Basel iii Accord
Prepare for Basel iii
Become a member of the
Basel iii Compliance Professionals
Certified Basel III Professional Distance Learning and Online
2014 - Important steps towards
completion of post-crisis regulatory reform
Committee's oversight body, the Group of Governors and Heads of
Supervision (GHOS), endorsed a number of important steps in the
completion of the post-crisis reform agenda.
endorsed proposals from the Basel Committee on a
common definition of the leverage
ratio, which has been formulated to overcome differences
in national accounting frameworks that have previously prevented
ready comparison of bank leverage ratios across borders.
consistent measure of bank leverage and consistent disclosure
standards are central components of the Basel III regulatory
framework for internationally active banks.
ratio is intended as a simple non-risk-based "backstop" measure
that will reinforce the risk-based capital requirements.
The Committee will continue to monitor the implementation of the
calibration, and any further
adjustments to the definition, will be completed by 2017, with a
view to migrating to a Pillar 1 (minimum capital requirement)
treatment on 1 January 2018.
The GHOS also
endorsed proposed changes to the Net
Stable Funding Ratio, on which the Basel Committee will
shortly commence consultation.
The NSFR is
another important component of the Basel III framework; it
complements the Liquidity Coverage Ratio and is designed to
promote prudent funding structures by banks, with a particular
focus on preventing over-reliance on short-term wholesale
At its meeting in
January 2013, the GHOS noted that
finalising the NSFR should be a priority for the Basel Committee
during 2013 and 2014; the start of consultation on the
proposed revisions to the NSFR is an important step towards
finalising the framework in the year ahead.
intends to release its consultative document shortly.
its January 2013 meeting, the GHOS also asked the Committee to
undertake further work in three areas
related to the LCR:
(ii) the use of
market-based indicators of liquidity
to supplement existing measures and
interaction between the LCR and the
provision of central bank facilities.
to disclosure, the GHOS endorsed Basel Committee proposals
regarding minimum requirements for
The GHOS also
endorsed the Committee's intention to publish further guidance
on how national authorities can utilise market-based indicators
of liquidity within their own frameworks for assessing whether
assets qualify as High Quality Liquid Assets (HQLA) under the
The LCR is built on the principle that
banks' first line of defence against
liquidity shocks should be their own self-insurance, and that
central banks should remain the lenders of last resort.
is also the case that central banks may be the most reliable
source of liquidity available to banks in times of stress.
As a result, the
Committee has reached the view, which the GHOS today endorsed,
that Committed Liquidity Facilities
of a type already recognised for jurisdictions with insufficient
HQLA could have a role to play within the LCR.
The inclusion of
these facilities, which may be provided at the discretion of
monetary authorities, would however be
subject to a number of constraints
designed to avoid undermining the principles noted above.
will shortly release revisions to the LCR to give effect to this
Finally, the GHOS also reviewed and endorsed the
Committee's strategic priorities
for the next two years.
completing the crisis-related policy reform agenda as a matter
of priority, the Committee will focus on
three other broad themes:
continuing to deepen its programme of
monitoring and assessing the implementation of the agreed
reforms; further examining the regulatory framework's
balance between simplicity,
comparability and risk sensitivity; and
improving effectiveness of
All of these will
involve significant work during 2014 and 2015.
Mario Draghi, Chairman of the
GHOS and President of the European Central Bank, said:
of an internationally consistent measure of bank leverage is
a significant step towards the full
implementation of Basel III.
ratio is an important backstop to the risk-based capital regime
and, when coupled with the LCR and NSFR, provides a regulatory
framework that should help to ensure that banks are much more
resilient to financial shocks than was the case in the past."
Stefan Ingves, Chairman of
the Basel Committee and Governor of Sveriges Riksbank, noted
"Good progress is
being made to conclude the ambitious
reform agenda, and in ensuring its
full and consistent implementation.
There is more to
be done, but the Committee is on track to complete the
crisis-related reforms soon and, in doing so, to establish a
stronger and more resilient banking system."
The implementation of the Basel
The last days of
2012, the United States (US) regulatory authorities announced
that they did not expect their
rules implementing Basel 3 would become effective on 1 January
2013, although they are working as “expeditiously as possible”
to complete their rulemaking process.
the European Union (EU), the trilogue between the European
Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers
to agree the text of Capital Requirements Directive IV (CRD IV,
the EU version of Basel 3) is still
ongoing and there will not be
sufficient time for CRD IV to be codified as legislation
and put into effect on 1 January 2013.
The Basel 3
capital standards are designed to
strengthen banks’ resilience by requiring more and better
quality capital and by addressing and capturing risks not
adequately recognised previously.
The aim is to
ensure that banks can weather future financial storms without
disruption to their lending.
in turn make them less likely to
create or amplify problems in other areas of the economy and
facilitate their contribution to long-term sustainable economic
represents an appropriate balance
in bolstering resilience whilst at the same time (with
its extended phase-in) not unduly hampering lending to business
and households today and ensuring banks can continue to lend in
any downturn tomorrow.
As of end-May
2012, 21 of 27 Basel member countries
have implemented Basel II, which had been due to come into force
Indonesia and Russia have
implemented Basel II’s Pillar 1 (minimum capital requirements).
Argentina, China, Turkey and the
United States are in the process of implementing Basel
to Basel 2.5, which was due to
be implemented from end 2011, 20 member countries have final
rules that are in force.
Argentina, Indonesia, Mexico, Russia,
Turkey and the United States have not issued final
Russia and the United States
have issued draft regulations which partially cover Basel 2.5.
Saudi Arabia has issued final
regulations but these have not yet come into force.
29 global systemically important
banks (G-SIBs) identified in November 2011, nine are
headquartered in jurisdictions that have not yet fully
implemented Basel II and/or Basel 2.5.
Draft Basel III regulations have not
yet been issued by seven Basel Committee member
jurisdictions: Argentina, Hong Kong
SAR, Indonesia, Korea, Russia, Turkey and the United States.
The majority of
these jurisdictions believe they can issue final regulations in
time to implement by the deadline of 1 January 2013.
others, depending on their domestic rule-making process, meeting
the deadline could be a significant challenge.
to monitoring whether its members have issued regulations to
implement the Basel III rules, the
Basel Committee has established a process to review the content
of the new rules.
This second level
of review is meant to ensure that the national adaptations of
Basel III are consistent with the minimum standards agreed to
under Basel III.
Committee has initiated peer reviews
of the domestic regulations of the European Union, Japan and the
United States to assess their consistency with the globally
The findings of
these reviews are preliminary since the formulation of national
standards is still ongoing and the analysis is not yet
there is a possibility that national
implementation will be weaker than the globally-agreed standards
in some key areas.
