![Risk.net](https://www.risk.net/sites/default/files/styles/print_logo/public/2018-09/print-logo.png?itok=1TpHrpuP)
A long wait (nearly) over
So, it's finally here. Eight years on from first being mooted and six years since the seminal consultation paper that detailed the three pillar concept, Basel II is with us. After thousands of pages of consultation papers, countless redrafts and a handful of quantitative impact studies, the new regulatory capital framework came into force on January 1. Kind of.
Certainly, a number of banks will be going live with the standardised and foundation internal ratings-based (IRB) approaches from this month, while others will begin parallel runs of internal models, ready for implementation of the advanced IRB approach come January 1, 2008.
However, many European banks have decided to delay adopting the capital requirements directive - the European Union legislation that paves the way for the introduction of Basel II across its member states - until January 2008, while US regulators decided more than a year ago to delay implementation of the advanced approaches until 2009.
It's perhaps a sensible move. Despite the many redrafts and consultations, plenty of issues have either only been resolved relatively recently or still need fleshing out by regulators. In particular, risk managers point to the treatment of default risk in the trading book and the use of downturn loss-given default as potential problems, while the home/host issue - specifically, the use of national discretion by regulators - continues to be highlighted as a major concern. Some bankers say in hushed tones that it makes sense to allow the rules to bed down and for regulators to get used to co-operating before they begin reporting under the new framework.
In fact, a number of banks are having trouble meeting the implementation date of January 2008 for advanced IRB. As of mid-December, the UK Financial Services Authority (FSA) told Risk it had received only a handful of formal applications from banks to have their internal models validated (see page 74-77). While the regulator was expecting a flood of last-minute applications before the end of the year, it has publicly stated that banks submitting applications after the start of 2007 may not receive a decision in time for them to start their advanced approach from January 1, 2008.
The interesting thing is when you talk to risk managers about Basel II. While most still laud the concepts - to make regulatory capital more risk sensitive - many concede that the exercise hasn't been worth the time or money spent by banks. It was hoped Basel II would reward those institutions with sophisticated risk systems by enabling them to hold less risk capital. In reality, the quantitative impact studies suggest capital will remain more or less unchanged for many large banks. You have to suspect it might be a little harder winning support from banks for any future Basel III.
Nick Sawyer, Editor.
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 Basel Committee
FRTB implementation: key insights and learnings
Duncan Cryle and Jeff Aziz of SS&C Algorithmics discuss strategic questions and key decisions facing banks as they approach FRTB implementation
Basel concession strengthens US opposition to NSFR
Lobbyists say change to gross derivatives liabilities measure shows the whole ratio is flawed
Basel’s Tsuiki: review of bank rules no free-for-all
Evaluation of new framework by Basel Committee will not be excuse for tweaking pre-agreed rules
Pulling it all together: Challenges and opportunities for banks preparing for FRTB regulation
Content provided by IBM
EU lawmakers consider extending FRTB deadline
European Commission policy expert says current deadline is too ambitious
Custodians could face higher Basel G-Sib surcharges
Data shows removal of cap on substitutability in revised methodology would hit four banks
MEP: Basel too slow to deal with clearing capital clash
Isda AGM: Swinburne criticises Basel’s lethargy on clash between leverage and clearing rules
Fears of fragmentation over Basel shadow banking rules
Step-in risk guidelines could be taken more seriously in the EU than in the US