going into the semantics of what the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) is
proposing with Basel III, I would say that the new accord is an encouraging and
well thought through response to the credit crisis. I am personally in
favour of Basel III although I feel it needs fine-tuning before implementation.
Basel III takes each “feature” of the credit crisis and puts in place a
specific ruling that appears on the surface to be well adjusted and carefully
connected to the context of the overall Basel
framework. It is a pity that some national regulators didn’t have the patience or
diligence to wait or work more closely with BIS. One is left feeling that
the Volcker Rule may end up dejecting the American banking sector and that the British Government
might throw the baby out with the bath water if it pulls Financial Services Authority
(FSA) apart .
start with what is not changing.
The good news is that Basel III should be seen as an extension of Basel II, so
all the work that has been done for Basel II is valid. The Internal
Ratings Based (IRB) approach and even the foundation approach for credit all
stand in Basel III. In respect of specific risk disciplines, the emphasis
on operational risk and market risk is not heavy at all in this new mandate.
There is a small overlap with market risk and pricing Credit Valuation Aadjustments (CVA) into capital charges or to be specific, "banks can
use the market risk internal models approach for CVA models": section 98,
BIS. Nonetheless much of the agenda for market risk in Basel III lie away
from the style in which this core discipline has been presented in the past.
The key to understanding the emphasis BIS is looking for from this initiative,
as with any of its programs, can be found in the noise it makes when it communicates
a formal announcement. The documents listed below w...
Please login to read the complete article. If you already have an account, you can login now or subscribe/register.