Committee urges G20 Leaders to call on jurisdictions to meet
their commitments made in Cannes to implement Basel III fully
and consistently, and within the agreed timetable.
A third level
of implementation review conducted by the Basel Committee
examines whether there are
unjustifiable inconsistencies in risk measurement
approaches across banks and jurisdictions and the implications
these might have for the calculation of regulatory capital.
This review of
banks’ risk-weighting practices includes the
use of test portfolio exercises,
horizontal reviews of practices across banks and jurisdictions,
and joint on-site visits to large, internationally-active banks.
Committee firmly believes that full, timely and consistent
implementation of Basel III among its members is essential for
restoring confidence in the regulatory framework for banks and
to help ensure a safe and stable global banking system.
will provide an updated progress report to G20 Finance Ministers
and central bank governors at their meeting in November 2012.
most important Basel III papers announced
The Basel Committee issued today the
Basel III rules text, which presents the details of global
regulatory standards on bank capital adequacy and liquidity
agreed by the Governors and Heads of Supervision, and endorsed
by the G20 Leaders at their November 2010 Seoul summit.
The rules text presents the details of the Basel III Framework,
which covers both microprudential and macroprudential elements.
The Framework sets out higher and better-quality
capital, better risk coverage, the introduction of a leverage
ratio as a backstop to the risk-based requirement, measures to
promote the build up of capital that can be drawn down in
periods of stress, and the introduction of two global liquidity
Receive the New Member Orientation newsletters. Understand the
Basel III framework.
leaders officially endorse the Basel III framework
The G20 Leaders at the Seoul Summit on
11-12 November endorsed the Basel III framework and the the
Financial Stability Board’s (FSB) policy framework for reducing
the moral hazard of systemically important financial
institutions (SIFIs), including the work processes and timelines
set out in the report submitted to the Summit.
SIFIs are financial institutions whose
disorderly failure, because of their size, complexity and
systemic interconnectedness, would cause significant disruption
to the wider financial system and economic activity.
read in the
final G20 Communique:
endorsed the landmark agreement reached by the Basel Committee
on the new bank capital and liquidity framework, which increases
the resilience of the global banking system by raising the
quality, quantity and international consistency of bank capital
and liquidity, constrains the build-up of leverage and maturity
mismatches, and introduces capital buffers above the minimum
requirements that can be drawn upon in bad times.
The framework includes an
internationally harmonized leverage ratio to serve as a backstop
to the risk-based capital measures.
With this, we have
achieved far-reaching reform of the global banking system.
The new standards will markedly reduce banks' incentive to
take excessive risks, lower the likelihood and severity of
future crises, and enable banks to withstand - without
extraordinary government support - stresses of a magnitude
associated with the recent financial crisis.
This will result in a banking
system that can better support stable economic growth.
We are committed to
adopt and implement fully these standards within the agreed
timeframe that is consistent with economic recovery and
The new framework will be translated
into our national laws and regulations, and will be implemented
starting on January 1, 2013 and fully phased in by January 1,
The Group of Governors and Heads of Supervision announces higher
global minimum capital standards
At its 12 September 2010 meeting, the
Group of Governors and Heads of Supervision, the oversight body
of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, announced a
substantial strengthening of existing capital requirements and
fully endorsed the agreements it reached on 26 July 2010.
These capital reforms, together with the introduction of a
global liquidity standard, deliver on the core of the global
financial reform agenda and will be presented to the Seoul G20
Leaders summit in November.
The Committee’s package of
reforms will increase the minimum common equity requirement from
2% to 4.5%.
In addition, banks will be required to hold
a capital conservation buffer of 2.5% to withstand future
periods of stress bringing the total common equity requirements
This reinforces the stronger definition of
capital agreed by Governors and Heads of Supervision in July and
the higher capital requirements for trading, derivative and
securitisation activities to be introduced at the end of 2011.
Increased capital requirements
Under the agreements reached, the
minimum requirement for common equity, the highest form of loss
absorbing capital, will be raised from the current 2% level,
before the application of regulatory adjustments, to 4.5% after
the application of stricter adjustments.
This will be
phased in by 1 January 2015.
The Tier 1 capital
requirement, which includes common equity and other qualifying
financial instruments based on stricter criteria, will increase
from 4% to 6% over the same period.
The Group of
Governors and Heads of Supervision also agreed that the capital
conservation buffer above the regulatory minimum requirement be
calibrated at 2.5% and be met with common equity, after the
application of deductions.
The purpose of the
conservation buffer is to ensure that banks maintain a buffer of
capital that can be used to absorb losses during periods of
financial and economic stress.
While banks are allowed
to draw on the buffer during such periods of stress, the closer
their regulatory capital ratios approach the minimum
requirement, the greater the constraints on earnings
This framework will reinforce the
objective of sound supervision and bank governance and address
the collective action problem that has prevented some banks from
curtailing distributions such as discretionary bonuses and high
dividends, even in the face of deteriorating capital positions.
A countercyclical buffer within a range of 0% – 2.5% of
common equity or other fully loss absorbing capital will be
implemented according to national circumstances.
purpose of the countercyclical buffer is to achieve the broader
macroprudential goal of protecting the banking sector from
periods of excess aggregate credit growth.
given country, this buffer will only be in effect when there is
excess credit growth that is resulting in a system wide build up
The countercyclical buffer, when in effect,
would be introduced as an extension of the conservation buffer
These capital requirements are supplemented by a
non-risk-based leverage ratio that will serve as a backstop to
the risk-based measures described above.
Governors and Heads of Supervision agreed to test a minimum Tier
1 leverage ratio of 3% during the parallel run period.
Based on the results of the parallel run period, any final
adjustments would be carried out in the first half of 2017 with
a view to migrating to a Pillar 1 treatment on 1 January 2018
based on appropriate review and calibration.
important banks should have loss absorbing capacity beyond the
standards announced today and work continues on this issue in
the Financial Stability Board and relevant Basel Committee work
The Basel Committee and the FSB are developing
a well integrated approach to systemically important financial
institutions which could include combinations of capital
surcharges, contingent capital and bail-in debt.
addition, work is continuing to strengthen resolution regimes.
The Basel Committee also recently issued a consultative
document Proposal to ensure the loss absorbency of regulatory
capital at the point of non-viability.
Heads of Supervision endorse the aim to strengthen the loss
absorbency of non-common Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital instruments.
Since the onset of the
crisis, banks have already undertaken substantial efforts to
raise their capital levels.
results of the Committee’s comprehensive quantitative impact
study show that as of the end of 2009, large banks will need, in
the aggregate, a significant amount of additional capital to
meet these new requirements.
