1 / 15

Basel II : The New Capital Accord

Basel II : The New Capital Accord. Implications for Bank Supervisors in our Client Countries and the World Bank ’ s Agenda. BASEL I. Basel I was aimed at international active banks in developed countries

gzifa
Download Presentation

Basel II : The New Capital Accord

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Basel II : The New Capital Accord Implications for Bank Supervisors in our Client Countries and the World Bank’s Agenda

  2. BASEL I • Basel I was aimed at international active banks in developed countries • Originally G-10 countries intended to raise the minimum capital levels of their large banking organizations and establishing a level playing field • Became the international standard worldwide

  3. Capital Requirements under Basel I • Slotting of assets (off- and on balance sheet items) into four categories • Applying 8% to the sum of risk weighted assets A x 0% = a (A : government bonds, etc) B x 20% = b (B : interbank lending) C x 50% = c (C : mortgages, etc.) D x 100% = d (D : other loans, etc) Capital requirement = (a+b+c+d) x 8% 3) A specific capital charge against market risks could be added for banks incurring such risks - Weightings (0,20,50,00) were meant to reflect riskiness of underlying banking operations - Value of loans was supposed to fully reflect loans’ impairment

  4. Basel I : overly simplistic ? • Not sufficiently risk sensitive • One size fits all framework • Capital ratio : a misleading indicator where other elements are lacking (adequate loan classification, etc.)

  5. Basel II : a major change in approach • Regulatory capital (vs. economic capital) might not be adequate • Capital should be calculated based on actual estimates of unexpected losses rather than on arbitrary risk weights • Process oriented framework (multi-options system to account for diversity and complexity of banking operations) • Supervisory review (capital could be adjusted upward based on qualitative, supervisory judgment) • Public disclosure (necessary element as the suggested framework offers a menu of options) • Much more than just a technique for computing capital requirements : touches upon banks’ risk management system

  6. Is Basel II overly complex for our clients ? • The Basel Committee’s core target population remains large complex banking organizations • The use of external ratings is very limited in non G-10 countries • The IRB approach is out of reach for most banks

  7. Bank A Risk weighted assets = X Universal bank Network Good internal control Adequate corporate governance Similar capital requirement for Bank A and B under Basel I Bank B Risk weighted assets = X Specialized bank No branch Deficient internal control Deficient corporate governance Bank B’s capital requirement likely to be higher than Bank A’s under Basel II Possible Implications

  8. Basel Committee’s response • As recognized international rule setter for banking supervision related issues, BC has become more sensitive to the need to broaden its audience • Non G-10 countries’ concerns are expressed under the auspices of the Core Principle Liaison Group (CPLG) • World Bank and IMF participate in CPLG meetings : The Bank represents the views of developing countries and we played a role in (i) advocating a framework of universal application and (ii) the implementation of Pillar 2 and Pillar 3

  9. CPLG’s view on Basel II • Basel Committee is recognized as the international rule setter • Applying Basel II to G-10 and Basel I to non G-10 is not acceptable • Basel II should offer more options to fit non G10 countries’ needs

  10. The “simplified approach” suggested by a sub group of the CPLG(Brazil, China, India, Russia, Saudi Arabia) Basel II = Basel I + Pillar 2+ Pillar 3 - Current risk weighted system (possibly with several changes including a capital charge to account for operational risk) - Supervisory review (possibility for supervisors to impose capital add-ons) - Disclosure (current extent of disclosure by banks on capital, loan classification, etc. is unsatisfactory )

  11. Bank Supervisors will confront challenges in implementing Pillar 2 Pillar 2 ’s building blocks (principles) : - Assessment of the adequacy of capital needs by the banks themselves, i.e capital is to be adjusted to the overall risk profile of a bank - A bank’s assessment is to be reviewed by bank supervisors - Supervisors should be entitled to require capital in excess of minimum, if need be - Supervisors should have adequate tools at their disposal to intervene at an early stage before capital is depleted

  12. Looking ahead • Basel II will become the standard • Most foreign banks in developing and emerging economies will strive to adopt the IRB approach (level playing field) • Non G-10 supervisors must provide incentive for banks to adopt the IRB approach in the medium term

  13. The Bank’s role going forward • Most, if not all, IMF/WB lending operations in the financial sector have imposed/ recommended compliance with Basel guidelines on capital • WB future work will refer to and encourage the adoption of Basel II like frameworks • As a “knowledge institution” the Bank has no option but to disseminate international standards and best practices in our client countries • As part of the FSAP, the Bank will continue assessing compliance with Basel guidelines, including Basel II • The Bank staff needs to have the necessary skills in anticipation of TA requests

  14. The Bank’s role going forward (cont’d) • In light of its experience, the Bank along with the Fund, should actively participate in the revision of Core Principles (2003?) • The Bank must continue being active in the CPLG where non G-10 specific issues are addressed • The Accord Implementation Group (AIG) will be instrumental in raising issues that non G-10 countries will confront going forward (Bank’s view is likely to be requested as we can provide useful input) • Staff need to be prepared to work with our client countries on implementation issues

  15. Conclusion • Basel II will have far reaching implications over the long run (“Mc Donough” ratio likely to be as famous as the “Cooke” ratio) • As part of its work in the financial sector, the Bank must be prepared to continue to provide support to our countries to meet best practices, including those regarding Basel II • The Bank must invest in training for financial sector specialists to understand Basel II

More Related