Bank Capital and Basel III Regulations: Implementation and Effects
Note: As we have discussed in other contexts, Basel IV also presumes that banks cannot model operational risk, but this conclusion is understandable, as no one can model operational risk. Now, though, that regime has been increasingly displaced by reliance on models that were devised by subcommittees of the Basel Committee to calculate the credit risk of every U.
It is worth noting that we do not know exactly how they reached these decisions, as neither the underlying data nor other information used to calibrate those government models has ever been disclosed. The potential ramifications here are not hard to discern. If capital ends up being set through a standardized model, the government inevitably will determine to a large extent who qualifies for credit and on what terms. It is also worth noting, as a matter of systemic risk, that when the government makes this decision for all banks, it inevitably concentrates bank assets in asset classes favored by the governmental model.
The rationale behind this quiet but significant shift is clear. Global regulators are concerned that if banks were permitted to decide how much capital to hold against a given asset, they would understate the risk and hold inappropriately low levels of capital in order to boost returns. While that risk is a genuine one, it must be weighed against the benefits of competition in banking, which are derived only to the extent that competition in risk management is permitted.
In the United States, one would think that such a debate should occur at the congressional level, or at least through a genuine administrative process. Banks As noted above, for European and Asian banks, the return to a standardized approach to credit risk comes with an important exception — they may now take into account external ratings issued by credit rating agencies e.
This produces risk weights that are systematically lower than those applicable to assets for which no rating is available or may not be used per national law ; it also provides at least some modicum of risk sensitivity. Furthermore, this abdication will almost certainly create a credit divide between businesses large enough to obtain ratings and thereby better terms from banks able to improve terms given a lower capital requirement and smaller businesses that cannot.
Given that by all accounts the standardized approach imposes considerably higher capital charges where external ratings are not or cannot be used, this divide will likely punish small businesses relative to large. Theoretical problems here, though, are overwhelmed by a tsunami of practical experience and common sense, as it was the credit rating agencies that overvalued mortgage-related assets throughout the s, were a crucial component of the originate-to-distribute model that fueled massive mortgage lending, and were the crucial component in the system whereby a large collection of bad mortgages were through alchemy combined to become an investment-grade security — with the investment grade by definition being granted by the credit rating agencies.
In direct response, the U. Congress prohibited U. The Basel Committee, apparently, saw it differently. This result puts U. Other banks can preserve a semblance of private sector input and private view of risk in the capital process by outsourcing that task to government-approved companies and obtaining lower, more granular risk weights.
Unless U. If such a regime were put up for debate in the U. Congress, or among the American public, it is difficult to imagine it getting many votes. Why, then, has there been so little objection to Basel IV? A few reasons follow:. And for some non-U. They are eligible for an alternative in the standardized approach for credit risk that permits the use of external credit ratings, and many do not have significant market share of capital markets businesses, as U.
And they do not have a CCAR stress test that begins with standardized risk weights. Thus, absent a thoughtful implementation by U.
- Loss of a Father: A Collection of Poems!
- The Other Side of the Medal.
- Basel III Framework: US/EU Comparison?
- Outsmart Your Business Competitors: The How-To Guide.
- Wo die wilden Hunde wohnen: Klettergeschichten aus Tirol (German Edition).
- None Shall Divide Us: To Some He is a Hero. The IRA Want Him Dead. This is the True Story of the Artist Who Was Irelands Most Notorious Assassin.
Other likely candidates for substantial impact are European banks that have significant trading operations or devote a large portion of their balance sheet to particularly low-risk mortgage or other loans. Meanwhile, in the Real World This issue of Banking Perspectives includes an article by the founders of Credit Benchmark, which could not be better timed. The goal of that company with which neither I nor The Clearing House has any affiliation is to gather from as many banks as possible the probability of default and loss given default ratings for as many corporate borrowers as possible.
In theory, with that information shared among participating banks on an aggregated and anonymized basis, each bank could know where it stands relative to peers, allowing it to reevaluate its internal rating in the event it becomes an outlier — that is, if its internal rating system classifies the borrower higher or lower than average. The most remarkable fact about Credit Benchmark is that this exercise is occurring in fact, not just in theory. Currently, 21 large global banks are contributing data, and the requisite three or more ratings exist for over 14, firms.
