Time running out
Basel II will be implemented across much of Europe and Asia in just six months' time, yet there's still plenty of uncertainty about how national supervisors will implement the framework.
In Europe, regulators are working to interpret the capital requirements directive (CRD) - EU legislation that paves the way for the implementation of Basel II across the 25 member states - and apply that into national law ahead of the January 1, 2007 start date. However, there's concern about how this legislation is being applied by individual regulators, complaints over ambiguity in the national rulebooks, and fears that the framework will be applied inconsistently.
This is demonstrated most vividly in the responses to the UK Financial Services Authority's (FSA) most recent consultation paper on its implementation of the CRD, published in February. In a joint response released in May by several industry bodies, including the International Swaps and Derivatives Association and the British Bankers' Association, the associations raise concerns about the clarity of the FSA's rulebook, and note the language is confused, imprecise and unnecessarily legalistic (page 11).
As large chunks of the FSA's paper are taken directly from the CRD - a piece of jargon-heavy EU legislation meant for government lawyers, not for everyday reference by bank risk managers - greater guidance and explanation is needed, the associations say. Without this guidance, there's a good chance of inconsistent implementation, not only between various jurisdictions, but also between banks in the UK. The FSA also needs to ensure it has the resources to provide individual guidance to any bank unsure about its interpretation of the rulebook - particularly if the regulator intends to punish firms for breaching the rules, the associations say.
Putting those extra resources in place to provide greater explanation and individual guidance may just about be possible for the FSA, but is likely to be more problematic for other, less well-resourced supervisors. There's already a heavy burden on regulators to put a framework in place to assess and validate banks' internal models under Pillar I. Throw in Pillar II, which requires regulators to review and evaluate banks' internal capital adequacy assessments, and the home-host issue, which will entail lengthy and ongoing negotiation with countless other regulators to ensure there's no duplication of effort in model validation, and it's difficult to see how many supervisors will cope with the workload. Given that few regulators are able to match investment bank wages, it won't be easy for those looking to bolster resources to attract the necessary expertise.
As we head towards the start date, and both banks and regulators get down to the nitty-gritty of implementation, it's becoming increasingly clear what a gargantuan beast Basel II really is. With just six months to go, banks and regulators will have to pull out all the stops to avoid just muddling through.
Nick Sawyer, Editor.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Printing this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Copying this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Industry calls for major rethink of Basel III rules
Isda AGM: Divergence on implementation suggests rules could be flawed, bankers say
Saudi Arabia poised to become clean netting jurisdiction
Isda AGM: Netting regulation awaiting final approvals from regulators
Japanese megabanks shun internal models as FRTB bites
Isda AGM: All in-scope banks opt for standardised approach to market risk; Nomura eyes IMA in 2025
CFTC chair backs easing of G-Sib surcharge in Basel endgame
Isda AGM: Fed’s proposed surcharge changes could hike client clearing cost by 80%
UK investment firms feeling the heat on prudential rules
Signs firms are falling behind FCA’s expectations on wind-down and liquidity risk management
The American way: a stress-test substitute for Basel’s IRRBB?
Bankers divided over new CCAR scenario designed to bridge supervisory gap exposed by SVB failure
Industry warns CFTC against rushing to regulate AI for trading
Vote on workplan pulled amid calls to avoid duplicating rules from other regulatory agencies
Bank of Communications moves early to meet TLAC requirements
China Construction Bank becomes last China G-Sib to release TLAC plans
Most read
- Top 10 operational risks for 2024
- Top 10 op risks: third parties stoke cyber risk
- Japanese megabanks shun internal models as FRTB bites