Interim Group Chief Risk Officer — Growth and Scale

A second line that can say no to growth

A Group Chief Risk Officer in a growing private bank holds an awkward position. Growth is what owners and executives want, and much of it is good. The risk function's value lies in being the one voice whose independence does not depend on how the quarter is going. An interim chief risk officer has to establish that independence quickly, without becoming the function that slows everything down, and has to do it in a way that outlasts the interim term.

Independent challenge is not opposition. It means that every material growth proposal, whether a new product, a new segment or a larger limit, reaches approval with its downside stated, its owner identified and the risk function's view on record. It means risk appetite statements that translate into actual limits, and limits that someone checks. And it means the second line has the standing to escalate when the first line disagrees.

What the interim chief risk officer decides

You will hold executive authority over the group's risk framework for the term. You will agree with the Group Chief Executive Officer how risk decisions are allocated and the thresholds local leaders keep, and define the evidence on which the group governs its use of capital, its capacity and its controls. You will rule on whether each existing commitment continues, is deferred or is closed. You will turn back any proposal that pushes cost or risk elsewhere with nobody answerable, as well as investment cases that ignore adoption, dependencies or the bad case. And you will set how the risk function is led, the route by which risks reach the executive and the board, and a reporting cadence that shows the board progress, exceptions and open decisions.

Eighteen months of building independence

In the first ninety days, you and the Group Chief Executive Officer should settle and write down group risk appetite, the thresholds for risk-taking and the risk function's rights of independent challenge. By month nine, growth proposals should routinely pass through risk challenge before approval, with downside and ownership on record, so that challenge has become a habit rather than an event. By month 18, the group should have an independent second line that scales with it, reporting open risks and exceptions to the board on a set cadence and led by people who do not depend on you.

A risk leader who holds a line

The organisations where you have run risk reached $650 million in revenue, 1,200 people and three countries. Your experience of ESG transition, succession and turnaround will be weighed: ESG transition because that is where new risk categories enter appetite frameworks before the data is mature, succession because a second line is only as independent as its next leader, and turnaround because it tests whether you can hold a line under pressure. Risk judgement at level 4 is central, with assurance testing, risk appetite and regulatory engagement at level 3.

You have told a chief executive about a downside they did not want to hear, and not softened it. You have refused funding where adoption and downside were unnamed, and then helped rebuild the capability to make the case properly. A commitment can stop on your word without a round of country-leader approvals, and the full 18 months are yours to answer for.

Meeting the chief executive, a regional president and the board

The Group Chief Executive Officer speaks with you first, confidentially and over video in week one, about the mandate and the independence you would need. In the second week the Regional President puts a case in front of you: a growth proposal of the sort a chief risk officer has to challenge without killing. By week three you are meeting the directors face to face. We aim to give you our response on paper within four working days of every stage.