Risk Concentration Maturity · Large Exposures in the WAEMU
Your large exposures mapped, your limits held, your gap quantified into an action plan.
10 themes, a 5-level scale. And the action that moves each level to the next.
The framework’s 10 themes, already written from L1 to L5. One company, one business unit, or 300 at once.
Risk Concentration Maturity · Large Exposures in the WAEMU
10 themes, 5-level scale.
Nordhavn Industries
53 / 100
They measure their maturity with Datamensio
An example
This could be your situation.
Take one company as an example: three sites, three spreadsheets, no shared answer.
Nobody can consolidate.
Nordhavn Industries, 2,400 people in Hamburg, Lyon and Porto. A client asks where the group stands. Each site answers in its own spreadsheet, with its own scales.
Three weeks, a single base.
One Prudential framework applicable to credit institutions and financial holding companies in the WAMU, risk concentration and large exposures component (BCEAO) assessment launched across all three sites at once, from the managers’ interview notes. The framework was already written, its 10 themes and levels L1 to L5 too.
Two costs avoided before being committed.
A score of 53 out of 100, with the gap concentrated on three themes. The AI companion spotted that two actions duplicated those of another audit. The committee report took one sentence to request.
What it saved them
- 3sites measured on the same base, instead of three questionnaires to reconcile
- 2duplicate actions caught before the spend
- 1committee report, with no manual rework
These figures are an example. They could be yours.
The standard imposes processes. Datamensio says where you stand.
01
The framework is already written
Themes, questions and levels L1 to L5, all written. You do not start from an empty spreadsheet.
02
The score lands the same day
Online, by self-assessment link or in interview. Theme by theme, comparable over time.
03
The gap becomes a costed plan
Every step up carries its action. The AI prioritises on expected effect, not on the order of the standard.
04
Progress can be demonstrated
Campaign after campaign, against your target and against your own past. That is what your board asks for.
The maturity scale
One level, the next, and the action that links the two.
It is this mechanism (a level, a higher level, and the action that links the two) that turns a finding into a trajectory.
Are groups of connected beneficiaries identified and kept up to date according to a formalised doctrine?
- N1
No written doctrine. Groupings are established file by file, based on the account manager’s knowledge.
- N2
An internal note defines the connection criteria, but its application varies across branches and business lines, and group structure charts are not kept up to date.
- N3
The doctrine is disseminated and applied. Groups are recorded in the counterparty reference database and reviewed at each facility renewal.
- N4
Groupings are validated by an independent function, tracked with their justification, and checked by permanent control on a regular sample.
- N5
The doctrine is revised based on cases encountered and supervisory observations, with a version history and a measure of the impact of revisions on reported exposures.
Action to move from L2 to L3
Record group structure charts in the counterparty reference database with a unique identifier, make the grouping check mandatory at origination and renewal, and place the review of significant groups on the agenda of the monthly exposures committee.
« With Datamensio, we meet our objectives far more efficiently. The ERDF inspection services and our supervising ministry particularly appreciated an approach that gives them reliable data. »
Director, CCI 94CCI Île-de-France
« We believe this is the most suitable solution to scale our transformation project and measure impact according to our needs. »
Maja SucekChief Operating Officer, Interreg Danube
Rarely on its own
Frameworks combine. Put several together to cover your business, or have the AI write yours.
Take your first measurement
What this framework covers
Risk concentration is one of the pillars of the prudential framework of the West African Monetary Union. It requires limiting exposure to a single beneficiary or group of connected beneficiaries, expressed as a percentage of effective own funds, and capping the sum of exposures classified as large exposures. It presupposes a reliable mapping of counterparties, a clear doctrine on control links and economic dependency, the inclusion of off balance sheet commitments, the treatment of eligible collateral, and periodic reporting to the supervisory authority.
In practice, the difficulty is not the calculation rule, it lies upstream. Are groups of connected beneficiaries identified from a written doctrine, or reconstructed by the account manager at the time of the file? Is the counterparty reference database unique and shared between credit, legal and control functions, or do several databases coexist with different identifiers? Are breaches detected as they occur, or discovered when the regulatory statement is produced? Many institutions produce a compliant statement without being able to demonstrate its audit trail.
