Risk identification and materiality assessment
A considered view of which risks bind for your institution, not a copied register.
Advisory
An ICAAP your board uses, not one your supervisor files.
We build the stress testing model, quantify the risks Pillar 1 does not capture, and write the document — so the capital number means something before it is submitted.
Context
What you are facing
Most ICAAP submissions are documents. Fewer are assessments.
The pattern is familiar: a risk register assembled from last year’s, a stress test consisting of a single haircut applied in a spreadsheet, a capital number that lands comfortably above the requirement, and a board paper nobody consults again until the next cycle. It satisfies the supervisor for as long as the supervisor is reading it as a compliance return.
That is changing. Supervisors across the region are asking harder questions about scenario severity, about how Pillar 2 risks were quantified rather than merely listed, and about whether the capital assessment actually constrains anything the institution does.
Deliverables
What we deliver
Concrete outputs, not activities.
Pillar 2 quantification
Credit concentration measured rather than asserted, interest rate risk in the banking book, strategic and reputational risk, and the risks your Pillar 1 calculation does not reach.
Stress testing model
Scenarios built from macroeconomic drivers relevant to your portfolio, calibrated to a severity you can justify, and run through to capital impact.
Reverse stress testing
The scenario that breaks the institution, worked backwards. This is the section supervisors read most closely and the one most often missing.
Capital planning
The projection, the buffer, and the management actions available at each stage of deterioration.
Risk appetite linkage
So the ICAAP connects to limits that actually operate rather than sitting beside them.
The ICAAP document
Written to be read by your board and defended to your supervisor.
Methodology
How we work
Step 01 of 04
01
Discover
Your portfolio, your supervisor’s guidance, and what your last submission was asked about.
Jurisdiction
Delivered under the Bank of Uganda’s capital adequacy and ICAAP guidance, and under Bank of Tanzania requirements. The methodology transfers to CBK, BNR, the Bank of Botswana and the Bank of Zambia, and to institutions adopting Basel Pillar 2 proportionately.
Where we have done this
Across the Ugandan market
ICAAP frameworks and stress testing models for seven institutions — commercial banks, a microfinance bank and microfinance institutions — under the same supervisory regime, which means the methodology has been tested against one regulator’s expectations repeatedly rather than once.
At a tier-one bank in Tanzania
ICAAP and ILAAP delivered together, at scale.
Related services
The deepen motion — where existing clients extend.
Next step
Send us your last submission.
The fastest way to scope this work is to look at what you submitted last cycle and what your supervisor came back with. Under NDA, and with no obligation.