Credit Risk and Banking Regulation
Introduction
Credit risk is a liability default that results as the borrower fails to make the due payments (Livne et al., 2018). Banking regulation, on the other hand, is a kind of control by the government which places banks to some specific requirements, limits, and procedures meant to ensure transparency in the market among banking entities and other organizations which operate a business, among many others. Credit modeling is essential for financial institutions as it helps them improve their businesses and also improve customer service (Nolde, 2017). The banks are also able to manage the risks of default payments because suppose banks fail to plan for this, then they may be subjected to a big pool of credit exposures. And banks are capable of determining the background of the borrower seeking for the loan (Cimon, 2019).
This paper entails looking at the elements of the Basel regulatory framework, the items to be considered during its implementation. Also, focus on some regional differences during its execution i.e., between non-EU territories and EU territories. The reforms introduced in the Basel 3 and the changes that they brought and their importance to the banks.
Implementation of Basel 3 Standards across Member Jurisdictions
Basel 3 was a mutual agreement between the members of the Basel Committee on banking supervision in 2010 November but was rescheduled to be implemented from 2013 to 2015. However, the implementation was still postponed to 2019 31st March (Akter et al., 2019). Basel 3 was a voluntary international regulatory bank framework on banks, stress testing, capital adequacy, and liquidity market risk. The third Basel was introduced in reaction to financial regulation deficiencies witnessed through crises of finance of 2007-08, and it was purposed to support and smoothen requirements of the bank capital by rising liquidity of the financial institutions and to reduce banking leverage (Rossignolo, 2020). The implementation was majorly proposed to introduce several elements, as discussed by the committee. The BCBS was set in 1974 by the governors of the central bank as feedback to financial market distractions. The committee was introduced as a platform or medium where the member countries can deliberate on issues regarding banking supervision (Rai, 2017). It was to ensure the stability of finances by straightening regulation, control, and international practices of banking. Below are the several key elements discussed by the committee from a different jurisdiction.
The first is the minimum capital requirements, where the committee agreed to increase the capital minimum requirements for financial institutions and banks from 2% to 4.5% in the second Basel committee of the common equity (Blahová, 2017). As a percentage of the weighted-asset risks of the banks, there was an added 2.5% capital buffer requirement that now summed to7% the minimum standards for the banks. The banks were to utilize the buffer capital during crisis financially, but by doing that, they would even result to more problems when settling dividends (Masood et al., 2017). The second element was the leverage ratio; Basel 3 brought a non-risk founded leverage ratio to act as a prevention to the risk-based requirements of the capital. The banks are supposed to maintain a leverage level of 3%. The leverage ratio, which is non-risk based, is calculated by dividing Tier 1capital by the average sum assets consolidated by the bank (Thomasson, 2017). To adhere to the regulation, the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States set the ratio to be 5% for the banks insured holding entities, and at 6% for the other essential financial institutions. Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
Implementation differences between EU and Non-EU territories
There were various European Union and Non-European Union’s regions which adopted the regulations of the Basel 3 framework (Paul et al., 2019). When we look at the state of implementation of the Basel 3 in the European Union’s territories, we find that it was adopted to smoothen the resilience of the European union’s banking sector that it would be best set to detect and monitor the economic issues while helping banks to progress financial financing operations and the growth (Shukla, 2018). In Europe, it displaced the capital requirement package regulations with the regulation that it will major in establishing sound and safe systems of finance. In India, which is a non-European country, Basel 3 was implemented to meet investor and the customer expectations, as a race for the survival and operational efficiency, capital requirements for the public banking sectors and economic and policy changes together with the mounting of the pile of stressed assets.
Differences
Unlike in the European Union’s Basel, standards were criticized for their rigidity and lack of risk sensitivity in determining capital requirements. In India the Basel 2, as a capital regulation strategy did not address specific issues that happened during the financial crises of 2007-8; it did not affix additional capital market requirements; when banks needed additional capital, they were unable to raise it (Jayaraj, 2017). During the crisis of the finances, it was the failure to bring in the extra money that forces many Indian banks into declining, thereby harming the whole financial market and even the recession.
