432
Part 6 The Financial Institutions Industry
G L O B A L
Whither the Basel Accord?
Starting in June 1999, the Basel Committee on
Banking Supervision released several proposals to
reform the original 1988 Basel Accord. These efforts
culminated in what bank supervisors refer to as
Basel 2, which is based on three pillars.
1. Pillar 1 links capital requirements for large, inter-
nationally active banks more closely to actual risk
of three types: market risk, credit risk, and opera-
tional risk. It does so by specifying many more cat-
egories of assets with different risk weights in its
standardized approach. Alternatively, it allows
sophisticated banks to pursue an internal ratings-
based approach that permits banks to use their
own models of credit risk.
2. Pillar 2 focuses on strengthening the supervisory
process, particularly in assessing the quality of risk
management in banking institutions and evaluating
whether these institutions have adequate proce-
dures to determine how much capital they need.
3. Pillar 3 focuses on improving market discipline
through increased disclosure of details about a
bank’s credit exposures, its amount of reserves and
capital, the officials who control the bank, and the
effectiveness of its internal rating system.
Although Basel 2 made strides toward limiting
excessive risk taking by internationally active banking
institutions, it greatly increased the complexity of the
accord. The document describing the original Basel
Accord was 26 pages, while the final draft of
Basel 2 exceeded 500 pages. The original timetable
called for the completion of the final round of consul-
tation by the end of 2001, with the new rules taking
effect by 2004. However, criticism from banks, trade
associations, and national regulators led to several
postponements. The final draft was not published until
June 2004, and Basel 2 started to be implemented at
the beginning of 2008 by European banks, but full
implementation in the United States did not occur
until 2009. Only the dozen or so largest U.S. banks
are subject to Basel 2: All others will be allowed to
use a simplified version of the standards it imposes.
The financial crisis of 2007 to 2009, however,
revealed many limitations of the new accord. First,
Basel 2 did not require banks to have sufficient capi-
tal to weather the financial disruption during this
period. Second, risk weights in the standardized
approach are heavily reliant on credit ratings, which
proved to be so unreliable in the run-up to the finan-
cial crisis. Third, Basel 2 is very procyclical. That is,
it demands that banks hold less capital when times
are good, but more when times are bad, thereby
exacerbating credit cycles. Because the probability of
default and expected losses for different classes of
assets rises during bad times, Basel 2 may require
more capital at exactly the time when capital is most
short. This has been a particularly serious concern in
the aftermath of the 2007–2009 financial crisis. As a
result of this crisis, banks’ capital balances eroded,
leading to a cutback on lending that was a big drag
on the economy. Basel 2 has made this cutback in
lending even worse, doing even more harm to the
economy. Fourth, Basel 2 did not focus sufficiently on
the dangers of a possible drying up of liquidity,
which brought financial institutions down during the
financial crisis.
As a result of these limitations, the Basel Committee
has begun work on a new accord, Basel 3. Its goal is
to beef up capital standards, make them less procycli-
cal, make new rules on the use of credit ratings, and
require financial institutions to have more stable fund-
ing so they are better able to withstand liquidity
shocks. Measures to achieve these objectives are
highly controversial because there are concerns that
tightening up capital standards might cause banks to
restrict their lending, which would make it harder for
economies throughout the world to recover from the
recent deep recession. When Basel 3 will be imple-
mented is anybody’s guess.
Chapter 18 Financial Regulation
433
to meet capital requirements. Banks in groups 4 and 5 are “significantly undercapital-
ized” and “critically undercapitalized,” respectively, and are not allowed to pay inter-
est on their deposits at rates that are higher than average. In addition, for group 3 banks,
the FDIC is required to take prompt corrective actions such as requiring them to sub-
mit a capital restoration plan, restrict their asset growth, and seek regulatory approval
to open new branches or develop new lines of business. Banks that are so under
capitalized as to have equity capital that amounts to less than 2% of assets fall into
group 5, and the FDIC must take steps to close them down.
Financial Supervision:
Chartering and Examination
Overseeing who operates financial institutions and how they are operated, referred
to as financial supervision or prudential supervision, is an important method
for reducing adverse selection and moral hazard in the financial industry. Because
financial institutions can be used by crooks or overambitious entrepreneurs to engage
in highly speculative activities, such undesirable people would be eager to run a finan-
cial institution. Chartering financial institutions is one method for preventing this
adverse selection problem; through chartering, proposals for new institutions are
screened to prevent undesirable people from controlling them.
Regular on-site examinations, which allow regulators to monitor whether the
institution is complying with capital requirements and restrictions on asset
holdings, also function to limit moral hazard. Bank examiners give banks a CAMELS
rating. The acronym is based on the six areas assessed: capital adequacy, asset qual-
ity, management, earnings, liquidity, and sensitivity to market risk. With this informa-
tion about a bank’s activities, regulators can enforce regulations by taking such formal
actions as cease and desist orders to alter the bank’s behavior or even close a bank
if its CAMELS rating is sufficiently low. Actions taken to reduce moral hazard by
restricting banks from taking on too much risk help reduce the adverse selection
problem further, because with less opportunity for risk taking, risk-loving entrepre-
neurs will be less likely to be attracted to the banking industry. Note that the meth-
ods regulators use to cope with adverse selection and moral hazard have their
counterparts in private financial markets (see Chapters 7 and 17). Chartering is
similar to the screening of potential borrowers, regulations restricting risky asset
holdings are similar to restrictive covenants that prevent borrowing firms from engag-
ing in risky investment activities, capital requirements act like restrictive covenants
that require minimum amounts of net worth for borrowing firms, and regular exam-
inations are similar to the monitoring of borrowers by lending institutions.
A commercial bank obtains a charter either from the Comptroller of the Currency
(in the case of a national bank) or from a state banking authority (in the case of a
state bank). To obtain a charter, the people planning to organize the bank must sub-
mit an application that shows how they plan to operate the bank. In evaluating the appli-
cation, the regulatory authority looks at whether the bank is likely to be sound by
examining the quality of the bank’s intended management, the likely earnings of the
bank, and the amount of the bank’s initial capital. Before 1980, the chartering agency
434
Part 6 The Financial Institutions Industry
typically explored the issue of whether the community needed a new bank. Often a new
bank charter would not be granted if existing banks in a community would be hurt
by its presence. Today this anticompetitive stance (justified by the desire to prevent
failures of existing banks) is no longer as strong in the chartering agencies.
Once a bank has been chartered, it is required to file periodic (usually quarterly)
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |