![Risk.net](https://www.risk.net/sites/default/files/styles/print_logo/public/2018-09/print-logo.png?itok=1TpHrpuP)
Comment requested on revised non-Basel II capital adequacy standards
Several US banking oversight and regulatory agencies, including the Federal Reserve Board, have requested public comment within 90 days on proposed changes to current US capital adequacy standards. The revised standards would, in the future, apply to banks that will not fall under the scope of Basel II.
According to Dugan, the primary goal of the request was to increase the risk sensitivity of domestic risk-based capital rules without unduly increasing regulatory burden. Changes to capital adequacy are being considered jointly by the Fed, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Office of Thrift and Supervision (OTS).
Comments on a number of issues related to non-Basel II capital adequacy have been requested, including changes around the number and magnitude of risk weights, the use of external credit ratings and treatment of securitisation – all of which have been flashpoints in previous discussions about more closely aligning capital requirements with risk.
Last month, US regulators announced that the compliance date for Basel II has been pushed back by three years, because of mixed results from the fourth quantitative impact study (QIS4), which was completed in January 2005. The exercise raised concerns over a potentially sharp decrease in capital requirements for some banks, possibly leaving then vulnerable to idiosyncratic shocks. Under the revised implementation schedule announced on September 30, Basel II requirements will be phased in between 2009 and 2011.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
The standoff over separate account margining
CFTC issues sixth extension of no-action relief as long-awaited final rule stalls
Banks fret over vendor contracts as Dora deadline looms
Thousands of vendor contracts will need repapering to comply with EU’s new digital resilience rules
EU banks lose relief on model test after FRTB delay
Deferment of new trading book regime to January 2025 eats into transition period for “erratic” P&L attribution test
Sunday night football and the Basel III endgame
Big banks, political advocates and housing organisations are unlikely allies in race to dropkick new capital regime
Futures exchanges seek clarity on China licensing regime
Hazy details on landmark Futures and Derivatives Law breeds legal uncertainty, unnerving operators
Some EU banks wanted option to start FRTB on time
Representatives of member states raised possibility with European Commission at July meeting discussing the delay
For US Treasury troubles, treat the cause not the symptom
Regulatory alarm about hidden risk in the Treasury futures market misses the point, fund association execs write
Iosco delays pre-hedging consultation to November
Review into controversial practice splits industry