The possible causes for the differences
There are several causes that may have lead to the differences in the Basel 3 implementation status in the European territories and the Indian regions, as discussed below.
There was a weak exchange of the development information in the banking sector and financial markets to facilitate the determination of the current risks for financial markets in India. Secondly, the sharing of approaches to the supervision and techniques to facilitate general understanding and to improve cooperation was very poor in the Indian territories (Helming, 2018). Consultations with the Central banks that are not members of the BCBS to benefit from their input into the BCBS policy process formulation and facilitate the implementation of the BCBS guidelines and procedures did not bear fruitful results in India. Poor execution and monitoring of BCBS requirements in the Indian status did not ensure timely and effective implementation in the territories of India (Forrester, 2017). There were weak coordination and cooperation with some financial sector standards of the BCBS, specifically those involved in promoting financial stability in the Indian territories. The setting up and the facilitation of the international standards for the regulation and supervision of banks and procedures and sound policies were perfect in the European countries, unlike the case in India where it did not correctly work.
Comparison between the capital requirements in India and European Unions
As I stated earlier, the minimum capital requirement, according to Basel 3, is that the banks should sustain 8%. The capital ratio adequacy determines the bank’s capital in association with its risk-weighted assets (Pant et al., 2019). Although Basel was a very comprehensive regulatory, there were several differences in terms of the implementation between the European countries and the Indian territories that were evident. The first issue was the Growth barrier where the growth and the stability of the finances appeared to be two conflicting objectives for an economy. The Indian economy, which is advancing economically and approaching rapid improvements in the sector of investment, failed to maintain the recommended 8% sustainable capital (Cohen, 2016). The other issue on the implementation of the Basel policies was the additional capital, as banks in India kept increasing the weighted risk portfolio in order to achieve the growing economies requirements for the credit, they would need extra money from the Basel 3. Distinct supplementary capital requirement estimates were evident in different territories of India. This profoundly impacted the implementation of the Basel guidelines in India.
Advantages of implementing capital requirements as outlined by Basel guidelines
Any territory that successfully fulfills the minimum capital requirements will be able to make sure banks and depository firms holdings are not dominated by the risk default investment (Hidayat, 2018). Again they ensure that banks and depository entities possess adequate capital to maintain or settle the operating costs or losses. These countries are also able to compare they’re, evaluate their financial institutions like banks and other depository entities (Gurrea-Martínez, 2019). They are also able to set the industry standards and finally ensure that banks stay solvent, avoiding the credit defaults.
Challenges of implementing Base 3 policy
There are several challenges that the country will face on implementing the Basel 3 policies, as stated below. The first is the risk and finance management culture. Basel policy is introduced to alt the way in which the bank handles the management of risk roles (Boora, 2019). The new system aims mostly for better integration of the risk and financial management practices, which will possibly lead to the joining of the functions of authorities on delivering the strategic business responsibilities. This may be challenged by the power separation between those who handle risk management and financial (Yenneti, 2016). The Basel policy requires that risk management, which is inherent, should be evaluated. Auditing the data is another issue that will impact the implementation of Basel 3 in most countries. When the report of the regulatory is passed, it is most likely that the regulators have to go hand in hand with the financial institutions to clarify the most critical matters about the results of the capitals were achieved and how the rules were followed (Dey et al., 2020). Some of the submissions may be inconsistent such that the information reached or results are not correct. Different geographical areas and various issues is another significant challenge to the implementation of the requirements of the Basel 3 as distinct countries and regions face different challenges in adopting the Basel 3 policy. For instance, India has been inconsistent in affirming the Basel 3 requirements as they had their own legacies before the introduction of the Basel 3 policies. This, in several cases this means that most of the national regulations of India will be suspended by Basel 3 or rather be sustained in a parallel position. Some territories of India chose to adopt the Basel in their own ways as they perceive that Basel 3 does not reach specific countries’ requirements. This is a great challenge in the implementation of Basel 3.
