US Financial Regulation: Strengthening Capital Requirements for Banks
Introduction
The US financial system plays a crucial role in the global economy, and its stability is of utmost importance. Following the global financial crisis, regulators recognized the need for reforms to enhance the resilience of the banking sector. The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, an international regulatory group, has proposed sweeping new rules to tighten capital requirements for the nation’s largest banks. These proposals aim to address the shortcomings of the past and safeguard against future financial crises.
The Need for Strong Capital Requirements
The financial crisis of 2008 highlighted the risks associated with a severely undercapitalized banking system. Banks with inadequate capital were unable to absorb losses, leading to a collapse of confidence and the need for massive government bailouts. To prevent a similar situation in the future, regulators have been working on refining and improving capital regulations.
One of the key aspects of the proposed rules is the virtual elimination of banks’ ability to use their own internal models in setting capital requirements. The so-called internal ratings-based approach, which failed during the financial crisis, allowed banks to underestimate risks and lower capital requirements to increase returns. By replacing these internal models with standardized risk measures determined by regulators, the proposals aim to ensure a more accurate assessment of risk and appropriate capitalization.
Furthermore, the proposals seek to enhance capital buffers to protect against operational losses resulting from systems failures, cyber breaches, and fraud. Additionally, they aim to strengthen capital requirements for market losses in securities and derivatives trading. These measures are intended to make the banking system more robust and resilient in the face of various risks.
Addressing Misconceptions
Unfortunately, there have been misconceptions about the purpose and effect of these proposals, primarily fueled by industry advocates. It is important to analyze these proposals based on their actual impact rather than misrepresentations. Let’s address some of the common misconceptions:
Misconception 1: Disproportionate Impact on Small and Medium-sized Institutions
Some critics have deceptively described the proposals as an overreaction to the failures of three regional banks, suggesting that they will disproportionately harm small and medium-sized institutions. However, this claim is simply not true. The main impact of the proposals will be on the largest and most complex banks. Regulators estimate a 19% increase in capital levels for banks with more than $700 billion in assets, compared to only 6% for banks between $100 billion and $700 billion. Banks with less than $100 billion in assets are largely unaffected.
Misconception 2: Capital Requirements Hinder Lending
Another tired argument made by critics is that capital requirements lock up money that banks would otherwise lend. However, this argument overlooks the fact that banks can finance loans using equity just as easily as leveraging debt. Capital requirements simply regulate the ratio of bank funding that must come from equity to debt, ensuring a sound and stable financial system.
Misconception 3: Implications for Mortgage Lending
The banking sector has expressed disappointment that the US proposals do not adopt the Basel Committee’s mortgage capital requirements, which are lower than those currently applied in the US. Advocates argue that this may hinder mortgage lending to low-income households. However, given the massive mortgage defaults during the financial crisis, US regulators have reasonably dismissed this idea. Moreover, the majority of low-income mortgage loans are provided by non-banks, which are not subject to these capital requirements.
The Complexity of the Proposals
A legitimate concern about the proposals is their complexity. While eliminating the use of internal models helps simplify the current capital framework, the proposals also introduce additional complexity by requiring larger banks to carry out two sets of capital calculations. This dual calculation requirement may pose challenges in terms of implementation and transparency. It is essential for regulators to find ways to simplify the rules and make them more understandable to the public.
Embracing Strong Capital Requirements
Despite the complexities and criticisms surrounding the proposals, it is important to recognize the enormous benefits that will accrue from strengthening capital requirements in the US banking system. These benefits include:
- Greater resilience to future financial crises
- Protection against operational losses and cyber risks
- Enhanced stability in securities and derivatives trading
- Reduction in the likelihood and severity of taxpayer-funded bank bailouts
Furthermore, the proposals align with the long-standing tradition of US capital regulation, which is known for its tendency to impose higher standards than international counterparts. This “gold plating” approach has historically helped the US banking system weather economic downturns more successfully than systems with weaker capital requirements.
The Road Ahead
While the proposals aim to strengthen the banking sector and protect against future crises, there is room for improvement and further refinement. Regulators should actively seek feedback from stakeholders, including banks, industry experts, and consumer advocates, to ensure that the rules strike the right balance between robustness and efficiency.
It is also essential to consider the potential unintended consequences of the proposals. Striking the right balance between strong capital requirements and lending growth is crucial. Overly stringent regulations could inadvertently constrain lending and hinder economic growth. Finding the optimal equilibrium will require continuous monitoring, assessment, and adjustments based on real-world outcomes.
Achieving a Stable and Resilient Financial System
The proposed rules to tighten capital requirements for US banks represent an important step towards achieving a stable and resilient financial system. Blending an evidence-based approach with industry input and learning from past experiences, regulators have crafted reforms that address the weaknesses exposed during the financial crisis.
