[riskneutral]

> Let me explain what I mean. After a quick google: What is a Chief risk officer? ... That's all cost-center stuff, none of that has anything to do with the banking line of business.

This is hilarious. Next time, at least try asking ChatGPT instead of Google before becoming an expert on something new and explaining it to others on the Internet.

What you read is the CRO job description for a CRO of any corporation. All large corporations have CROs, and the CRO is responsible for the risks that all corporations have (security, insurance, etc). A bank CRO's job description includes all of that plus the banking risks, such as credit risk, capital markets risk and liquidity risk. A bank run, in particular, is a negative result of liquidity risk.

[Aeolun]

I think what OP is trying to say is that just because there is no CRO, doesn’t mean there is nobody that cares about risk. It’s a red herring.

If the CRO left, the whole organisation under and above him didn’t suddenly disappear. Chances are they have a top lieutenant that knows as much if not more of the actual risk than the CRO.

[waynesonfire]

I'd fire the CRO if I was tired of their shit too.

[jjeaff]

Or one might fire the CRO if they are tired of their incessant, daily nagging that the entire business it at risk and that we need to make sweeping changes that are going to negatively affect next quarter profitability.

[kragen]

under and above her, unless he's a man named laura

[fsckboy]

the rest of my point is the same, if a bank has a chief risk officer, it's the President of the bank, or an EVP. There are quants who track, measure and calculate financial risk, but that's a line responsibility, they're not chiefs. If you want to call the President of a "financial risk banking company" the chief of something, he's CEO, not CRO, even though risk management is his main job.