
Basel Committee to look at Tier 1 capital quality
Radical changes being prepared by the Basel Committee on capital quality rules
As things stand, 50% of Tier 1 capital is supposed to qualify as 'core' equity, which is permanent, absorbs losses and gives the issuer freedom on whether to pay dividends. The rest can comprise various types of hybrid instruments, which are currently subject to a patchwork of national laws. European reforms were intended to harmonise those laws, but the crisis has prompted a focus on more fundamental questions.
"It's not about the Basel Committee versus Europe - it is yesterday's problems versus today's problems," says the regulator. "When we started this work, it was focused on hybrid instruments, but what's happening now is a much more fundamental review of what capital really is, what it's for, and what features of capital we need to see."
The boldest idea currently under discussion would be the inclusion of an anti-cyclical element to the capital regime. In the current crisis, capital requirements have increased at a time when capital is hardest to raise, intensifying the pressure on banks. Evidently, regulators have been paying attention. There is "strong support" within the Basel Committee for a plan to keep the minimum core equity requirement at 50% but to have it float upwards to a target of 75% when times are good, the regulator says. In other words, banks would be expected to make hay when the sun shines, building a large buffer of the very best quality capital,then be allowed to wind that down as the organisation suffers losses.
Thibaut Adam, head of capital markets structuring at BNP Paribas in London, says it is an interesting approach, but one that comes with problems: "The chief question would be about timing - who would decide when we were in good times or bad?"
A second bold change could be the abolition of Tier 2 capital. The regulator argues that because these instruments only absorb losses in a bankruptcy situation - and because the crisis has shown that large, systemically important banks are too big to fail - Tier 2 capital has become completely irrelevant. "If an instrument only has loss-absorbing capacity in an event that will never happen, then it has no loss-absorbing capacity for the purposes of Basel II. If these lower-quality instruments don't count for regulatory purposes, then banks will have little incentive to use them," he says.
The result will be a greater need for capital that has the same qualities as core equity. However, bankers argue that investors don't want to buy capital that is both permanent and would get written down by losses. One compromise might be to create fixed-term notes that are loss-absorbing. The regulator isn't impressed: "If there is a term limit, it obviously makes the hybrids more debt-like. It is hard to say where this dilemma will end up, but I refuse to believe banks will never be in a position to issue equity capital. Banks will have to issue these capital instruments, and ultimately there will be investors willing to buy them. It all depends on the pricing."
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.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
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. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
European Commission changes tune on proposed FRTB multiplier
Banks fear departure from original diversification factor undermines case for permanent relief
Supervisors should be mindful of geopolitical risks, says IMF
Shock events cause sizeable swings in asset pricing, institution’s latest report highlights
Bowman won’t commit to stress-testing the tariff shock
Nominated Fed vice-chair stonewalls calls to run ad hoc scenario similar to 2020 Covid test
Fed’s Bowman to ‘prioritise’ SLR exemption for US Treasuries
Reinstating Covid-era relief is a ‘no brainer’, dealers say, as bond markets reel from tariff chaos
SEC’s Peirce calls for rethink of international standards
Risk Live Boston: regulator rejects international calls for bank-like regulation of investors
Tariff turbulence piles pressure on banks’ VAR models
Backtesting breaches start to mount, but too early to tell if regulatory intervention needed
Trading desks want regulators to face down the NMRF monster
Rule-makers in Australia and the European Union are open to changes to the unpopular FRTB test
CFTC’s Doge-inspired drive to enforcement may fall short
Lawyers doubt guidance on rewards for self-reporting goes far enough