Data management is a challenge to the implementation of Basel 3. To ensure compliance against Basel 3, all the depository firms and banks should make sure finance and risk managers can reach easily to clean and centralized information. This data must show their bank credibility, concentration, and operational issues and the risks related to the liquidity (Vignesh, 2018). The management of data as per the Basel 3 requires that there should be a clear picture of the bank’s position, data accuracy, and consistency. In this case, it has been very complicated for India to ensure that it delivers the correct data calculations and management as per the requirements of the Basel 3.
The risk parameters of Basel
Generally, Basel 4 was an improvement of the third Basel. Some of the capital parameters were introduced as part of the integral elements of the framework of the capital. The first was the prevention of undue optimism in entity modeling operations, which ensured that the formulated requirements of the money did not go below the normal level. Mitigating the model risk is another parameter that was introduced to ensure that the risk of the capital loss is reduced to acceptable standards, and this enhanced many banks to provide sustainable liquidity in their operations (Firestone, 2016). The parameters were also entailing to address the incentive- compatibility problems as commercial banks and other depository firms use optimistic models to internally reduce weighted risk assets hence reducing the overall return on capital. Another parameter that was modified in the fourth Basel requirements was the issue of promoting and advancing comparability through the provision of standardized risk assessment models and practices. And it lastly was the constraining model variation that arose from the banks and other financial institutions and the monitoring and control practices (Akkizidis, 2018).
Now the capital structure includes Basel 1 aggregate capital floor associated with specific classes of assets and capital parameters. The aggregate level was to be measured as 73% of the risk totally weighted assets under the approaches standardized. The Basel 2 requirements established a floor capital as a section of transformational necessities for banks applying the IRB approaches for credit risk management or advanced method approach for risk management operationally. In this superior floor, bank capital ratios resulted in 80% of the requirements of the capital as examined under the Basel 1 frameworks. The fourth Basel established revised floor output similarly that intended to restrict the amount of benefit capital that the banks can get from calculating the RWAs in the models internally. In the new floor, banks utilizing internal models methods must measure the RWAs as follows. Firstly, the sum RWA using the technique in which the banks have the approval of supervision, and secondly, 73% of the amount RWAs by measuring, particularly the approach standardized by the Basel (Grundke, 2019).
Additionally, despite if the bank is basically the reason for the standardization method, all banks will have to enclose their RWAs, as stated in the revised approaches standards.
Changes from the implementation of the capital parameters
Basel 4 introduce various reforms that were later associated with multiple changes in the credit risk and banking regulations sectors. The first change was the improvement of the banking sector, in this case, the accords of the Basel enabled the financial institutions and other depository firms to absorb the economic shocks and detect every issue associated with the finances in European unions and the countries that are member territories (Schneider, 2017). The economic problems included the risk of loss of capital during the adverse condition, and by such, the Basel was mandated to ensure that they prepare the commercial banks and other depository organs to be ready for such adverse conditions. Even by determining the background of the credit or loan seekers, which helped lend carefully hence controlling the credit defaults.
Improved risk management and finance due to the introduction of the capital parameters changed risk management and economics (Rubio, 2016). The member state territories and the other countries who adopted the reforms were able to manage well the risks and the financial risks. By ensuring the transparency and also the proper data recording and accuracy enhanced the reduction of the risks that may be associated with the finances. This also resulted in much profitability being realized among the performing countries that keenly implemented and supervised the Basel parameters (De Jongh, 2017). The other change was the issue of bank transparency and disclosures, which involved all member countries being monitored and supervised to ensure that the data they provide is correct by stating how it was attained and if the set rules were correctly adhered to. This made it clear that every bank was very transparent in every its dealings and that bared the fruit of the best performance and growth to the financial and the banking sectors
How these parameters were beneficial to banks using internal models
These parameters were very advantageous to the banks using the internal models to eliminate them in a number of ways. Firstly, the utilization of the internal models for the intention of examining the risk market requirements of the capital was a condition of the supervisory authority approval by the banks, which was an element of the Basel parameters (Kinateder, 2016). Secondly, the authority or the supervisory was only to approve banks’ use of models internally to examine market risk capital. The administration of the supervision ensured that bank management is sound, and it is implemented by integrity. The banks had the jurisdiction of the monitoring that provided the staff skilled in the use of those models internally, not just in the trading areas but also in the control of the risk, bank office areas, and auditing if required (Mayer, 2017). The supervision authority also enhanced that the trading records and track keeping are reasonable and accurate in risk measurement. These parameters were also beneficial in that they controlled the stress testing along the banks using internal models. The supervision authority ensured the monitoring and testing live of the bank’s internal trading models before it is used for the intended reasons for calculating the bank’s capital risk requirements (Laurent et al., 2017).
