Comment requested on revised non-Basel II capital adequacy standards
Several US banking oversight and regulatory agencies, including the Federal Reserve Board, have requested public comment within 90 days on proposed changes to current US capital adequacy standards. The revised standards would, in the future, apply to banks that will not fall under the scope of Basel II.
According to Dugan, the primary goal of the request was to increase the risk sensitivity of domestic risk-based capital rules without unduly increasing regulatory burden. Changes to capital adequacy are being considered jointly by the Fed, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Office of Thrift and Supervision (OTS).
Comments on a number of issues related to non-Basel II capital adequacy have been requested, including changes around the number and magnitude of risk weights, the use of external credit ratings and treatment of securitisation – all of which have been flashpoints in previous discussions about more closely aligning capital requirements with risk.
Last month, US regulators announced that the compliance date for Basel II has been pushed back by three years, because of mixed results from the fourth quantitative impact study (QIS4), which was completed in January 2005. The exercise raised concerns over a potentially sharp decrease in capital requirements for some banks, possibly leaving then vulnerable to idiosyncratic shocks. Under the revised implementation schedule announced on September 30, Basel II requirements will be phased in between 2009 and 2011.
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
FRTB revamp won’t restore models to past glory, risk managers say
US-inspired reform only expected to lead to small boost in adoption, with limited desks on IMA
Regulators must think bigger to tackle tech risks, says Hong Kong SFC
Leung warns AI adoption and recent cyber scares show new threats require global co-operation
Time to let some air out of the banking system?
Watchdogs worry about lowering standards, but policy-makers eye growth – they face a difficult dilemma
Competitiveness mandate for Esma faces uphill battle
European Parliament offers last chance to force Esma to take more nuanced approach
Europe expects FRTB to bite on XVA hedges
Risk Benchmarking: One-third of European dealers fear new market risk rules will have major effect on hedges
Burning ambition: will Europe join the US in setting fire to the rules?
As the US dismantles post-crisis regulations, some think Europe will follow in a bid to boost economic growth
Can US perpetual futures solve their identity crisis?
Market could fall under four different regulatory categories, with sharply diverging outcomes
Banks want AML data upgrade to complement US regulatory reform
FinCEN’s proposed overhaul sparks debate on whether it will lead to smarter or weaker supervision