By replacing unreliable internal models with standardized risk measures, bolstering capital buffers, and introducing stricter standards, regulators are working towards a sound banking system that can withstand various risks and better protect the economy. Although challenges lie ahead, refining and implementing these proposals will lay the foundation for a more robust financial sector that serves the needs of the US and global economies.
Summary
The US financial system is undergoing important regulatory changes to strengthen capital requirements for banks. The proposed rules aim to address the weaknesses exposed during the global financial crisis and enhance the resilience of the banking sector. Misconceptions surrounding the proposals, such as their disproportionate impact on small institutions and hindrance to lending, need to be addressed. The complexity of the proposals should also be acknowledged, with a call for simplification to improve transparency and implementation. Embracing strong capital requirements offers numerous benefits, including greater resilience, protection against operational and market risks, and a reduced likelihood of taxpayer-funded bailouts. While feedback and adjustments are necessary, the proposals represent a major effort to protect the US and world economies from future financial crises.
—————————————————-
| Article | Link |
|---|---|
| UK Artful Impressions | Premiere Etsy Store |
| Sponsored Content | View |
| 90’s Rock Band Review | View |
| Ted Lasso’s MacBook Guide | View |
| Nature’s Secret to More Energy | View |
| Ancient Recipe for Weight Loss | View |
| MacBook Air i3 vs i5 | View |
| You Need a VPN in 2023 – Liberty Shield | View |
Receive free updates on US financial regulation
We will send you a myFT Collection Daily e-mail with the list of the latest news US financial regulation news every morning.
The author is a former chairman of the US Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and a former member of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision
US regulators recently proposed sweeping new rules to tighten capital requirements for the nation’s largest banks. They are the product of a thoughtful, multi-year process led by an international regulatory group called the Basel Committee to refine and improve reforms first undertaken after the global financial crisis. Then, a severely undercapitalized financial system nearly brought the world economy to its knees.
Unfortunately, there have been misconceptions about their purpose and effect, largely fueled by industry advocates. Proposals may not be perfect, but it’s important that the debate focuses on what they actually do, not misrepresentations.
At the heart of the proposals is the virtual elimination of the possibility for banks to use their own internal models in setting capital requirements. This so-called internal ratings-based approach failed spectacularly during the financial crisis. Big banks had every incentive to adopt models that underestimated risks, as this would allow them to lower capital requirements to increase equity returns. After the financial crisis, regulators restricted the use of internal models, but they remained unreliable. The proposed rules would replace them with standardized risk measures determined by regulators.
The proposals would also bolster capital to protect against operational losses resulting from systems failures, cyber breaches and fraud. They also strengthen capital buffers against market losses in securities and derivatives trading.
Critics have deceptively described the proposals as an overreaction to the recent failures of three regional banks that will disproportionately hurt small and medium-sized institutions. This is simply not true. Their main impact will fall on the largest and most complex banks. Regulators estimate a 19% increase in capital levels for the largest US banks – those with more than $700 billion in assets – but only 6% for banks between $100 billion and $700 billion . Banks with less than $100 billion are not interested, except for a small handful that do substantial business operations.
Critics have also made the tired argument that capital requirements lock into money that banks would otherwise lend. Capital requirements simply regulate the ratio of bank funding that must come from equity to debt. Banks can finance a loan with equity just as easily as using leverage.
In any case, while the proposals increase capital requirements for operational and market risks, they actually reduce them slightly for credit risks arising from lending decisions. Regulators have estimated that most banks already have enough excess capital to meet the rules, and those that don’t can easily withhold earnings to meet them by the mid-2028 effective date.
The proposals have come under attack for imposing stricter standards than those agreed by the Basel Committee. But such “gold plating” has long been a competitive strength of US capital regulation, not a weakness. There is one notable exception where US regulators have adopted weaker standards, and that has backfired. They did not require banks with less than $700 billion in assets to factor in unrealized market losses on available-for-sale investments when calculating capital levels. This weakened balance sheet left some banks vulnerable to a rush for deposits as big bets on Treasuries turned sour.
The banking sector has expressed disappointment that the US proposals do not adopt the Basel Committee’s mortgage capital requirements, which are lower than those currently applied in the US. They argue this will hurt mortgage lending to low-income households. Given the massive mortgage defaults during the financial crisis, US regulators have reasonably dismissed this idea. And in any case, the vast majority of low-income mortgage loans are provided by non-banks who are not even subject to these offers (and have higher capital levels).
A legitimate concern about the proposals is their complexity. While eliminating the use of internal models helps simplify the current capital framework, the proposals also require larger banks to carry out two sets of complex capital calculations when only one based on existing standards would suffice. Hopefully, regulators will find ways to simplify the rules and make them more understandable to the public. But that shouldn’t detract from the enormous public benefits that will accrue from this major effort to protect the United States and world economies from future financial crises.
—————————————————-