BCBS published a working paper that assesses the costs and benefits of stronger capital and liquidity requirements. The paper finds that the net macroeconomic benefits of capital requirements are positive over a wide range of capital levels. The paper also suggests a set of issues that warrant further monitoring and research. These issues include the link between capital and the cost and probability of crises, accounting for the effects of liquidity regulations, resolution regimes and countercyclical capital buffers, and the impact of regulation on loan quantities.
The range of estimates for the theoretically optimal level of capital requirements—where marginal benefits equal marginal costs—is likely either similar or higher than was originally estimated by the Basel Committee. This conclusion is, however, subject to a number of important considerations:
- First, estimates of optimal capital are sensitive to a number of assumptions and design choices. For example, the literature differs in judgments made about the permanence of crisis effects as well as assumptions about the efficacy of post crisis reforms, such as liquidity regulations and bank resolution regimes, in reducing the probability and costs of future banking crisis. In some cases, these judgments can offset the upward tendency in the range of optimal capital.
- Second, differences in (net) benefit estimates can reflect different conditioning assumptions such as starting levels of capital or default thresholds (the capital ratio at which firms are assumed to fail) when estimating the impact of capital in reducing crisis probabilities.
- Finally, the estimates are based on capital ratios that are measured in different units. For example, some studies provide optimal capital estimates in risk-weighted ratios, others in leverage ratios. Additionally, across the risk-weighted ratio estimates, the definition of capital and risk-weighted assets (RWAs) can also differ (for example, tangible common equity or tier 1 or common equity tier 1 capital; Basel II RWAs vs. Basel III measures of RWAs).
Keywords: International, Banking, Regulatory Capital, Liquidity Requirements, Liquidity Risk, CET 1, Basel III, BCBS
Previous ArticleUS Agencies Publish Semi-Annual Regulatory Agenda in June 2019
PRA published a statement that explains when to expect further information on the PRA approach to transposing the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD5), including its approach to revisions to the definition of capital for Pillar 2A.
EIOPA is consulting on the relevant ratios to be mandatorily disclosed by insurers and reinsurers falling within the scope of the Non-Financial Reporting Directive as well as on the methodologies to build these ratios.
SRB published the work program for 2021-2023, setting out a roadmap to further operationalize the Single Resolution Fund and to achieve robust resolvability of banks under its remit over the next three years.
ECB finalized guidance on the way it expects banks to prudently manage and transparently disclose climate and other environmental risks under the current prudential rules.
BCBS published a technical amendment to the capital treatment of securitizations of non-performing loans by banks.
BoE announced that the Data and Statistics Division is planning to move collection of statistical data to the BoE Electronic Data Submission (BEEDS) portal.
APRA published the updated reporting standards and guidance for the collection of Economic and Financial Statistics (EFS), following a consultation process. Also published was a response letter to the feedback received on the proposal for amending the EFS reporting standards and guidance.
EC is consulting on a draft delegated regulation to supplement the Taxonomy Regulation (2020/852) by establishing the technical screening criteria for determining the conditions under which an economic activity qualifies as environmentally sustainable.
The IFRS Foundation published material highlighting the ways in which existing requirements in IFRS standards require companies to consider climate-related matters when their effect is material to the financial statements.
FSB published a progress report on the implementation of reforms to major interest rate benchmarks, including the London Inter-bank Offered Rate (LIBOR) benchmark.