メインコンテンツに移動

US banks rue missed opportunity to reform G-Sib surcharge

As method 2 drifts away from Basel, critics fear comparability and competitiveness will suffer

US hot air balloon

When the US Federal Reserve decided to produce its own variation of a risk-based capital surcharge that was meant to apply uniformly to all global systemically important banks (G-Sibs), the regulator acknowledged there might be some drawbacks.

One specific difference between the approach used by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision – which became known as method 1 in the US – and the Fed’s

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...

You need to sign in to use this feature. If you don’t have a Risk.net account, please register for a trial.

ログイン
You are currently on corporate access.

To use this feature you will need an individual account. If you have one already please sign in.

Sign in.

Alternatively you can request an individual account here