
Regulators looking at possible changes to Basel II credit risk plans
The evidence confirmed banking industry fears that many banks faced higher capital charges under Basel II as proposed in January this year by the accord’s architect, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, the body that in effect regulates international banking.
And crucially, the evidence showed that banks using a more advanced approach to calculating a credit charge under Basel II would incur greater charges than they would if they used a simpler approach.
The Basel Committee acknowledged in early November that such an outcome would run counter to the basic intention of the risk-based Basel II accord. The idea is to give the incentive of lower capital charges to banks using use advanced internal risk measurement approaches.
The accord will determine from 2005 how much of their assets major banks will have to set aside as reserve capital to guard against banking risks, including credit and market risks as well as, for the first time, operational risk.
The evidence emerged from the results of the Basel regulators’ second quantitative survey (QIS 2) that sought to assess the potential effects of Basel II on banks. Overall, 138 banks from 25 countries participated in QIS 2.1.
The committee said it would issue yet another survey - QIS 2.52 - seeking statistical information on the effect that the possible modifications to the credit risk proposals might have. The committee wanted banks to answer the survey by the end of November.
QIS 2.5 entails incorporating the modifications that the Basel regulators are considering in the calculation of credit risk capital charges using the foundation internal ratings based (IRB) approach.
The IRB approach is the less complex of the two advanced approaches to calculating credit risk capital charges offered under the credit risk proposals set out in the regulators’ second Basel II consultative paper (CP 2) issued in January.
The QIS 2 survey found that many banks using the foundation IRB approach would have to set aside more capital than they would using the standardised approach, the simplest of the credit risk methods.
The possible modifications put forward by the regulations are 3:
1) A modified risk-weight curve for all corporate, sovereign and interbank portfolios. The effects of the modified curve would flow through to other portfolio treatments defined relative to the corporate IRB risk weights, including aspects of the securitisation, equity and specialised lending proposals.
2) Greater recognition of physical collateral and receivables.
3) Modified risk-weight curves for both residential mortgage exposures and for other retail exposures.
The Basel Committee reiterated that its aim was to maintain the equivalent on average of the capital charges required under Basel I and the Basel II standardised approach, and provide ‘modest incentives’ for banks to use the more advanced approaches.
The Basel regulators hope to issue their third Basel II consultative paper by the end of February, and to publish their final version of the accord by the end of next year.
1 Results of the Second Quantitative Impact Study
2 To participants in the Quantitative Impact Study 2.5
3 Potential modifications to the Committee’s proposals
All three documents issued by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, and available on the Bank for International Settlements’ website: www.bis.org.Operational Risk
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.
You may share this content using our article tools. Printing this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
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. Copying this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Basel Committee
FRTB implementation: key insights and learnings
Duncan Cryle and Jeff Aziz of SS&C Algorithmics discuss strategic questions and key decisions facing banks as they approach FRTB implementation
Basel concession strengthens US opposition to NSFR
Lobbyists say change to gross derivatives liabilities measure shows the whole ratio is flawed
Basel’s Tsuiki: review of bank rules no free-for-all
Evaluation of new framework by Basel Committee will not be excuse for tweaking pre-agreed rules
Pulling it all together: Challenges and opportunities for banks preparing for FRTB regulation
Content provided by IBM
EU lawmakers consider extending FRTB deadline
European Commission policy expert says current deadline is too ambitious
Custodians could face higher Basel G-Sib surcharges
Data shows removal of cap on substitutability in revised methodology would hit four banks
MEP: Basel too slow to deal with clearing capital clash
Isda AGM: Swinburne criticises Basel’s lethargy on clash between leverage and clearing rules
Fears of fragmentation over Basel shadow banking rules
Step-in risk guidelines could be taken more seriously in the EU than in the US