Hong Kong banks set to struggle with Basel II
Many of Hong Kong’s banks could struggle to implement the new proposals for capital adequacy by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, due to their lack of sophisticated risk management systems, claimed consultants Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu at a press briefing in Hong Kong yesterday.
The new Basel Accord, by addressing the shortcomings of the original 1988 Accord, has adopted a more ‘risk-sensitive’ methodology to credit risk capital adequacy. Most Hong Kong banks, said Xuereb, would implement the standardised approach. Risk weights under this approach are to be determined by reference to external credit ratings agencies such as Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s. An area of contention for Hong Kong banks, pointed out Xuereb, is that a large number of corporates in emerging countries have a credit rating under ‘B’ or are un-rated. The external risk weightings for such corporates will remain at 100% or rise to 150%, leading to an increase in capital charges for the banks.
Additionally, a risk management benchmark survey, also conducted by Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, found the lack of sophisticated risk management systems at Hong Kong banks has caused severe deficiencies in offsetting risk exposures. The over-capitalisation of banks has provided little incentive to integrate risk management on an enterprise-wide scale, which has led to inefficient allocation of capital, the report said.
In spite of these issues, Basel II should act as a catalyst for change in the risk management processes of Hong Kong banks. The banks will be obliged to perform a thorough review of the their risk management frameworks, and upgrade where necessary, said Xuereb.
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
EU states take the slow road to new cross-border services ban
Late national transposition hampers foreign banks’ decisions on location of affected activities
Don’t mention the rules: the fight against prediction market abuse
For the CFTC to regulate new venues effectively, it must first redefine insider trading
Can the US FRTB revamp make the IMA great again?
Banks are finally presented with a viable internal models framework under Basel III’s market risk rules
UK rethinking tougher capital rules for US bank subsidiaries
US endgame draft would trigger UK Basel III trap floor for foreign banks, but PRA is reviewing
EBA proposes drastic overhaul to supervisory data reporting
Revamp will cut back the number of datapoints and integrate overlapping reports
CFTC wants to regulate prediction markets. Is it up to the task?
Former officials echo state gambling authorities’ concerns over agency’s ability to police betting risks
EBA seeks to allay Simm divergence concerns
EU validator pledges to co-ordinate with global regulators, but retains ability to act alone “if needed”
FRTB models find salvation in US Basel III proposal
Changes to P&L attribution test and NMRFs make IMA viable for US banks, risk managers say