Smaller banks, which are
particularly important for lending to the SME sector, for the
most part already meet these higher standards.
Governors and Heads of Supervision also agreed on transitional
arrangements for implementing the new standards.
will help ensure that the banking sector can meet the higher
capital standards through reasonable earnings retention and
capital raising, while still supporting lending to the economy.
The transitional arrangements include:
National implementation by member countries will begin on 1
Member countries must translate the rules
into national laws and regulations before this date.
of 1 January 2013, banks will be required to meet the following
new minimum requirements in relation to risk-weighted assets
– 3.5% common equity/RWAs;
– 4.5% Tier 1
– 8.0% total capital/RWAs.
minimum common equity and Tier 1 requirements will be phased in
between 1 January 2013 and 1 January 2015.
On 1 January
2013, the minimum common equity requirement will rise from the
current 2% level to 3.5%.
The Tier 1 capital
requirement will rise from 4% to 4.5%.
On 1 January
2014, banks will have to meet a 4% minimum common equity
requirement and a Tier 1 requirement of 5.5%.
January 2015, banks will have to meet the 4.5% common equity and
the 6% Tier 1 requirements.
The total capital
requirement remains at the existing level of 8.0% and so does
not need to be phased in.
The difference between the
total capital requirement of 8.0% and the Tier 1 requirement can
be met with Tier 2 and higher forms of capital.
regulatory adjustments (ie deductions and prudential filters),
including amounts above the aggregate 15% limit for investments
in financial institutions, mortgage servicing rights, and
deferred tax assets from timing differences, would be fully
deducted from common equity by 1 January 2018.
particular, the regulatory adjustments will begin at 20% of the
required deductions from common equity on 1 January 2014, 40% on
1 January 2015, 60% on 1 January 2016, 80% on 1 January 2017,
and reach 100% on 1 January 2018.
transition period, the remainder not deducted from common equity
will continue to be subject to existing national treatments.
4. The capital conservation buffer will be phased in
between 1 January 2016 and year end 2018 becoming fully
effective on 1 January 2019.
It will begin at 0.625% of
RWAs on 1 January 2016 and increase each subsequent year by an
additional 0.625 percentage points, to reach its final level of
2.5% of RWAs on 1 January 2019.
experience excessive credit growth should consider accelerating
the build up of the capital conservation buffer and the
National authorities have the
discretion to impose shorter transition periods and should do so
5. Banks that already meet the
minimum ratio requirement during the transition period but
remain below the 7% common equity target (minimum plus
conservation buffer) should maintain prudent earnings retention
policies with a view to meeting the conservation buffer as soon
as reasonably possible.
6. Existing public sector
capital injections will be grandfathered until 1 January 2018.
Capital instruments that no longer qualify as
non-common equity Tier 1 capital or Tier 2 capital will be
phased out over a 10 year horizon beginning 1 January 2013.
Fixing the base at the nominal amount of such instruments
outstanding on 1 January 2013, their recognition will be capped
at 90% from 1 January 2013, with the cap reducing by 10
percentage points in each subsequent year.
instruments with an incentive to be redeemed will be phased out
at their effective maturity date.
7. Capital instruments
that do not meet the criteria for inclusion in common equity
Tier 1 will be excluded from common equity Tier 1 as of 1
However, instruments meeting the
following three conditions will be phased out over the same
horizon described in the previous bullet point:
they are issued by a non-joint stock company;
are treated as equity under the prevailing accounting standards;
(3) they receive unlimited recognition as part of
Tier 1 capital under current national banking law.
Only those instruments issued before the date of this press
release should qualify for the above transition arrangements.
Phase-in arrangements for the leverage ratio were announced
in the 26 July 2010 press release of the Group of Governors and
Heads of Supervision.
That is, the supervisory
monitoring period will commence 1 January 2011; the parallel run
period will commence 1 January 2013 and run until 1 January
2017; and disclosure of the leverage ratio and its components
will start 1 January 2015.
Based on the results of the
parallel run period, any final adjustments will be carried out
in the first half of 2017 with a view to migrating to a Pillar 1
treatment on 1 January 2018 based on appropriate review and
After an observation period beginning in
2011, the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) will be introduced on 1
January 2015. The revised net stable funding ratio (NSFR) will
move to a minimum standard by 1 January 2018.
Committee will put in place rigorous reporting processes to
monitor the ratios during the transition period and will
continue to review the implications of these standards for
financial markets, credit extension and economic growth,
addressing unintended consequences as necessary.
Basel Committee on Banking Supervision provides a forum for
regular cooperation on banking supervisory matters. It seeks to
promote and strengthen supervisory and risk management practices
The Committee comprises representatives from
Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France,
Germany, Hong Kong SAR, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea,
Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, Russia, Saudi Arabia,
Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the
United Kingdom and the United States.
The Group of
Central Bank Governors and Heads of Supervision is the governing
body of the Basel Committee and is comprised of central bank
governors and (non-central bank) heads of supervision from
member countries. The Committee’s Secretariat is based at the
Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland.
G20 - Meeting of Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors,
Busan, Republic of Korea,
June 5, 2010
"We, the G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors, met
at a critical juncture to firmly secure the global recovery and
address the economic challenges and risks.
Building on progress to date, we affirmed our commitment to
intensify our efforts and to accelerate financial repair and
Committed to reach agreement expeditiously on stronger capital
and liquidity standards as the core of our reform agenda and in
that regard fully support the work
of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and call on them
to propose internationally agreed rules to improve both the
quantity and quality of bank capital and to discourage excessive
leverage and risk taking by the November 2010 Seoul Summit.
It is critical that our banking regulators develop capital and
liquidity rules of sufficient rigor to allow our financial firms
to withstand future downturns in the global financial system.
As we agreed, these rules will be
phased in as financial conditions improve and economic recovery
is assured, with the aim of implementation by end-2012.
We welcome the progress on the quantitative and macroeconomic
impact studies which will inform the calibration and phasing in,
We are committed to move together in a transparent and
coordinated way on national implementation of the agreed rules.
