Capital adequacy: Too far, too fast?

Leading supervisors on the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision are giving their 1988 rules a much-needed overhaul, trying to bring capital charges closer to the banks' own view of risk and return. But who's to say the banks are right? These proposals will be fought over tooth and nail by the lowly rated, the cautious, those suspicious of too much, too hasty sophistication, and those who mistrust rating agencies. Meanwhile, turf battles continue over lax banking structures in the US and protectionist banking structures in Germany. David Shirreff reports.

Cold Turkey

There is a view that unelected central bankers in Basel should not be empowered to trigger radical changes in capital flows in emerging markets.

But that outcome is one of the implications of the new capital adequacy framework proposed in June by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. In fact the proposals, put out for consultation until March 31 next year, immediately had an impact on the credit spreads of some middle-rated countries.

Why? Because among other things the new framework proposes to use external credit ratings to fix the amount of capital banks should hold against assets of specific companies, financial institutions, and countries.

Access intelligence that drives action

To unlock this research, enter your email to log in or enquire about access

31