Of these, approximately 9, are unrated — so, Credit Benchmark is providing an outside view for businesses too small to obtain a credit rating. Item Type Report. Identifier Unique identifying numbers for this report in the Digital Library or other systems. Collections This report is part of the following collection of related materials. About Browse this Collection. Digital Files 23 image files available in multiple sizes 1 file. When Dates and time periods associated with this report. Creation Date November 14, Description Last Updated June 22, , a. Usage Statistics When was this report last used?
Yesterday: 0. Past 30 days: 6. Total Uses: More Statistics. Where Geographical information about where this report originated or about its content. Place Name United States. Publication Place Washington D. Library of Congress. And if so, banks may end up either i reducing their lending activity as means of reducing their risks and therefore their needs for higher capital requirements, or ii increasing to their consumers the costs of their financial services. In both cases, these higher transaction costs will exacerbate the problem of financial exclusion already existing in many emerging economies.
Status of implementation
The Basel Accord, like most financial regulation, reflected the priorities of its drafters. These included concerns about financial stability and the overall robustness of international capital markets, most of which, if not entirely, where in G10 jurisdictions. From an economic perspective, financial regulation seeks to minimize information asymmetries, negative externalities, and other market frictions that may undermine the ability of the financial system to perform its functions. Therefore, along with the divergences that countries may have in terms of financial priorities, different problems and infrastructures may lead to different regulatory objectives.
Indeed, financial regulation in a developed economy usually seeks to pursue similar goals, mainly associated with investor protection, the prevention of financial crime, and the promotion of competition, market efficiency, and financial stability. For example, some emerging economies may prioritize financial inclusion just as much as they do financial stability. In order to grow their economies in a sustained fashion or to achieve financial security for unbanked or underbanked swaths of their domestic populations, they may choose ostensibly less onerous regulatory strategies to kick start and drive development.
Moreover, since the type of financial institutions operating in many emerging economies might be relatively small, domestic, and with a simple business model, the concerns for financial stability and systemic risks cannot be as powerful, or at least as complex to address, as it can be the case of other countries or financial institutions. Therefore, the imposition of a financial regulation mainly focused on addressing systemic risk may exacerbate some local problems e. As a result, Basel capital requirements should be sufficiently tailored to respond to the economic priorities of a particular system.
The types of problems and infrastructures existing in a country may also diverge significantly. For example, some countries exhibit more market-based financial systems while other jurisdictions may have larger banking systems. Derivative markets can be very developed in many economies while derivatives in many countries might be even prohibited or strongly discouraged. The banking system of a particular country can be formed by many small financial institutions while other banking sectors are mainly governed by a few major financial conglomerates.
These divergences, among many others, may lead to different economic and financial problems and infrastructures that might require different regulatory responses.
Basel III – journey or destination?
For example, in countries with a large banking sector, financial stability and systemic risk are probably considered major issues for financial regulators. Likewise, in countries with well-developed capital markets and many sophisticated investors and participants, the regulator can rely more on the market as a way to protect investors.
By contrast, in countries in which the market is not able to accurately price the governance and performance of a firm, the regulator might need to be more paternalistic. The United States faced in one of the hardest financial crisis in the history mainly due to a housing bubble and the securitization of subprime mortgages. The Basel requirements may also have different consequences across jurisdictions. For example, in developing economies, the imposition of capital requirements may exacerbate the problem of pervasive financial exclusion.
The Basel Accord at its essence requires companies to issue shares, or avoid lending to presumed risky borrowers, where they are deemed to have insufficient capital. Furthermore, in countries with underdeveloped capital markets, the costs associated with issuing shares can be much higher due to the inability of a bank to raise capital in local markets. Therefore, the issuance of shares becomes more expensive due to higher transaction costs e. It can also have a direct impact on the allocation and access to credit in a jurisdiction.
In China, for example, it has been shown that the implementation of capital requirements can lead to lending discrimination against small businesses.
Related U.S. Implementation of the Basel Capital Regulatory Framework
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved