• A risk-based capital surcharge • Market liquidity, first based on the United States’ own “interagency liquidity risk-management guidance issued in March 2010” that require
  liquidity stress tests and set internal quantitative limits, later moving to a full Basel III regime – see below.

• [32] It summarized them as follows, and made clear they would apply not only to banks but also to all institutions with more than US$50 billion in assets: • “Risk-based capital
  and leverage requirements” including first annual capital plans, conduct stress tests, and capital adequacy “including a tier one common risk-based capital ratio greater than 5 percent, under both expected and stressed conditions” – see scenario
  analysis on this.

• Currently, the BCBS has stated derivatives cleared with a QCCP will be risk-weighted at 2% (The rule is still yet to be finalized in the U.S.) o Provide incentives to strengthen
  the risk management of counterparty credit exposures o Raise counterparty credit risk management standards by including wrong-way risk • Third, a leverage ratio will be introduced as a supplementary measure to the Basel II risk-based framework.

• Academics have criticized Basel III for continuing to allow large banks to calculate credit risk using internal models and for setting overall minimum capital requirements
  too low.

• [23] Basel 3.1: Finalising post-crisis reforms[edit] Further information: Basel III: Finalising post-crisis reforms The Basel 3.1 standards published in 2017 cover further
  reforms in six areas: standardised approach for credit risk (SA-CR); internal ratings based approach (IRB) for credit risk; CVA risk; operational risk; an output floor; and the leverage ratio.

• “Required actions would vary based on the severity of the situation, but could include restrictions on growth, capital distributions, and executive compensation, as well as
  capital raising or asset sales”.

• Key principles See also: Capital requirement, Capital adequacy ratio, and List of bank stress tests CET1 capital requirements[edit] The original Basel III rule from 2010 required
  banks to fund themselves with 4.5% of Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) (up from 2% in Basel II) of risk-weighted assets (RWAs).

• [16] The proposal requires financial institutions and FSOC designated nonbank financial companies[17] to have an adequate stock of high-quality liquid assets (HQLA) that can
  be quickly liquidated to meet liquidity needs over a short period of time.

• [9] Market risk: FRTB[edit] Further information: Fundamental Review of the Trading Book Following a Fundamental Review of the Trading Book, minimum capital requirements for
  market risk in the trading book will be based on a more sensitive standardized approach or internal model approval (IMA) for an expected shortfall measure rather than, under Basel II, value at risk.

• [47] Criticism[edit] Think tanks such as the World Pensions Council have argued that Basel III merely builds on and further expands the existing Basel II regulatory base without
  fundamentally questioning its core tenets, notably the ever-growing reliance on standardized assessments of “credit risk” marketed by two private sector agencies- Moody’s and S&P, thus using public policy to strengthen anti-competitive duopolistic
  practices.

• Mathematically it is expressed as follows: • The Net Stable Funding Ratio requires banks to hold sufficient stable funding to exceed the required amount of stable funding
  over a one-year period of extended stress.

• o intended to achieve the following objectives:  Put a floor under the buildup of leverage in the banking sector  Introduce additional safeguards against model risk and
  measurement error by supplementing the risk based measure with a simpler measure that is based on gross exposures.

• Notably, the Fed chose not to include GSE-issued securities in Level 1, despite industry lobbying, on the basis that they are not guaranteed by the “full faith and credit”
  of the U.S. government.

•  Requirement to use long-term data horizons to estimate probabilities of default,  downturn loss-given-default estimates, recommended in Basel II, to become mandatory 
  Improved calibration of the risk functions, which convert loss estimates into regulatory capital requirements.

• [26] • Fifth, a global minimum liquidity standard for internationally active banks is introduced that includes a 30-day liquidity coverage ratio requirement underpinned by
  a longer-term structural liquidity ratio called the Net Stable Funding Ratio.

• [30] The LCR is a short-term liquidity measure intended to ensure that banking organizations maintain a sufficient pool of liquid assets to cover net cash outflows over a
  30-day stress period.

• • The Federal Reserve Board itself would conduct tests annually “using three economic and financial market scenarios”.

• In addition to increasing capital requirements, it introduces requirements on liquid asset holdings and funding stability, thereby seeking to mitigate the risk of a run on
  the bank.

• [20] Lastly, the proposal requires both sets of firms (large bank holding companies and regional firms) subject to the LCR requirements to submit remediation plans to U.S.
  regulators to address what actions would be taken if the LCR falls below 100% for three or more consecutive days.

• [33] • In April 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Federal Reserve announced a temporary reduction of the Supplementary Leverage Ratio (applicable to financial
  institutions with more than $250 billion in consolidated assets) from 3% to 2%, effective until March 31, 2021.

• In 2013, the U.S. Federal Reserve announced that the minimum Basel III leverage ratio would be 5% for eight systemically important financial institution (SIFI) banks and 6%
  for their insured bank holding companies.

• [44] Basel III was also criticized as negatively affecting the stability of the financial system by increasing incentives of banks to game the regulatory framework.

• Basel III was also criticized as negatively affecting the stability of the financial system by increasing incentives of banks to game the regulatory framework.

• While institutions have many legitimate (“hedging”, “insurance”) risk reduction reasons to deal in derivatives, the Basel III accords: • treat insurance buyers and sellers
  equally even though sellers take on more concentrated risks (literally purchasing them) which they are then expected to offset correctly without regulation • do not require organizations to investigate correlations of all internal risks they
  own • do not tax or charge institutions for the systematic or aggressive externalization or conflicted marketing of risk—other than requiring an orderly unravelling of derivatives in a crisis and stricter record keeping Since derivatives present
  major unknowns in a crisis these are seen as major failings by some critics [51] causing several to claim that the “too big to fail” status remains with respect to major derivatives dealers who aggressively took on risk of an event they did
  not believe would happen—but did.

• To the extent that monetary policy would no longer be constrained by the zero lower bound, the Basel III impact on economic output could be offset by a reduction (or delayed
  increase) in monetary policy rates by about 30 to 80 basis points.

• o Measures to address procyclicality:  Dampen excess cyclicality of the minimum capital requirement;  Promote more forward looking provisions;  Conserve capital to build
  buffers at individual banks and the banking sector that can be used in stress; and o Achieve the broader macroprudential goal of protecting the banking sector from periods of excess credit growth.

• [44][45][46] Economic output would be mainly affected by an increase in bank lending spreads, as banks pass a rise in bank funding costs, due to higher capital requirements,
  to their customers.

• To meet the capital requirements originally effective in 2015 banks were estimated to increase their lending spreads on average by about 15 basis points.

• The proposal would require: • Large Bank Holding Companies (BHC) – those with over $250 billion in consolidated assets, or more in on-balance sheet foreign exposure, and to
  systemically important, non-bank financial institutions;[17] to hold enough HQLA to cover 30 days of net cash outflow.

• Furthermore, Basel III introduced two additional capital buffers: • A mandatory “capital conservation buffer”, equivalent to 2.5% of risk-weighted assets, phased in from 2017
  and fully effective from 2019.

• • A discretionary “counter-cyclical buffer” allowing national regulators to require up to an additional 2.5% of RWA as capital during periods of high credit growth.

• “[62] In January 2013 the global banking sector won a significant easing of Basel III rules, when the BCBS extended not only the implementation schedule to 2019, but broadened
  the definition of liquid assets.

• Credit exposure between the largest financial companies would be subject to a tighter limit”.

• (In January 2012, the oversight panel of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision issued a statement saying that regulators will allow banks to dip below their required
  liquidity levels, the liquidity coverage ratio, during periods of stress.

• [25] • Second, the risk coverage of the capital framework will be strengthened.

• Capital requirements effective as of 2019 (7% for the common equity ratio, 8.5% for the Tier 1 capital ratio) could increase bank lending spreads by about 50 basis points.

• [13] • The “Liquidity Coverage Ratio”, which requires banks to hold sufficient high-quality liquid assets to cover its total net cash outflows over 30 days under a stressed
  scenario.

• It is intended to strengthen bank capital requirements by increasing minimum capital requirements, holdings of high quality liquid assets, and decreasing bank leverage.

• Analysis of Basel III impact In the United States higher capital requirements resulted in contractions in trading operations and the number of personnel employed on trading
  floors.

• [12] In the EU, whilst banks have been required to disclose their leverage ratio since 2015, a binding requirement has not yet been implemented.

• [52] Basel III has been criticized similarly for its paper burden and risk inhibition by banks, organized in the Institute of International Finance, an international association
  of global banks based in Washington, D.C., who argue that it would “hurt” both their business and overall economic growth.

• • Level 2A assets generally include assets that would be subject to a 20% risk-weighting under Basel III and includes assets such as GSE-issued and -guaranteed securities.

• The modified LCR requires the regional firms to hold enough HQLA to cover 21 days of net cash outflow.

• [64] In March 2020, implementation of the Basel III: Finalising post-crisis reforms, the market risk framework, and the revised Pillar 3 disclosure requirements were extended
  by one year, to January 1, 2023.

• The net cash outflow parameters are 70% of those applicable to the larger institutions and do not include the requirement to calculate the peak cumulative outflows[18] • Smaller
  BHCs, those under $50 billion, would remain subject to the prevailing qualitative supervisory framework.

• [18] • Level 1 represents assets that are highly liquid (generally those risk-weighted at 0% under the Basel III standardized approach for capital) and receive no haircut.

• As of September 2010, proposed Basel III norms asked for ratios as: 7–9.5% (4.5% + 2.5% (conservation buffer) + 0–2.5% (seasonal buffer)) for common equity and 8.5–11% for
  Tier 1 capital and 10.5–13% for total capital.

• [27]) • The committee also is reviewing the need for additional capital, liquidity or other supervisory measures to reduce the externalities created by systemically important
  institutions.

• [29] On 3 September 2014, the U.S. banking agencies (Federal Reserve, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) issued their final
  rule implementing the Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR).

• One or more “triggers for remediation—such as capital levels, stress test results, and risk-management weaknesses—in some cases calibrated to be forward-looking” would be
  proposed by the Board in 2012.

• [53] The American Bankers Association,[54] community banks organized in the Independent Community Bankers of America, and others voiced opposition to Basel III in their comments
  to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,[55] saying that the Basel III proposals, if implemented, would hurt small banks by increasing “their capital holdings dramatically on mortgage and small business loans”.

• [15] • Regional firms (those with between $50 and $250 billion in assets) would be subject to a “modified” LCR at the (BHC) level only.

• [9] Banking Book[edit] New rules for interest rate risk in the banking book became effective in 2018.

• [28] On 15 April 2014, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) released the final version of its “Supervisory Framework for Measuring and Controlling Large Exposures”
  (SFLE) that builds on longstanding BCBS guidance on credit exposure concentrations.

• [citation needed] The estimated effects on GDP growth assume no active response from monetary policy.

 

