The European Union is working on Solvency II which assigns capital for a wider set of risks than Solvency I.
One approach to overcoming this problem is for regulators themselves to provide the scenarios. This creates a lot of additional work for regulators, but it is obviously attractive for them to use the same set of scenarios for all banks.
If regulators see many banks taking positions with similar risks, they could insist that all banks consider a particular set of scenarios that gave rise to adverse results for the positions.
The problem for both senior management and the risk management group is that they have two separate reports on their desks concerning what could go wrong.
I think these "for" here fits the 1st definition (used to show who is intended to have or use something or where something is intended to be put) in OALD. I am not sure if it is the same usage as in "get/buy/bring sth for sb", which indicates sb is the recipient of sth.
However, I wonder why sometimes to is used instead as in "give/sing/explain sth to sb". Here to also indicates sb is the recipient of sth. Here to introduces an indirect object.
If I replaced "for" with "to" in my examples above, would it bring any difference?