General Information & Client Service
  • Americas: +1.212.553.1653
  • Asia: +852.3551.3077
  • China: +86.10.6319.6580
  • EMEA: +44.20.7772.5454
  • Japan: +81.3.5408.4100
Media Relations
  • New York: +1.212.553.0376
  • London: +44.20.7772.5456
  • Hong Kong: +852.3758.1350
  • Tokyo: +813.5408.4110
  • Sydney: +61.2.9270.8141
  • Mexico City: +001.888.779.5833
  • Buenos Aires: +0800.666.3506
  • São Paulo: +0800.891.2518
November 23, 2018

FSI published a paper that explores the state of implementation of the key Basel standards, while outlining the associated proportionality practices, in 100 jurisdictions that are not members of BCBS. The prudential requirements covered in this study include risk-based capital (RBC) rules, leverage requirements, two quantitative liquidity standards, and the large exposures standard, which are collectively referred to as Pillar 1 requirements. The paper also catalogs a range of proportionality practices applied in non-BCBS jurisdictions, providing a reference for authorities that seek to tailor the Basel framework to fit their country-specific circumstances.

The findings state that all jurisdictions have adopted some version of the Basel RBC regime, while most have implemented, in some manner, quantitative liquidity standards and the large exposures rule. Of the Pillar 1 requirements, most of the surveyed jurisdictions have adopted the RBC regime in various forms, the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR), and some version of the large exposures standard. All 100 jurisdictions have adopted some iteration of the RBC regime (Basel I, II, or III), while 81 countries reported the adoption of either the LCR (54 jurisdictions) or domestic liquidity rules (27). Similarly, 91 jurisdictions have adopted the large exposures rule, based on either the 2014 large exposures standard (14), some variation of the 1991 standard (38), or their own domestic large exposure rule (39). Despite its relative simplicity, the leverage ratio has been adopted by only 16 surveyed jurisdictions, with another four countries applying a domestic leverage rule. Similarly, the NSFR has been adopted by 15 jurisdictions. 

The lack of global prudential standards for non-internationally active banks has led national authorities to implement a range of proportionality approaches. In their implementation of Basel standards, nearly all jurisdictions apply proportionality, simplifying standards in some cases and applying more stringent requirements in others. As countries shift to the Basel III RBC regime, more extensive proportionality strategies are applied. In practice, jurisdictions follow one or a combination of three proportionality strategies with respect to the Basel III RBC regime. Within the RBC regime, the market risk capital requirement is most often subject to a proportionate approach. The perceived complexity of the market risk framework has led many countries to either exempt all banks from the market risk capital requirements (Basel I countries) or to exempt banks with small trading books from the market risk capital charge (Basel III countries).


Related Links

Keywords: International, Banking, Basel III, Basel Framework, Proportionality, RBC Regime, BCBS

Related Insights

EBA Single Rulebook Q&A: Third Update for February 2019

EBA published answers to two questions under the Single Rulebook question and answer (Q&A) updates for this week.

February 15, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

FSB Report Examines Financial Stability Implications of Fintech

FSB published a report that assesses fintech-related market developments and their potential implications for financial stability.

February 14, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

US Agencies Amend Regulatory Capital Rule to Allow Phase-In for CECL

US Agencies (FDIC, FED, and OCC) adopted the final rule to address changes to credit loss accounting under the U.S. generally accepted accounting principles; this includes banking organizations’ implementation of the current expected credit losses (CECL) methodology.

February 14, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

FED Issues Correction in Historical Dataset in its 2019 Stress Tests

FED identified an error in the historical dataset used in its 2019 stress tests and issued a correction.

February 13, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

OCC Consults on Company-Run Stress Test Requirements for Banks

OCC proposed amendments to its company-run stress testing requirements for national banks and Federal savings associations, consistent with section 401 of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection (EGRRCP) Act.

February 12, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

CFTC Extends Comment Periods for Trade Execution Requirement Proposals

CFTC announced that it is extending comment period for the proposed amendments related to the regulations on swap execution facilities (SEF) and trade execution requirement.

February 12, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

BCBS Updates Instructions for Basel III Monitoring Exercise

BCBS updated instructions for Basel III monitoring for the collection of December 2018 data from the participating banks.

February 12, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

OCC Proposes to Renew Information Collection Under Stress Test Rule

OCC is proposing to renew its information collection titled “Annual Stress Test Rule” (OMB Control No: 1557-0311). Comments must be received on or before March 13, 2019.

February 11, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

OSFI Consults on NSFR Disclosure Requirements for D-SIBs

OSFI proposed the draft guideline on the net stable funding ratio (NSFR) disclosure requirements for domestic systemically important banks (D-SIBs).

February 11, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

EC Amends Its Regulation to Clarify Impairment Requirements for IFRS 9

EC published the EU Regulation 2019/237 that amends Regulation (EC) No 1126/2008 adopting certain international accounting standards, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 regarding International Accounting Standard (IAS) 28 on Investments in Associates and Joint Ventures.

February 11, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
RESULTS 1 - 10 OF 2601