III directive.
In this article, we discuss where CCAR and Basel III intersect, with a particular focus on the data, analytics, and reporting layers of a sound CCAR/Basel III IT architecture, and why banks should address both within an integrated platform to meet, and go beyond, regulatory compliance.
November 2013
WebPage
Anna Krayn, Michael Richitelli
This article discusses two conceptual approaches for modeling stressed credit losses: top-down and bottom-up. It highlights the benefits and challenges of using each approach and regulatory expectations.