Why did BCBS bring in such changes in Basel 3?
The several reasons why the BCBS introduced such changes was to set reforms meant to improve banking regulation, to improve the supervision of the commercial banks and other depository firms and also improve the management of risk among the business sectors (McNamara et al., 2019). It introduced such reforms to react to the crisis of finances in different economic areas, to help the banks sustain the prudent leverage ratios and meet specific requirements of the capitals.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the paper has clearly outlined the importance of credit control and the banking regulations in various financial institutions, including the need to respond to the adverse financial crisis need to avoid credit defaulters and maybe help improve the capital sustainability in banks. It also intends to ensure growth and transparency in the systems of finance. It also looked at the benefits of implementing the Basel 3 policy requirements, which resulted in proper monitoring and improvement of the banking sector in terms of investment and risk management. There was the establishment of the adequacy minimum capital requirements, which helped the banks to sustain their financial stability during the adverse conditions of the financial crises. This also improves the accountability and also the transparency of the business firms as the Basel 3 requires proper record and data management where monitoring and supervision are facilitated. I recommend that all the global countries may join the Basel regulatory organ to enhance such improvements in their banking sector and credit control.
References
Livne, S., Furman, V., Seidman, R. and Livyatan, T., Oracle International Corp, 2018. System and method to support diameter credit control session redirection using SCIM/service broker. U.S. Patent 10,115,135.
Nolde, N. and Ziegel, J.F., 2017. Elicitability and backtesting: Perspectives for banking regulation. The annals of applied statistics, 11(4), pp.1833-1874.
Cimon, D. and Garriott, C., 2019. Banking regulation and market making. Journal of Banking & Finance, 109, p.105653.
Akter, R., Ahmad, S., Kulsum, U., Hira, N.J., Akhter, S. and Islam, M.S., 2019. A Study on the Implementation of Basel III: Bangladesh Perspective. Academy of Strategic Management Journal.
Rossignolo, A.F., 2020. Basel 3.5 vs. Basel III: a radical overhaul of the capital requirements pillar. The case of commodity exposures. International Journal of Banking, Accounting and Finance, 11(1), pp.1-34.
Rai, A., Viswanathan, K.G. and White, N., 2017. Implementation of Basel Capital Ratios by Indian Banks. J Bus Fin Aff, 6(264), pp.2167-0234.
Blahová, N. and Brůna, K., 2017. Omezení nabídky úvěru solventní otevřené ekonomiky v rámci implementace kapitálových požadavků Basel III [Credit Supply Constraint of Solvent Open Economy wthin Implementation of Basel III Capital Requirements]. Politická ekonomie, 2017(2), pp.141-160.
Masood, O., Bellalah, M. and Ghauri, S., 2017. Basel III Implementation Outcome in Islamic Banks. Journal of Risk, 19(S1).
Thomasson, J. and Andersson, J., 2016. The Implementation of Basel III: A Swedish Perspective.
Gonzalez, V.E., 2016. The Implementation of Basel III in an Australian Bank: Some Corporate Governance Implications (Doctoral dissertation, Victoria University).
Paul, S.P., Adams, H.L. and Basude, D., 2019. Interpretation and implementation of the revised European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) guidelines on pediatric celiac disease amongst consultant general pediatricians in Southwest of England. Indian Journal of Gastroenterology, 38(3), pp.203-210.
Shukla, S. and Patel, A., 2018. Basel III: Cost-Bene t analysis for Indian Banks.
Jayaraj, T., 2017. Implications of Monetary Policy and Non-performing Assets in Implementing Basel III in Indian Commercial Banks (Doctoral dissertation, University of Cape Town).