Implementation of these new rules should be complemented by
No, we do
not have the Basel iii papers yet
December 2009: The Basel Committee
on Banking Supervision published two consultative documents
which have been widely dubbed "Basel III".
documents entitled “Strengthening the Resilience of the Banking
Sector” (sometimes referred to as ‘Basel III') and
“International Framework for Liquidity Risk Measurement,
Standards and Monitoring” are a part of the Basel Committee’s
These papers are NOT the Basel III
G20 at the
London Summit in April 2009
DECLARATION ON STRENGTHENING THE FINANCIAL
SYSTEM – LONDON, 2 APRIL 2009
"We, the Leaders of the G20, have taken, and will continue to
take, action to strengthen regulation and supervision in line
with the commitments we made in Washington to reform the
regulation of the financial sector."
countries should progressively adopt the Basel II capital
framework; and the BCBS and national authorities should develop
and agree by 2010 a global framework for promoting stronger
liquidity buffers at financial institutions, including
cross-border institutions. "
G20 at the Pittsburgh Summit in September
PROGRESS REPORT ON THE ACTIONS TO PROMOTE
FINANCIAL REGULATORY REFORM ISSUED BY THE U.S. CHAIR OF THE
PITTSBURGH G-20 SUMMIT – 25 SEPTEMBER 2009
"We are committed to
action at the national and international level to
raise standards together so that our national authorities
implement global standards consistently in a way that ensures a
level playing field and avoids fragmentation of markets,
protectionism, and regulatory arbitrage."
Progress is being made
in the two major international initiatives
now underway on bank resolution frameworks, namely the
Cross-Border Bank Resolution Group (CBRG) of the
Basel Committee on Banking Supervision
(BCBS) and the initiative by the
IMF and the World Bank on the legal, institutional and
regulatory framework for national bank insolvency regimes.
the CBRG published for consultation a report, which includes
recommendations for authorities on effective crisis management
and resolution processes for large cross-border institutions. "
" The Group of Central Bank Governors and Heads of
Supervision, the oversight body of the BCBS, reached agreement
in September to introduce a framework for countercyclical
capital buffers above the minimum requirement.
will include capital conservation measures such as constraints
on capital distributions.
Committee will review an appropriate set of indicators, such as
earnings and credit-based variables, as a way to condition the
build up and release of capital buffers.
The BCBS is
also actively engaged with accounting standard setters to
promote more forward-looking provisions based on expected
The IASB is
working to enhance its provisioning standards and guidance on an
accelerated basis, including by considering a proposed
impairment standard based on an expected loss (called an
“expected cash flow”) approach to loan loss provisioning for
issuance in October 2009.
published initial proposals on its website in June to seek input
regarding the feasibility of this expected loss approach before
it issues an exposure draft in October 2009.
the BCBS continues to work on
approaches to address any excessive cyclicality of minimum
The BCBS will issue concrete proposals
on these measures by end-2009.
It will carry
out an impact assessment at the beginning of 2010, with
calibration of the new requirements to be completed by end-2010.
Appropriate implementation standards will be developed to ensure
a phase-in of these new measures that does not impede the
recovery of the real economy. "
" We commit to developing by
end-2010 internationally agreed rules to improve both the
quantity and quality of bank capital and to discourage excessive
leverage and these rules will be phased in as financial
conditions improve and economic recovery is assured, with the
aim of implementation by end-2012.
implementation of higher level and better quality capital
requirements, counter-cyclical capital buffers, higher capital
requirements for risky products and off balance sheet
activities, and as elements of the
Basel II capital framework, together with strengthened liquidity
risk requirements and forward-looking provisioning, will reduce
incentives for banks to take excessive risks and create a
financial system better prepared to withstand adverse shocks.
We welcome the
key measures recently agreed by the oversight body of Basel
Committee on Banking Supervision to strengthen the supervision
and regulation of the banking sector.
The BCBS should review minimum levels of
capital and develop recommendations in 2010.
to deal with impaired assets and to encourage the raising of
additional capital must continue, where needed.
We commit to
conduct robust, transparent stress tests as needed.
We call on
banks to retain a greater proportion of current profits to build
capital, where needed, to support lending. "
" The BCBS
has stated that the level of capital in the banking system, both
the minimum capital requirement and the buffers above it, will
be raised relative to pre-crisis levels to improve resilience to
future episodes of stress.
This will be
done through a combination of measures such as strengthening the
risk coverage of the Basel II capital framework, improving the
quality of capital, and raising the overall minimum requirement.
The BCBS will
carry out an impact assessment at the beginning of 2010 and
calibrate the new requirements by end-2010. Appropriate
implementation standards will be developed to ensure a phase-in
that does not impede the recovery of the real economy. "
Regulatory Arbitrage and Basel iii
Deutsche Bank is concerned about
the regulatory arbitrage possibilities. Andrew Procter, the
bank’s head of government and regulatory affairs,
has expressed concern that the United
States may not adopt Basel III.
“The United States
continues to influence the Basel process but, in effect, treats
the guidelines as optional” .
“Deutsche Bank believes that no other
Basel committee members should move ahead with implementation
until there is a clear timetable from the U.S.” Andrew
Our view is that Basel III
will be implemented in the United States.
We are not sure. Perhaps, after the end of
2012. It is true that the United States delayed Basel II, and we
consider that something similar is likely under Basel III. But,
Basel III is going to be implemented in the United States.
A report from Rabobank’s Economic Research
Department argues that proposed capital and liquidity
requirements for internationally operating banks will have a
major impact on the banking sector, could
restrict the credit supply and hamper economic growth.
Under the Basel III requirements,
banks will have to hold more and higher quality liquid assets as
a buffer for the short-term. They will also have to
finance these assets with more stable and
long-term funding. The Rabobank economists claim that the
will affect the
traditional role of the banks, that is transforming customer’s
savings into loans.
There is a 45% discount ($535 discount) for all
4 distance learning and online certification programs (CBiiPro,
CP2E, CP3E, CSTE)
$653 - Final cost for the 4 programs,
all inclusive, instead of $12,000 - $16,000, cost per delegate
for the 4 instructror-led classes
4 Courses, 4 Professional
Certificates, Independent Evidence that you are a Basel ii
Basel ii Professional (CBiiPro)
In addition to
the above discount, you will have a $100 discount for each of
the following Basel 3 programs, when they will be available:
2. Certified Pillar 2
3. Certified Pillar 3 Expert (CP3E)
4. Certified Stress Testing Expert (CSTE)
Basel iii Professional (CBiiiPro)
2. Certified Pillar 2
Expert - Basel 3 (CP2E-B3)
3. Certified Pillar 3 Expert -
Basel 3 (CP3E-B3)
4. Certified Stress Testing Expert - Basel
To learn the details you may visit:
The Basel ii
Compliance Professionals Association
(BCPA), the largest association of Basel ii
professionals in the world,
has a new kid: The Basel iii Compliance
Professionals Association (BiiiCPA).
The members of the Basel ii
Compliance Professionals Association
(BCPA) will not automatically become members of
Basel iii Compliance Professionals Association (BiiiCPA).
