Share the article
twitter-iconcopy-link-iconprint-icon
share-icon
Investment bankingJune 30 2011

Has Basel got its numbers wrong?

Regulators face a tricky task in setting appropriate capital charges for counterparty risk. While it is widely recognised that this type of risk needs to be better capitalised, many are worried that some of the provisions in Basel III may cause as many problems as they solve.
Share the article
twitter-iconcopy-link-iconprint-icon
share-icon
Has Basel got its numbers wrong?

The depth and scale of the financial crisis prompted a strong response from regulators. Basel III raises minimum Tier 1 capital levels to 7% and global regulators look set to add a surcharge of 2.5% of risk weighted assets on top of that for systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs). 

Regulators have also recalibrated the capital required on the frontier between market and counterparty risk – which banks had seriously underestimated – with a new charge aimed at capturing the volatility in counterparty risk. Banks are already looking at ways to reduce this risk and minimise the capital charges, with some banks revisiting the idea of selling off risk via securitisations. Regulators are, unsurprisingly, nervous.

To continue reading, join our community and benefit from

  • In-depth coverage across key markets
  • Comments from financial leaders and policymakers worldwide
  • Regional/country bank rankings and awards
Activate your free trial