Basel Core Principles changed to reflect need for international co-operation
The 1997 core principles have been updated to reflect the need for international convergence and sound financial risk practices.
The Basel core principles for effective banking supervision have been updated to pay more attention to cross-border issues and sound risk management and corporate governance practices.
The revision also emphasises the need for closer co-operation and information-sharing between national regulators, as well as the importance of regulators’ independence, accountability and transparency.
The principles were changed as a result of a decision at the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) in 2004 to update the 1997 version to a globally applicable standard. The revised principles were completed by the BCBS’ Core Principles Liaison Group, and were released yesterday at the International Convention of Banking Supervisors (ICBS).
Apart from the core principles, the ICBS focused on regulatory co-operation and improvements in banks’ governance. Banking supervisors from 120 countries discussed the arising issues of international banks in domestic markets, and the impact of home-host on implementing Basel II.
Nicholas Le Pan, the vice-chairman of the BCBS, said “enhanced communication and co-operation among supervisors are hugely important not only to the success of Basel II implementation, but also to how we supervise global banks most efficiently and effectively as banks and markets rapidly evolve.”
The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) noted that the revised principles should be used from now on, though it acknowledged that full implementation may take time.
Click here to see the revised principles on the BIS website and here to see the corresponding methodology.
BaselAlert.comOnly 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
Double, but no trouble? CVA capital hit may lack clout
Industry opinion mixed around Basel III endgame derivatives charge
Amid debanking drama, banks try to say ‘no’, safely
A basic risk management tool – the ability to turn a customer away – has become a political football
Erba myth: will US banks choose new capital measure?
B3E gives US banks a dilemma – adopt expanded risk-based approach, or a new standardised alternative
Illiquid assets pricing still needs expert judgement, say banks
EU regulators want more transparency in valuations, but some asset prices remain elusive
Fed to move tailored-capital goalposts soon, says Bowman
Banks hope agencies will index triggers for harsher capital rules to economic growth
Will SEC reporting proposal supercharge alt data providers?
Move that would allow companies to opt out of quarterly reporting disclosures welcomed
EU lawmaker calls for review of Luxembourg’s cross-border rules
Grand Duchy accused of side-stepping rules aimed at prising away banking business from London
Un-American or un-JPM? Surcharge rethink divides G-Sibs
Some see sense in rethink to funding indicator, others call for a backtrack