Works Cited

[‘1. “Group of Governors and Heads of Supervision announces higher global minimum capital standards” (PDF). Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. 12 September 2010.
2. ^ Financial Times report Oct 2012
3. ^ “Basel III – Implementation – Financial
Stability Board”. www.fsb.org. 24 August 2016. Retrieved 21 March 2019.
4. ^ “Governors and Heads of Supervision announce deferral of Basel III implementation to increase operational capacity of banks and supervisors to respond to Covid-19”. 27
March 2020.
5. ^ Coen, William (5 April 2016). “The global policy reform agenda: completing the job”.
6. ^ “History of the Basel Committee”. 9 October 2014.
7. ^ Jump up to:a b “Phase 3 arrangements” (PDF). www.bis.org.
8. ^ “Archived copy”
(PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 11 December 2013. Retrieved 30 April 2015.
9. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g “Basel III transitional arrangements, 2017-2028” (PDF). Basel Committee on Banking Supervision.
10. ^ “Basel III leverage ratio
framework and disclosure requirements” (PDF). www.bis.org. Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. January 2014.
11. ^ “AllBankingSolutions.com -“. AllBankingSolutions.com.
12. ^ “FDIC Publication” (PDF).
13. ^ “Basel III: A global regulatory
framework for more resilient banks and banking systems” (PDF). www.bis.org. Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. December 2010.
14. ^ Hal S. Scott (16 June 2011). “Testimony of Hal S. Scott before the Committee on Financial Services” (PDF). Committee
on Financial Services, United States House of Representatives. pp. 12–13. Retrieved 17 November 2012.
15. ^ Jump up to:a b “Archived copy” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 November 2013. Retrieved 2 November 2013.
16. ^ “Fed Liquidity
Proposal Seen Trading Safety for Costlier Credit”. Bloomberg.
17. ^ Jump up to:a b “Nonbank SIFIs: FSOC proposes initial designations more names to follow”. www.pwc.com.
18. ^ Jump up to:a b c “Liquidity coverage ratio: another brick in the wall”.
www.pwc.com.
19. ^ “Federal Reserve Board proposes rule to strengthen liquidity positions of large financial institutions”.
20. ^ “Fed proposes new liquidity rules for banks”. Financial Times. 24 October 2013.
21. ^ (PDF) https://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d457_note.pdf.
{{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
22. ^ “Governors and Heads of Supervision finalise Basel III reforms”. 7 December 2017.
23. ^ Jump up to:a b “Governors and Heads of Supervision announce deferral of Basel III implementation to increase
operational capacity of banks and supervisors to respond to Covid-19”. 27 March 2020.
24. ^ “Basel III: Finalising post-crisis reforms”. 7 December 2017.
25. ^ “Strengthening the resilience of the banking sector” (PDF). BCBS. December 2009. p.
15. Tier 3 will be abolished to ensure that market risks are met with the same quality of capital as credit and operational risks.
26. ^ “Basel II Comprehensive version part 2: The First Pillar – Minimum Capital Requirements” (PDF). November 2005.
p. 86.
27. ^ Susanne Craig (8 January 2012). “Bank Regulators to Allow Leeway on Liquidity Rule”. New York Times. Retrieved 10 January 2012.
28. ^ Proposed Basel III Guidelines: A Credit Positive for Indian Banks
29. ^ “Stress testing: First
take: Basel large exposures framework”. www.pwc.com. PwC Financial Services Regulatory Practice, April 2014.
30. ^ “First take: Liquidity coverage ratio”. www.pwc.com. PwC Financial Services Regulatory Practice, September, 2014.
31. ^ “Five key
points from Basel’s enhanced disclosure proposal”. PwC Financial Services Risk and Regulatory Practice. March 2016.
32. ^ Edward Wyatt (20 December 2011). “Fed Proposes New Capital Rules for Banks”. New York Times. Retrieved 6 July 2012.
33. ^
“Press Release”. Federal Reserve Bank. 20 December 2011. Retrieved 6 July 2012.
34. ^ “Press Release”. Federal Reserve. 1 April 2020. Retrieved 16 March 2021.
35. ^ Chappatta, Brian (10 March 2021). “Fed Trapped by a Covid Exemption for Bank Leverage”.
Bloomberg News. Retrieved 16 March 2021.
36. ^ Cox, Jeff (19 March 2021). “The Fed will not extend a pandemic-crisis rule that had allowed banks to relax capital levels”. CNBC. Retrieved 19 March 2021.
37. ^ Ackerman, Andrew (19 March 2021). “Federal
Reserve to End Emergency Capital Relief for Big Banks”. Morningstar, Inc. Retrieved 25 March 2021.
38. ^ “Basel leverage ratio: No cover for US banks” (PDF). www.pwc.com. PwC Financial Services Regulatory Practice, January 2014.
39. ^ “Managing
risks to banks and financial institutions”. European Commission – European Commission.
