Rebalancing the Three Pillars of Basel II

Jean-Charles Rochet

Contents
1.

Development and Validation of Key Estimates for Capital Models

2.

Explaining the Correlation in Basel II: Derivation and Evaluation

3.

Explaining the Credit Risk Elements in Basel II

4.

Loss Given Default and Recovery Risk: From Basel II Standards to Effective Risk Management Tools

5.

Assessing the Validity of Basel II Models in Measuring Risk of Credit Portfolios

6.

Measuring Counterparty Credit Risk for Trading Products under Basel II

7.

Implementation of an IRB-Compliant Rating System

8.

Stress Tests of Banks’ Regulatory Capital Adequacy: Application to Tier 1 Capital and to Pillar 2 Stress Tests

9.

Advanced Credit Model Performance Testing to Meet Basel Requirements: How Things Have Changed!

10.

Designing and Implementing a Basel II Compliant PIT–TTC Ratings Framework

11.

Basel II in the Light of Moody’s KMV Evidence

12.

Basel II Capital Adequacy Rules for Retail Exposures

13.

IRB-Compliant Models in Retail Banking

14.

Basel II Capital Adequacy Rules for Securitisations

15.

Regulatory Priorities and Expectations in the Implementation of the IRB Approach

16.

Market Discipline and Appropriate Disclosure in Basel II

17.

Validation of Banks’ Internal Rating Systems – A Supervisory Perspective

18.

Rebalancing the Three Pillars of Basel II

19.

Implementing a Basel II Scenario-Based AMA for Operational Risk

20.

Loss Distribution Approach in Practice

21.

An Operational Risk Rating Model Approach to Better Measurement and Management of Operational Risk

22.

Constructing an Operational Event Database

23.

Insurance and Operational Risk

INTRODUCTION

The on-going reform of the Basel Accord is supposed to rely on three “pillars”: a new capital ratio, supervisory review and market discipline. But even a cursory look at the proposals of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) reveals a certain degree of imbalance between these three pillars. Indeed, the BCBS gives a lot of attention to the refinements of the risk weights in the new capital ratio (132 pages in the 3rd Consultative Paper of April 2003) but is much less precise about the other pillars (16 pages on Pillar 2 and 15 pages on Pillar 3).

Even though the initial capital ratio (Basel Committee 1988) has been severely criticised for being too crude and opening the door to regulatory arbitrage, it seems strange to insist so much on the importance of supervisory review11For example, the BCBS insists on the need to “enable early supervisory intervention if capital does not provide a sufficient buffer against risk” (Basel Committee 2003). and market discipline as necessary complements to capital requirements, while remaining silent of the precise ways22In particular, in spite of the existence of very precise proposals by US economists (Calomiris 1998; Ev

Sorry, our subscription options are not loading right now

Please try again later. Get in touch with our customer services team if this issue persists.

New to Risk.net? View our subscription options

You need to sign in to use this feature. If you don’t have a Risk.net account, please register for a trial.

Sign in
You are currently on corporate access.

To use this feature you will need an individual account. If you have one already please sign in.

Sign in.

Alternatively you can request an individual account here