Imagine a major European bank quietly underplaying its financial risks – could this erode the very trust we place in our banking system? It's a scenario that might sound like something out of a thriller, but it's exactly what unfolded with the European Central Bank's (ECB) recent actions against AS LHV Group. Stick around to uncover the details, and let's explore why this matters to everyone from everyday savers to financial experts.
- PRESS RELEASE
4 November 2025
- ECB Levies a €405,000 Fine on AS LHV Group for Violating Market Risk Reporting Guidelines
- Financial Institution Miscomputed Its Risk-Weighted Assets Tied to Foreign Exchange Positions
The European Central Bank (ECB) has handed down an administrative penalty totaling €405,000 to AS LHV Group due to inaccurate reporting of risk-weighted assets linked to market risk. To put this in simpler terms for beginners, risk-weighted assets are essentially a bank's way of measuring how much risk it carries in its portfolio – think of it as a scorecard that helps determine how much capital (like cash reserves) the bank needs to hold as a safety net against potential losses.
For eight straight quarters, spanning from the second quarter of 2022 through the first quarter of 2024, the bank reported lower-than-accurate consolidated risk-weighted assets for market risk. The error occurred because they mistakenly factored in an intragroup GBP-denominated exposure when figuring out their net spot GBP position. And this is the part most people miss – a bank's net spot GBP position essentially represents its overall exposure to the British pound. It's calculated by subtracting GBP-denominated liabilities (what the bank owes in pounds) from its GBP-denominated assets (what it owns in pounds). If this balance is off, it can distort the true picture of the bank's vulnerability to currency swings.
The bank didn't just make a minor slip-up; this breach was committed with serious negligence, rooted in major shortcomings in its risk management systems and internal oversight processes. When a bank's overall net foreign exchange position – that is, its combined exposure to all foreign currencies – is wrongly computed, it leads to an inaccurate portrayal of its real risk exposure. In this case, AS LHV Group ended up understating its risk-weighted assets specifically related to foreign exchange risks.
But here's where it gets controversial – underestimating these assets throws off the bank's capital ratios, which are key metrics showing how well-capitalized an institution is and its ability to weather financial storms. For example, imagine a bank that thinks it has enough reserves to cover losses, but due to underreporting, it's actually running on thinner ice than it realizes. This not only skews the ECB's ability to properly evaluate the bank's risk profile but could potentially leave depositors or the broader economy exposed if things go south. Some might argue this is a wake-up call for stricter oversight, while others could debate whether €405,000 is a slap on the wrist for such a prolonged mistake. What do you think – is the penalty too lenient, or does it send the right message?
When determining the size of such penalties, the ECB follows its publicly available guideline on setting administrative monetary sanctions (available at https://www.bankingsupervision.europa.eu/ecb/pub/pdf/ssm.guidetothemethodofsettingadministrativepecuniarypenalties_202103~400cbafa55.en.pdf). In this instance, the breach was categorized as "moderately severe," falling within a spectrum that includes levels like "minor," "severe," "very severe," and "extremely severe." For more information on other ECB-imposed sanctions, check out their supervisory sanctions webpage at https://www.bankingsupervision.europa.eu/framework/sanctions/html/index.en.html.
AS LHV Group has the option to appeal this ECB ruling before the Court of Justice of the European Union.
For any media inquiries, reach out to François Peyratout at tel.: +49 172 8632 119.
Notes
- The ECB's authority to enforce these sanctions comes from Article 18(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013, dated 15 October 2013, which assigns specific responsibilities to the European Central Bank for the prudential supervision of credit institutions.
- Any decision to impose a sanction can be contested at the Court of Justice of the European Union, following the conditions and deadlines outlined in Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
- Addressing weaknesses in banks' risk data aggregation and reporting systems is a key focus of the ECB's supervisory agenda (see https://www.bankingsupervision.europa.eu/framework/priorities/html/ssm.supervisory_priorities202412~6f69ad032f.en.html#toc14).
CONTACT
European Central Bank
This incident raises bigger questions about accountability in finance – should penalties like this be harsher to deter future errors, or is €405,000 enough to encourage better practices without crippling banks? Do you agree with the ECB's classification of this as 'moderately severe,' or would you classify it differently? Share your opinions in the comments below – let's discuss!