40. ^ “Implementing Basel III in Europe – European Banking Authority”. www.eba.europa.eu. 26 June 2018.
41. ^ Hinge, Daniel (7 December 2010). “Mario Draghi
confirms Basel III is complete”. Central Banking. Infopro Digital Risk (IP) Limited.
42. ^ “Liquidity Coverage Requirement Delegated Act: Frequently Asked Questions”. Brussels: European Commission. MEMO/14/579. 10 October 2014. Retrieved 1 November
2016.
43. ^ Nathaniel Popper (23 July 2015). “In Connecticut, the Twilight of a Trading Hub”. The New York Times. Retrieved 26 July 2015. …the set of international banking rules that have had the single largest impact require banks to hold capital
as a buffer against trading losses—rules broadly referred to as Basel III.
44. ^ Jump up to:a b Patrick Slovik; Boris Cournède (2011). “Macroeconomic Impact of Basel III”. OECD Economics Department Working Papers. OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/5kghwnhkkjs8-en.
45. ^
John B. Taylor (22 September 2012). “Regulatory Expansion Versus Economic Expansion in Two Recoveries” (blog).
46. ^ Jones, Huw (15 February 2011). “Basel rules to have little impact on economy”. Reuters.
47. ^ Slovik, Patrick (2012). “Systemically
Important Banks and Capital Regulations Challenges”. OECD Economics Department Working Papers. OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/5kg0ps8cq8q6-en.
48. ^ M. Nicolas J. Firzli, “A Critique of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision” Revue Analyse Financière,
10 November 2011 & Q2 2012
49. ^ Barr, David G. (23 November 2013). “What We Thought We Knew: The Financial System and Its Vulnerabilities” (PDF). Bank of England. Archived from the original (PDF) on 1 February 2014.
50. ^ Ranjit Lall (2012).
“From Failure to Failure: The Politics of International Banking Regulation”. Review of International Political Economy. 19 (4): 609–638. doi:10.1080/09692290.2011.603669. S2CID 154898296.
51. ^ “Basel III and existing banking rules are inadequate
to regulate derivatives, says economist” (PDF). cholar.harvard.edu. 28 October 2013.
52. ^ “Basel III Capital Standards Do Not Reduce the Too-Big-to-Fail Problem”. www.heritage.org. 23 April 2014.
53. ^ Patrick Slovik (2012). “Systemically Important
Banks and Capital Regulations Challenges”. OECD Economics Department Working Papers. OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/5kg0ps8cq8q6-en.
54. ^ Comment Letter on Proposals to Comprehensively Revise the Regulatory Capital Framework for U.S. Banking Organizations(22
October 2012, [1]
55. ^ 95 entities listed at http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/2012-ad-95-96-97/2012-ad95.html Retrieved 13 March 2013
56. ^ Samuel A. Vallandingham, on behalf of Independent Community Bankers of America (15 July 2014).
“Examining Regulatory Relief Proposals for Community Financial Institutions” (PDF). www.icba.org (Testimony before the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit of the U.S. House Financial Services Committee). Retrieved 19 February
2021.
57. ^ Robert Reich (25 October 2011). “Wall Street is Still Out of Control, and Why Obama Should Call for Glass-Steagall and a Breakup of Big Banks”. Robert Reich.org.
58. ^ Reich, Robert. “Wall Street is Still Out of Control, and Why Obama
Should Call for Glass-Steagall and a Breakup of Big Banks”. Robert Reich.org. Retrieved 2 March 2013.
59. ^ “Burry Sees a Bubble in ETFs”. Yahoo. 5 September 2019. Retrieved 19 February 2021.
60. ^ “Comment Letter on Proposals to Comprehensively
Revise the Regulatory Capital Framework for U.S.Banking Organizations”. Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association. 22 October 2012. Archived from the original on 24 September 2015. Retrieved 12 September 2013. American Bankers Association,
the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and The Financial Services Roundtable respond to Basel III and other regulations
61. ^ 95 entities listed at http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/2012-ad-95-96-97/2012-ad95.html accessed
3-13-13.
62. ^ “Testimony of William A. Loving” (PDF). Retrieved 12 September 2013.
63. ^ NY Times 1 July 2013 http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/01/07/easing-of-rules-for-banks-acknowledges-reality/
64. ^ Bank of International Settlements (BIS)
(7 December 2017). “Governors and Heads of Supervision finalise Basel III reforms” (Press Release). Retrieved 19 February 2021.
65. ^ Bank of International Settlements (BIS) (27 March 2020). “Governors and Heads of Supervision announce deferral
of Basel III implementation to increase operational capacity of banks and supervisors to respond to Covid-19” (Press Release). Retrieved 19 February 2021.
Photo credit: https://www.flickr.com/photos/wm_archiv/3990989735/’]