To become a
member you must sign up, as we must comply with several
international laws and regulations, including the new privacy
related laws around the world. Membership is free.
To sign up:
Basel iii Accord is near
The Financial Stability Board has been established to address
vulnerabilities and to develop and implement strong regulatory,
supervisory and other policies in the interest of financial
senior representatives of national financial authorities (central
banks, regulatory and supervisory authorities and ministries of
finance), international financial institutions, standard setting
bodies, and committees of central bank experts.
The Financial Stability Board is supported by a secretariat based
the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland.
Institutions represented on the Financial Stability Board include
standard-setting bodies like the Basel Committee on Banking
Supervision (BCBS), the Committee on the Global Financial System (CGFS),
the Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems (CPSS), the
International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS), the
International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and the
International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO)
We move towards Basel iii
Some really important changes:
1. The predominant form of
Tier 1 capital must be common shares and retained earnings.
The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision is working urgently to
build stronger buffers into the financial system, covering
capital, liquidity and provisioning, that will raise defenses and
constrain the procyclical build-up of leverage in the system.
rules will be set out by end-2009, calibrated in 2010 and phased
in as financial conditions improve and economic recovery is
level and quality of minimum capital requirements will increase
substantially over time.
4. The Basel Committee will issue by the end of 2009 a new minimum
global liquidity standard. This new regulatory framework
introduces a liquidity coverage ratio that can be applied in a
Basel Committee will issue new standards by mid-2010
to take full account of counterparty credit risks, the benefits of
centrally cleared contracts and collateralisation.
Improving Financial Regulation
Report of the Financial Stability Board to G20 Leaders
25 September 2009
1. Since the London Summit, the Financial Stability
Board (FSB) and its members have advanced a major
program of financial reforms based on clear principles
and timetables for implementation that are designed to
ensure that a crisis on this
scale never happens again.
2. Much has already been achieved, and much is
underway that when implemented will result in a very
different financial system than the one that brought
us this crisis.
However, policy development is
not completed, and detailed implementation of the full
set of needed reforms will take time and perseverance.
3. In a globally integrated market economy, where
concerns about a level playing field and protectionist
pressures are real, it is vital that G20 Leaders
strongly support the international policy development
underway and signal their determination to implement
fully and consistently the reforms at national levels.
4. In recent months, expectations have taken hold in
some parts of the private financial sector that the
financial and regulatory system will remain little
changed from its pre-crisis contours.
These expectations – that business will be able to go
on just as before – need to be dispelled.
5. Our objective is to create a
more disciplined and less procyclical financial system
that better supports balanced sustainable economic
This system will
leverage to increase to the extent that it did.
Nor will we allow
risks to be taken where profits accrue to individual
actors but ultimate losses are borne by governments
the wider public.
6. To these ends, our program
includes substantially higher requirements for the
quantity and quality of capital and liquidity at
It also includes
accounting standards and compensation regimes that
improve transparency and limit incentives to excessive
We will constrain risks in trading-related activity by
improving market infrastructure and by significantly
raising capital charges for trading books.
7. Our reform plans set reasonable implementation
windows to avoid aggravating the present crisis.
While the financial system will continue to face
challenges for some time, the faster our financial
systems and economies recover, the faster we should
implement finalised reforms.
8. This crisis has highlighted the moral hazard risks
posed by institutions that have become too big to fail
or that, by their interconnected nature, are too
complex to resolve.
We need to address the
deeper-seated challenges that these institutions pose.
We are committed to developing the solutions to these
problems over the next twelve months.
9. In recent quarters, many
financial institutions have returned to profitability.
These profits owe much to the
extraordinary official measures taken to stabilise the
system, many of which remain in place.
It is imperative that these profits be retained in
financial institutions to rebuild capital necessary to
support lending, allow official support measures to be
removed and prepare institutions to meet future higher
10. The international supervisory and regulatory
community is agreed that restricting dividend
payments, share buybacks and compensation rates are
appropriate means to these ends.
11. The support of G20 Leaders
will be vital for the major decisions that will need
to be made in these important areas, and we ask that
you support us in these endeavours.
Achievements to date
12. Bolstering the resilience of the international
financial system is a broad project encompassing a
considerable number of related measures.
progress has been made on the many measures
recommended in the Financial Stability Forum (FSF)’s
April 2008 and 2009 Reports, the G20 Washington Action
Plan and the London Summit Statement, especially at
the level of international policy development.
Significant actions have been
taken since the London Summit:
• The shortcomings in the Basel capital framework that
generated incentives for off-balance sheet
securitisation activity have been removed;
• The weaknesses in accounting practices and national
standards that generated similar incentives for
off-balance sheet activities have been addressed.
New standards have been set out that enhance the
consolidation of special purpose vehicles and the
transparency of banks’ relationships with such
• The risks that banks assume in their trading
activities have been brought under better control.
Substantially higher capital
requirements against risks in banks’ trading
activities have been issued;
• Strong new risk management standards for financial
institutions have been issued and are being
implemented, covering bank governance, the management
of liquidity risk, underwriting and concentration
risks, stress testing, valuation practices and
exposures to off-balance sheet activities;
• Banks’ disclosures of their on- and off-balance
sheet risk exposures have been materially improved.
New disclosure standards for banks have been issued
covering valuation and liquidity risk, securitisation
and off-balance sheet activities;
• The FSB Principles for Sound
Compensation Practices have been
integrated into the Basel
capital framework, and international guidance
is under development to reinforce their
• Central counterparties have been introduced to clear
credit default swaps, reducing the systemic risks from
standardisation in this market have been increased and
dealers have reduced their cross exposures through
• Stronger oversight regimes for credit rating
agencies have been developed.
New legislation creating
oversight regimes has been approved in Japan and is
close to final approval in the EU; in the US,
amendments to the existing oversight regime have been
proposed or already made;
• Internationally agreed principles for the oversight
of hedge funds have been issued, and national and
regional legislation has been or is in the process of
being introduced to implement them;
• Good practices for due diligence by asset managers
when investing in structured finance products have
been issued, which will reduce their reliance on
credit rating agencies;
• Abusive short selling has been
addressed. Internationally agreed principles have been
issued to counteract the abusive use of short selling
while maintaining the benefits of short selling for
the functioning of the markets, and their
implementation will be monitored;
• Supervisory coordination and cooperation in the
oversight of the most important global financial firms
have improved. Supervisory colleges have now been
established for all the large complex financial groups
that the FSB has identified as needing colleges;
• Strengthened arrangements for system-wide oversight
have been developed in many jurisdictions, bringing
together the relevant authorities to better assess
risks to financial stability and identify mitigating
• Firm-by-firm contingency planning is underway to
implement the FSB Principles for Cross-border
Cooperation on Crisis Management.