Helming, J. and Tabeau, A., 2018. The economic, environmental and agricultural land use effects in the European Union of agricultural labour subsidies under the Common Agricultural Policy. Regional environmental change, 18(3), pp.763-773.
Forrester, D.B., 2017. Caste and Christianity: Attitudes and Policies on Caste of Anglo-Saxon Protestant Missions in India (Vol. 2). Routledge.
Pant, D., Misra, S., Nizami, A.S., Rehan, M., van Leeuwen, R., Tabacchioni, S., Goel, R., Sarma, P., Bakker, R., Sharma, N. and Kwant, K., 2019. Towards the development of a biobased economy in Europe and India. Critical reviews in biotechnology, 39(6), pp.779-799.
Cohen, B.H. and Scatigna, M., 2016. Banks and capital requirements: channels of adjustment. Journal of Banking & Finance, 69, pp.S56-S69.
Boora, K. and Jangra, K., 2019. Preparedness level of Indian public sector banks for implementation of Basel III. Managerial Finance.
Yenneti, K., 2016. The grid-connected solar energy in India: Structures and challenges. Energy Strategy Reviews, 11, pp.41-51.
Dey, A.N., Panigrahi, B.K. and Kar, S.K., 2020. Smartgrids/Microgrids in India: A Review on Relevance, Initiatives, Policies, Projects and Challenges. In Innovation in Electrical Power Engineering, Communication, and Computing Technology (pp. 465-474). Springer, Singapore.
Vignesh, A. and Nagarajan, P.S., 2018. Opportunities and challenges of implementing ERP in Indian startups. ZENITH International Journal of Business Economics & Management Research, 8(2), pp.185-197.
Firestone, S. and Rezende, M., 2016. Are banks’ internal risk parameters consistent? Evidence from syndicated loans. Journal of Financial Services Research, 50(2), pp.211-242.
Grundke, P., Pliszka, K. and Tuchscherer, M., 2019. Model and estimation risk in credit risk stress tests. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, pp.1-37.
Akkizidis, I. and Kalyvas, L., 2018. Credit Risk: Aspects of Implementation. In Final Basel III Modelling (pp. 53-85). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Schneider, S., Schröck, G., Koch, S. and Schneider, R., 2017. Basel “IV”: What’s next for banks. Implications of Intermediate Results of New Regulatory Rules for European Banks. McKinsey Global Risk Practice Paper.
Rubio, M. and Carrasco-Gallego, J.A., 2016. The new financial regulation in Basel III and monetary policy: A macroprudential approach. Journal of Financial Stability, 26, pp.294-305.
De Jongh, R., Verster, T., Reynolds, E., Joubert, M. and Raubenheimer, H., 2017. A critical review of the Basel margin of conservatism requirement in a retail credit context. International Business & Economics Research Journal (IBER), 16(4), pp.257-274.
Kinateder, H., 2016. Basel II versus III: a comparative assessment of minimum capital requirements for internal model approaches. Journal of Risk, 18(3).
Mayer, M. and Sauer, S., 2017. Are Through-the-Cycle Credit Risk Models a Beneficial Macro-Prudential Policy Tool?. In Monetary Policy, Financial Crises, and the Macroeconomy (pp. 201-224). Springer, Cham.
Laurent, Jean-Paul, and Hassan Omidi Firouzi. “Market risk and volatility weighted historical simulation after Basel III.” Available at SSRN 3094463 (2017).
McNamara, C.M., Wedow, M. and Metrick, A., 2019. Basel III B: Basel III Overview. Journal of Financial Crises, 1(4), pp.59-69.
Hidayat, S.E., Nadeem, M.M., AlMadaifa, A.J. and Ali, Z., 2018. Impacts of Basel III on Islamic Finance. Journal of Islamic Financial Studies, 4(02), pp.123-133.
Gurrea-Martínez, A. and Remolina, N., 2019. The Dark Side of Implementing Basel Capital Requirements: Theory, Evidence, and Policy. Journal of International Economic Law, 22(1), pp.125-152.