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
Lifeline keeps Europe’s hopes afloat for single-sided reporting
Despite Esma’s proposal for delegated reporting of trades, the industry may yet get its wish
EU’s plan to get competitive faces big legislative hurdles
Large and controversial legislative package may be too amorphous to deliver results quickly
FDIC relearns SVB lessons in resolution tinkering
Paring back requirements gets thumbs up from some, but concerns linger
Stablecoin consortia may be ‘interim’ step to solo bank issuance
Former Citi payments head and Ubyx founder says all G-Sibs will issue their own coins
Report once: will Esma’s €1bn reforms deliver the full picture?
Critics say plan to merge three reporting regimes will see scant returns, and won’t mesh with single-sided reporting
CFTC accused of ‘double standards’ on compute futures
Duffy questions ‘long review’ of CME’s contract when Kalshi already offers similar product
Europe’s banks can’t agree on how to fix the output floor
Some want market risk excluded, while others push for greater savings from credit modelling
SEC gunning to take over Cat in 2027
Regulator's bid for control of market surveillance apparatus splits industry participants