Relevant authorities will hold contingency planning
meetings for major cross-border banks within the first
half of 2010 and assess the barriers to coordinated
action that may arise in handling severe stress at
• Depositors will be protected in a more consistent
way around the world.
Core Principles for Effective Deposit Insurance
Systems have been developed and an assessment
methodology is under preparation.
Critical work underway
13. Beyond the areas above, a large body of critical
work is underway to take forward other parts of the
London Summit Statement. In some areas, policy
development is reaching a phase in which difficult
decisions will need to be made.
Strengthening the global capital framework
14. The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision is
working urgently to build stronger buffers into the
financial system, covering capital, liquidity and
provisioning, that will raise defenses and constrain
the procyclical build-up of leverage in the system.
15. New rules will be set out by
end-2009, calibrated in 2010 and phased in as
financial conditions improve and economic recovery is
Government capital injections will be grandfathered.
Banks should be retaining profits now to prepare to
meet these future additional capital requirements.
Restricting dividends, share buybacks and compensation
rates is a necessary part of that process.
16. The new rules will require a clear step up in the
amount and quality of capital that the system as a
whole will need to carry, so that banks holding the
minimum required capital levels will be clearly viable
in a crisis and confidence in the system as a whole
will be maintained.
17. To these ends, the Basel II capital framework is
We are agreed that:
• the level and quality of minimum capital
requirements will increase substantially over time;
• capital requirements will
so that financial
institutions will be required to build capital buffers
above the minimum requirements during good times that
can be drawn down during more difficult periods;
• significantly higher capital requirements for risks
in banks’ trading books will be implemented, with
average capital requirements for the largest banks’
trading books at least doubling by end-2010;
• the quality, consistency and transparency of the
Tier 1 capital base will be raised.
The predominant form of Tier 1
capital must be common shares and retained earnings.
Appropriate principles will be developed for non-joint
stock companies to ensure they hold comparable levels
of high quality Tier 1 capital.
Moreover, deductions and prudential filters will be
harmonised internationally and generally applied at
the level of common equity or its equivalent in the
case of non-joint stock companies;
• the definition of capital will
be harmonised across jurisdictions and all components
of the capital base will be fully disclosed so as to
allow comparisons across institutions to be easily
• a leverage ratio will be introduced as a supplement
to the Basel II risk-based framework with a view to
migrating to a Pillar 1 treatment based on appropriate
review and calibration.
To ensure comparability, the details of the leverage
ratio will be harmonised internationally, fully
adjusting for differences in accounting.
18. We will also examine the use of “contingent
capital” and comparable instruments as a potentially
cost-efficient tool to meet a portion of the capital
buffer in a form that acts as debt during normal times
but converts to loss-absorbing capital during
financial stress, thus acting as a shock-absorber for
the capital position.
19. We will also assess the need for a capital
surcharge to mitigate the risk of systemic banks.
Making global liquidity more robust
20. The crisis vividly demonstrated that adequate
liquidity is a prerequisite for financial stability.
The drying up of liquidity at the level of financial
institutions, countries and ultimately the global
system caused the seizing up of credit provision and
of financial flows.
Cross-border flows are often the
most vulnerable during financial crisis, and emerging
markets can face damaging volatility in foreign
exchange and liquidity flows.
21. Just as strong capital is a necessary condition
for banking system soundness, so too is a strong
Many banks that
had adequate capital levels still experienced
difficulties during the crisis because they did not
manage their liquidity in a prudent manner.
The lesson is that banks’ resilience to system-wide
liquidity shocks – affecting both market and funding
liquidity – must be significantly increased and their
management of this risk strengthened.
22. To this end, we are substantially raising the bar
for global liquidity risk regulation:
• The Basel Committee will issue
by the end of 2009 a new minimum global liquidity
This new regulatory framework
introduces a liquidity coverage ratio that can be
applied in a cross-border setting.
It establishes a harmonised framework to ensure that
global banks have sufficient high-quality liquid
assets to withstand a stressed funding scenario
specified by supervisors.
• The Basel Committee will also formulate a structural
ratio to address liquidity mismatches and promote a
strong funding profile over longer-term horizons.
• This new standard complements the supervisory
guidance for banks’ liquidity risk management
practices, the implementation of which is being
assessed in supervisory reviews.
23. Shortages of cross-border liquidity caused
problems at the national level for many countries.
Ex ante measures to reduce the risk of instability are
needed, as well as ex post mechanisms to provide a
coordinated official response if shortages arise:
• Regulators and supervisors in
emerging markets will enhance their supervision of
banks’ operations in foreign currency funding markets.
• The Committee on the Global Financial System will
investigate policy options to reduce system-wide
cross-border liquidity risk, including through
strengthening the infrastructure of the foreign
exchange swaps market and other aspects of funding
• National and regional authorities and the
international financial institutions will use the
results of this investigation to review together the
scope for improved cooperation over liquidity
provision when liquidity shortages arise.
Reducing the moral hazard posed by systemically
24. Notwithstanding the actions above to strengthen
capital and liquidity,
additional steps are needed to reduce the moral hazard
risks and economic damage associated with institutions
that are “too big to fail” (or, more accurately, too
big and too complex to fail).
25. Action in this area is essential to contain the
costs to governments and economies of future crises.
We will develop
over the next 12 months measures that can be taken to
reduce the systemic risks these
Possible measures include
specific additional capital, liquidity and other
prudential requirements as well as other measures to
reduce the complexity of group structures and, where
appropriate, encourage stand-alone subsidiaries.
More intense and internationally coordinated
regulation and supervision of firms presenting greater
risks can help to reduce the probability of their
26. For all major cross-border firms we will require
the development of specific contingency plans that aim
at preserving the firm as a going concern, promoting
the resiliency of key functions and facilitating rapid
resolution or wind-down, should that prove necessary.
The Basel Committee’s
consultation document on cross border bank resolution
proposes specific actions to achieve an effective,
rapid and orderly wind-down of large cross-border
27. We will assess the implications of different
responses for systemic cross-border institutions with
different group structures, and the impact of these
different measures for the stability and efficiency of
cross-border capital flows.
We ask you to support us in this important future
Strengthening accounting standards
In April 2009, the G20
Leaders stated that standard setters should “make
significant progress towards a single set of high
quality global accounting standards.”
