Emerging Asian markets question one-size-fits-all bank rules
Nations such as the Philippines seek a more proportionate approach to level the playing field with global lenders
The noise generated by divisions between Europe and the US over the implementation of a global bank rule tends to deflect attention from Asia, a region that could ultimately benefit from a more customised approach.
Asian regulators, who have typically been rule-takers over the past nine years, need to strike an appropriate balance between risk reduction and credit availability to meet the long-term funding needs of small- to medium-sized companies, trade and infrastructure, and allow financial markets to develop.
Countries in the region, while not responsible for the 2008 global financial crisis, have more or less committed to implementing regulatory reforms in full, even though some are not particularly appropriate to regional banks.
In many cases, Asian banks have consistently operated with less leverage than their western peers, so higher Basel capital requirements do not pose a challenge. But the sophisticated models on which the large, advanced banks assess their risks and calibrate their capital charges are less relevant for emerging market banks, many of whom are local lenders that are not too big to fail.
Ephyro Amatong, a commissioner at the Philippine Securities and Exchange Commission, said at the Asia Risk Congress in September: “It’s one thing, post the 2008 crisis, to come up with reforms for markets that are already established, but for jurisdictions like the Philippines, where capital markets are growing, it’s a challenge to implement the standards that have been set.”
“We are not talking about repeal, we are not talking about deviation from the financial framework – we are talking about implementing it better. Maybe [by being] more proportionate to the state of where your market is,” he added.
Clearly, it is not necessary to impose the same kind of capital charges on locally active banks as on globally systemic ones. The collapse of these local lenders will not pose a threat to either the regional or global financial system, and smaller banks cannot afford the vast risk departments of their global peers.
Moreover, Asian jurisdictions need room to expand the depth of their markets in a region where businesses are often underserved by financial institutions.
The ratio of credit provided by the domestic financial sector is less than 100% of the gross domestic product in Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Myanmar and the Philippines, according to the World Bank. In developed countries, the ratio is typically around 200% of GDP.
It is probably a good time for Asia to raise its voice and tweak the rules
That’s not all. The face value of corporate bonds outstanding is below 10% of GDP in Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam – countries with a combined population of roughly 460 million. And the secondary markets for both government and corporate bonds tend to lack liquidity in most southeast Asian countries.
While the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision has largely shut the door on changes to global bank regulations that have already been agreed, it is probably a good time for Asia to raise its voice and tweak the rules, given there are multiple reviews around.
The Financial Stability Board, the financial regulatory arm of the Group of 20 nations, finalised plans in July for an evaluation of the post-crisis regulatory framework, in what is seen as an attempt to shore up an increasingly fragile consensus.
In the US, the Department of the Treasury has begun a comprehensive review of the country’s prudential and financial market regulations, as requested by President Donald Trump.
There is little evidence that post-crisis regulations have actually inhibited financial markets in the US and yet the government is overhauling those rules. In Asia, where regulators do see signs of the unsuitability of global rules to local institutions, a similar review would surely have even stronger justification.
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、このコンテンツを印刷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。
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。
Copyright インフォプロ・デジタル・リミテッド.無断複写・転載を禁じます。
当社の利用規約、https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/(ポイント2.4)に記載されているように、印刷は1部のみです。
追加の権利を購入したい場合は、info@risk.netまで電子メールでご連絡ください。
Copyright インフォプロ・デジタル・リミテッド.無断複写・転載を禁じます。
このコンテンツは、当社の記事ツールを使用して共有することができます。当社の利用規約、https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/(第2.4項)に概説されているように、認定ユーザーは、個人的な使用のために資料のコピーを1部のみ作成することができます。また、2.5項の制限にも従わなければなりません。
追加権利の購入をご希望の場合は、info@risk.netまで電子メールでご連絡ください。
詳細はこちら 我々の見解
AIエージェントが、信頼できないスタッフのような存在である理由
GenAIシステムに内在する不確実性により、リスク管理担当者はより対立的なアプローチをとらざるを得ません
批判派は、パーペチュアルはすべてフロスだと言っています。しかし、数字はそうではないことを示唆している
TradFiを原資産とする永久先物に対する堅調な未決済建玉は、CMEやEurexといった既存の取引所にとって脅威となる可能性があります
SpaceXがCMEの個別銘柄先物に待望の追い風をもたらした
S&P 500先物契約へのIPO関連の追加契約として、新たな契約が急増する可能性があります
Bank vs non-bank: FX’s two-tier reality
CME and LSEG data show banks provide sticky and broad liquidity, while non-banks cling tightly to the price
規制当局はエンフォースメントを甘くしているのか?(そして、私たちはそれを気にするべきなのか?)
米国の規制当局は、技術的な規則違反に対する罰則を緩和しており、小さくとも重要なリスクが見過ごされてしまうのではないかという懸念が高まっています
FX HedgePoolを超えて:オール・トゥ・オール(All-to-All)の今後はどうなる?
この取引モデルの支持者たちは、その将来性を明るく見ていますが、普及に向けた障壁は依然として残っています。
バーゼル協定のCVA見直し:米国では説得力があるものの、欧州ではそれほどではない
信用リスクモデルの使用禁止は、米国の銀行がより高度なCVA手法を採用するきっかけとなる可能性があります
オルタナティブ・データは予測市場に賭けているのか?
新たなデータの豊富な情報源を提供する一方で、法的な不確実性は依然として残っています