Two contextual points weigh on the subject. First, the transposition of Basel standards within the Union has brought concentration measurement closer to the own funds definitions and exposures used elsewhere, which shifts the burden towards data quality rather than the formula. Second, a frequent confusion persists between regulatory limits and internal limits: complying with the prudential ceiling says nothing about the institution’s risk appetite, nor about sectoral, sovereign or geographic concentrations that fall outside the strict scope of large exposures.
A compliance audit asks a binary question: is the ratio respected at the reporting date, yes or no. The maturity assessment asks another question: at what level of control does the framework that produces this ratio sit, and what precise action moves it to the next level. An institution can be compliant with a manual, non reproducible process. Another can be in temporary breach while having a solid detection, escalation and remediation framework. The score distinguishes between these two situations.
In Datamensio, the framework is ready to use and adaptable. The AI adjusts the themes, questions and levels to the institution’s profile, universal bank, bank type finance company, or financial holding company, or builds a variant from your internal procedures and regulatory statements.
Reference standard: Prudential framework applicable to credit institutions and financial holding companies in the WAMU, risk concentration and large exposures component (BCEAO)
The themes assessed
Governance of risk concentration
Formalised policy, roles of the board and risk committee, concentration risk appetite, alignment with credit policy, periodic review of the framework.
Identification of connected beneficiaries
Written doctrine on control and economic dependency, group structure chart, treatment of natural persons and their interests, case of public counterparties, validation of groupings.
Counterparty reference database and data quality
Uniqueness of the counterparty identifier, feeding from source systems, consistency checks, duplicate management, updating of ownership links.
Scope and measurement of exposures
Inclusion of on and off balance sheet items, guarantee commitments, interbank exposures, conversion factors, trading book exposures.
Effective own funds and ratio calculation
Consistency with the calculation of regulatory own funds, individual ceiling, overall large exposures limit, deductions and weightings, method documentation.
Collateral, guarantees and risk mitigation
Eligibility of guarantees received, substitution effect on the guarantor, valuation and revaluation of collateral, legal traceability of documents.
Internal limits and monitoring
Limits per counterparty, sector, country and industry, alert thresholds below the regulatory ceiling, first and second level control, monitoring frequency.
Breaches and remediation
Detection, escalation procedure, notification to the risk committee and the Banking Commission, remediation plan, deadlines met, case history.
Prudential reporting and audit trail
Production of regulatory statements, reconciliation with accounting and credit reporting, retention of supporting evidence, control before submission to the BCEAO.
Consolidated view and group scope
Aggregation of exposures of subsidiaries and branches, harmonisation of definitions, intragroup data reporting, consolidated monitoring of large exposures.
A short version of the framework is available for the online self-assessment.
Frequently asked questions
Does this assessment constitute proof of compliance with the prudential framework?
No. Datamensio measures the maturity of the framework and prepares for the supervisor’s review, it does not issue any certificate. Verification of compliance with risk concentration rules falls under the WAMU Banking Commission and your statutory auditors.
What is the difference between this assessment and a compliance audit?
The audit checks compliance with the ceiling at a reporting date and concludes with a gap or a compliance finding. The assessment places each practice on a progressive scale and indicates the action that moves it up a level. The two complement each other: the assessment prepares, the audit validates.
How long does the evaluation take?
The short version can be completed in one working session. The full version, run collaboratively with credit, permanent control and prudential reporting, spans one to two weeks, with most of the time spent gathering supporting evidence.
Can the framework be adapted to our institution?
Yes. The themes, questions and levels can be modified. The AI produces a variant based on your origination procedures and regulatory statements, for example for a bank type finance company or a financial holding company subject to consolidated supervision.
Does the assessment also cover internal concentration limits?
Yes. One theme covers sectoral, sovereign and geographic limits, which go beyond the strict scope of regulatory large exposures. This is often where the gap between compliance and effective steering lies.
Can several subsidiaries of the group be compared?
Yes. The same framework can be administered across several business units, with a score per theme and a benchmark between entities and against previous assessments. A cross cutting roadmap consolidates subsidiaries’ action plans without duplicating common actions.
How is the action plan built?
The gap between the score achieved and the target generates the actions. The AI groups them into a prioritised roadmap, and the service catalogue matches each action to a solution with its cost, timeline and expected impact on the score.
Where is the data hosted?
In France, at OVH, with backup at Scaleway. No transfer outside the European Union. The AI models used can be selected, including from European solutions.