There is significant progress in this area and nearly
all FSB member jurisdictions have programmes underway
to converge with or adopt the standards of the
International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) by
29. In addition, the G20 Leaders
welcomed the FSF’s procyclicality recommendations
relating to accounting and called on “accounting
standard setters to work urgently with supervisors and
regulators to improve standards on valuation and
provisioning and achieve a single set of high-quality
global accounting standards.”
Important steps have been taken to improve existing
standards and to enhance dialogue with prudential
But in some
instances, achieving improved valuation and
provisioning standards alongside the goal of
convergence need further attention by standard
30. At present, the IASB and the US Financial
Accounting Standards Board (FASB) are considering a
variety of approaches which could possibly lead to
divergences between IASB and FASB standards with
• improving and simplifying financial instruments
accounting, where FASB is considering an approach that
is based on fair value measurement for most financial
instruments, which would be proposed by early 2010,
while the IASB has proposed a mixed model of
historical cost and fair value, to be available for
use in 2009 year-end financial statements;
• provisioning and impairment, where the IASB plans to
propose a standard using an expected loss or expected
cash flow approach to loan loss provisioning in
October 2009, which would generally recognise credit
losses earlier and mitigate procyclicality,1 whereas
the FASB continues to consider changes to impairment
recognition, including an approach based on fair value
with plans to issue its proposal by early 2010;
• off-balance sheet standards,
where the IASB’s proposal on derecognition, which is
now subject to consultation, would require repurchase
agreements to be treated as sales and forward
contracts in certain situations (thus leading to
off-balance sheet treatment), instead of as financing
transactions on the balance sheet as under current
IASB and FASB standards.
31. Moreover, continuing differences in accounting
requirements of the IASB and FASB for
netting/offsetting of assets and liabilities also
result in significant differences in banks’ total
assets, posing problems for framing an international
32. Therefore, additional work in the areas above is
urgently needed in order to meet the important
objectives of convergence, transparency and the
mitigation of procyclicality, as standard setters
continue their efforts to improve the quality of their
standards and reduce the complexity of their standards
on financial instruments.
33. We strongly encourage the IASB and FASB to agree
on improved converged standards that will:
• incorporate a broader range of available credit
information than existing provisioning requirements,
so as to recognise credit losses in loan portfolios at
an earlier stage as part of an effort to mitigate procyclicality.
We are particularly supportive of continued work on
impairment standards based on an expected loss model;
• simplify and improve the
accounting principles for financial instruments and
particularly supportive of continued work in a manner
that does not expand the use of fair value in relation
to the lending activities (involving loans and
investments in debt instruments) of financial
34. While respecting the independence of accounting
standard setters, the FSB is urging renewed efforts by
the IASB and FASB to achieve these objectives, working
with supervisors, regulators and other constituents.
The Basel Committee has issued for consideration by
accounting standard setters principles for the
revision of accounting standards for financial
instruments, agreed by all G20 banking supervisors,
that address issues related to provisioning, fair
value measurement and related disclosures.
35. We welcome the IASB’s recent initiatives with
respect to provisioning and its enhanced technical
dialogue with prudential supervisors and other
stakeholders, and encourage the IASB to continue its
dialogue with stakeholders as it moves forward.
We request G20 Leaders to support the call for action
set forth in this section.
Improving compensation practices
36. National regulatory and supervisory initiatives
are being taken to implement the FSB Principles for
Sound Compensation Practices.
call for wide ranging private and official sector
action to ensure that governance of compensation is
effective; that financial firms align their
compensation practices with prudent risk taking; and
that compensation policies are subject to
effective supervisory oversight and engagement by
37. Given competitiveness
concerns, speedy and determined coordinated action in
all major financial centres is needed to achieve
effective global implementation of the Principles.
We must ensure that the Principles are rigorously and
consistently implemented and applied to significant
financial institutions and especially large,
systemically relevant firms across the financial
38. To this end, we have set out in a separate report2
to the Summit specific implementation standards for
the Principles, focusing on areas in which especially
rapid progress is needed.
• independent and effective
board oversight of compensation policies and
• linkages of the total variable compensation pool to
the overall performance of the firm and the need
to maintain a sound capital base;
• compensation structure and risk alignment, including
deferral, vesting and clawback arrangements;
• limitations on guaranteed bonuses;
• enhanced public disclosure and transparency of
• enhanced supervisory oversight of compensation,
including sanctions if necessary.
39. The Basel Committee, the International Association
of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS) and the International
Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) will
undertake measures to support implementation.
40. We will undertake a FSB thematic peer review of
actions taken by national authorities to implement our
Principles and implementation standards.
We will assess whether these actions have had their
intended effect and propose additional measures as
This review will
be completed in March 2010.
41. These actions are in addition to our call for
banks to conserve capital by limiting bonus payments
today and so be in a better position to meet future
additional capital requirements.
Expanding oversight of the financial system
42. In addition to strengthening the buffers in the
banking system, work is progressing to ensure that,
throughout the broader financial system, all
systemically important activity is subjected to
appropriate oversight and regulation.
• Regarding hedge funds,
regulators are working, including through IOSCO, to
set out for consideration by legislatures a consistent
framework for oversight and regulation of hedge funds
and/or hedge fund managers, including requirements for
mandatory registration, ongoing regulation, provision
of information for systemic risk purposes, disclosure
and exchange of information between regulators.
coordinating their respective work in order to ensure
the best possible consistency with regard to
implementation of hedge fund regulation in different
By March 2010, IOSCO will report on the level of
implementation in these areas and on proposed industry
• On credit rating agencies,
regulators are working, including through IOSCO, to
evaluate whether national and regional regulatory
initiatives are consistent with the IOSCO Principles
and Code of Conduct Fundamentals and to identify
whether divergences between initiatives might cause
conflicting compliance obligations for credit rating
work together towards appropriate, globally compatible
solutions as early as possible in 2010.
• Regarding the perimeter of regulation more
generally, supervisors and regulators working through
the Joint Forum will identify by end-2009 other key
areas where the perimeter needs to be expanded.
• By the November 2009 meeting of G20 Finance
Ministers and Central Bank Governors, the
International Monetary Fund (IMF), Bank for
International Settlements and FSB will have developed
preliminary guidance for national authorities to
assess the systemic importance of financial
institutions, markets or instruments.
43. To guard against regulatory arbitrage, it is
imperative that initiatives to expand the perimeter of
regulation are effectively and consistently
implemented across key jurisdictions.
The FSB will benchmark the regulations implemented in
these jurisdictions to assess whether they are well
aligned with each other.
Strengthening the robustness of the OTC derivatives
44. Global regulatory efforts to reduce systemic risks
in the over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives market have
intensified since the London Summit.
