メインコンテンツに移動

A vicious circle

Regulators are looking at how best to ensure capital adequacy rules are not pro-cyclical. The Basel Committee has proposed changes to its market risk rules, but further, counter-cyclical changes have been suggested. What is being considered and what are the ramifications of any change? By Joel Clark

p23-tattersall-jpg

Critics of Basel II have long argued the rules are inherently pro-cyclical. The risk-sensitive nature of the framework means capital requirements would fall in a boom, yet rise in a downturn - a feature some claimed would force banks, facing severe capital constraints, to cut back lending in any recession, further aggravating the slump.

The financial crisis has meant tackling this issue has taken

コンテンツを印刷またはコピーできるのは、有料の購読契約を結んでいるユーザー、または法人購読契約の一員であるユーザーのみです。

これらのオプションやその他の購読特典を利用するには、info@risk.net にお問い合わせいただくか、こちらの購読オプションをご覧ください: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe

現在、このコンテンツをコピーすることはできません。詳しくはinfo@risk.netまでお問い合わせください。

Sorry, our subscription options are not loading right now

Please try again later. Get in touch with our customer services team if this issue persists.

New to Risk.net? View our subscription options

無料メンバーシップの内容をお知りになりたいですか?ここをクリック

パスワードを表示
パスワードを非表示にする

Most read articles loading...