Given the global nature of the market, international
standards must be established and consistently applied
to address these risks, and regulators must coordinate
45. To these ends, the official sector will:
• strengthen capital requirements to reflect the risks
of OTC derivatives and further incentivise the move to
central counterparties and, where appropriate,
The Basel Committee will issue
new standards by mid-2010 to take full account of
counterparty credit risks, the benefits of centrally
cleared contracts and collateralisation.
Regulators need to ensure that equivalent rules are
applied outside the banking sector;
• strengthen standards for central counterparties by
mid-2010 to address the issues specific to clearing
OTC derivatives, and develop international
recommendations for OTC derivatives trade
repositories, working through the Committee on Payment
and Settlement Systems and IOSCO;
• coordinate efforts to oversee and apply
international standards to OTC derivatives central
counterparties and trade repositories. We strongly
support the ongoing work of the OTC Derivatives
Regulators’ Forum to develop international cooperative
oversight frameworks by end-2009, including for
sharing information among regulators and developing
common expectations for data reporting; and
• identify legal or other impediments to implementing
the OTC derivatives market reforms, which regulators
or legislative authorities will then take action to
46. The private sector needs to meet its commitments
to supervisors to expand central clearing of OTC
derivatives trades; improve risk management for trades
that are not cleared, meet increasingly stringent
targets for operational improvements and report data
on their performance to their regulators; and report
all non-cleared trades to regulated trade
If they do not meet these and future commitments,
supervisors will develop alternative approaches to
ensure the improvements are made.
Re-launching securitisation on a sound basis
47. The revival of securitisation markets is needed in
many countries to support the provision of credit to
the real economy.
initiatives are underway to standardise terms and
structures, reduce complexity and enhance
transparency, the official sector must provide the
framework that ensures discipline in the
securitisation market as it revives.
48. To this end, during 2010, supervisors and
• implement the measures decided
by the Basel Committee to strengthen the capital
treatment of securitisation and establish clear rules
for banks’ management and disclosure, including:
o higher risk weights for securitisations and
o requirements on banks to conduct more rigorous due
diligence of externally rated securitisations, with
higher capital requirements imposed where this does
not take place;
o tighter prudential guidance for bank management of
off-balance sheet exposures arising from
securitisation vehicles; and
o improved disclosures of securitisation exposures in
the trading book, sponsorship of off-balance sheet
vehicles, re-securitisation exposures, valuation
assumptions and pipeline risks;
• implement IOSCO’s proposals to
strengthen practices in securitisation markets,
o reviewing the due diligence practices and associated
disclosures of participants in the securitisation
o better informing and protecting investors by
requiring greater disclosure by issuers, including
initial and ongoing information about underlying asset
o reviewing and, as appropriate, strengthening
investor suitability requirements;
o considering what enhancements are needed to
regulatory powers to allow authorities to implement
the recommendations in a manner promoting
international coordination of regulation;
• examine other ways to align
incentives of issuers with investors, including
considering requirements on issuers of securitisations
to retain a part of the economic exposure of the
• encourage greater use of the contractual form used
in covered bonds, which tie issuers to the instruments
by obliging them to act as the de facto guarantor in
the event of underperformance by the underlying
assets, provided that depositors are not
• support implementation of industry initiatives to
standardise terms and structures, reduce complexity
and enhance transparency and, as securitisation
markets restart, adjust measures as appropriate.
Adherence to international standards
49. The FSB will put in place by the end of 2009 a
framework to strengthen adherence to international
regulatory and prudential standards. The framework,
which will build upon IMF and World Bank assessments,
is envisaged to provide comprehensive and updated
FSB member countries have agreed to lead by example in
disclosing their degree of
The FSB will report on the development of this
framework at the November 2009 meeting of G20 Finance
Ministers and Central Bank Governors.
50. We will apply this framework to identify
non-cooperative jurisdictions with reference to
cooperation, information exchange and other prudential
standards, focusing on jurisdictions of concern due to
weaknesses in compliance and systemic importance.
The FSB will work as quickly as possible to develop:
• a global compliance “snapshot”
for the relevant standards building on Financial
Sector Assessment Program (FSAP) assessments where
available and other relevant information, by November
• criteria for identifying jurisdictions of concern by
• procedures for an evaluation process to build on and
complement FSAP assessments, to be launched by
February 2010 at the latest; and
• a toolbox of measures to promote adherence and
cooperation among jurisdictions, by February 2010 at
51. Within this framework, we are also developing a
system of peer reviews among FSB members, based among
other evidence on the findings of IMF and World Bank
assessments, and will report on their outcome.
These will comprise both single-country and thematic
reviews to assess our implementation of international
financial standards and of policies agreed in the FSB
and determine whether additional steps are needed to
reach the intended results.
will be developed in parallel. Actual reviews will
start by end-2009 with the thematic peer review on the
implementation of the FSB compensation principles.
The need for perseverance and consistent national
52. While reforms are well underway, as we detail in a
separate report, they are far from complete.
Effective work to strengthen the global financial
system requires policies that are well designed and
will be robust over the long run.
This necessarily takes time.
It is important, therefore, that Leaders send a strong
message that they are determined to see these reforms
Where international policy development is ongoing, we
need Leaders’ continued support; where such policy
work has concluded, we need Leaders’ commitment to
consistent national implementation.
Achieving our objectives of
a well regulated open financial system requires the
maintenance of a level playing field.
Delivering this is
one of the reasons why the FSB exists.
However, the speed with which jurisdictions develop
and change financial regulation differs, and
consistency in what comes into place should not be
taken for granted.
While the FSB can
develop coherent policy proposals, only national
authorities can assure implementation that is
is consistent across borders.
Given the commitment we have all made to coherent
approaches as we improve the regulation of the system,
we must strive to overcome differences in our final
We will continue
to take actions to ensure achievement of this end.
54. To maintain ongoing attention to this issue and
foster the pace and consistency of implementation, we
will launch a project to compare national
implementation measures and identify cross-country
differences and any need for policy actions to address
55. As our economies recover, it
is crucial that national momentum for significant
reforms be maintained.
The FSB will
continue to work to ensure that the goals remain
ambitious, that clear targets are set to move us
forward towards those goals, and that their importance
is not lost even if markets seem to be calmer for the
Prepare for Basel iii
Connect with the global community of professionals,
to gain insight into the G20 efforts to regulate the global
financial system, to explore new career avenues and most of all,
to acquire lifelong skills.Join the Basel iii Compliance
Professionals Association (BiiiCPA).
Membership is Free.
Learn more about the Certified Basel III
Professional Distance Learning and Online Certification Program