The Basel ii
Accord
From the Basel ii Compliance Professionals Association (BCPA)
the largest association of Basel ii Professionals in the
world
Basel
Committee on Banking Supervision International
Convergence of Capital Measurement and Capital
Standards A Revised Framework, Comprehensive
Version
This document is
a
compilation of the June 2004 Basel II Framework, the
elements of the 1988 Accord that were not revised during
the Basel II process, the 1996 Amendment to the Capital
Accord to Incorporate Market Risks, and the 2005 paper
on the Application of Basel II to Trading Activities and
the Treatment of Double Default Effects. No new elements
have been introduced in this compilation.
June 2006 Introduction
1. This report presents the
outcome of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision’s
(“the Committee”)* work over recent years to secure
international convergence on revisions to supervisory
regulations governing the capital adequacy of
internationally active banks.
Following the publication of the
Committee’s first round of proposals for revising the
capital adequacy framework in June 1999, an extensive
consultative process was set in train in all member
countries and the proposals were also circulated to
supervisory authorities worldwide.
The Committee subsequently
released additional proposals for consultation in
January 2001 and April 2003 and furthermore conducted
three quantitative impact studies related to its
proposals.
As a result of these efforts,
many valuable improvements have been made to the
original proposals.
The present paper is now a statement
of the Committee agreed by all its members.
It sets out
the details of the agreed Framework for
measuring capital adequacy and the minimum standard
to be achieved which the national supervisory
authorities represented on the Committee will propose
for adoption in their respective countries.
This Framework and
the standard it contains have been endorsed by the
Central Bank Governors and Heads of Banking Supervision
of the Group of Ten countries.
*
The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision is a
committee of banking supervisory authorities that was
established by the central bank governors of the Group
of Ten countries in 1975.
It
consists of senior representatives of bank supervisory
authorities and central banks from Belgium, Canada,
France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the
Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United
Kingdom, and the United States.
It
usually meets at the Bank for International Settlements
in Basel, where its permanent Secretariat is located.
2. The Committee expects its
members to move forward with the appropriate adoption
procedures in their respective countries.
In a number of instances, these
procedures will include additional impact assessments of
the Committee’s Framework as well as further
opportunities for comments by interested parties to be
provided to national authorities.
The Committee intends the
Framework set out here to be available for
implementation as of yearend 2006.
However, the Committee feels
that one further year of impact studies or parallel
calculations will be needed for the most advanced
approaches, and these therefore will be available for
implementation as of year-end 2007.
More details on the transition
to the revised Framework and its relevance to particular
approaches are set out in paragraphs 45 to
49.
3. This document is being
circulated to supervisory authorities worldwide with a
view to encouraging them to consider adopting this
revised Framework at such time as they believe is
consistent with their broader supervisory priorities.
While the revised Framework has
been designed to provide options for banks and banking
systems worldwide, the Committee acknowledges that
moving toward its adoption in the near future
may not be
a first priority for all non-G10 supervisory authorities
in terms of what is needed to strengthen their
supervision.
Where this is the case,
each
national supervisor should consider carefully the
benefits of the revised Framework in the context of its
domestic banking system when developing a timetable and
approach to implementation.
4. The fundamental objective of
the Committee’s work to revise the 1988 Accord* has been
to develop a framework that would further
strengthen the
soundness and stability of the international banking
system while maintaining sufficient consistency that
capital adequacy regulation will not be a significant
source of competitive inequality among
internationally active banks.
The Committee believes that the
revised Framework will promote the adoption of stronger
risk management practices by the banking industry, and
views this as one of its major benefits.
The Committee notes that, in
their comments on the proposals, banks and other
interested parties have welcomed the concept and
rationale of the three pillars (minimum capital
requirements, supervisory review, and market discipline)
approach on which the revised Framework is based.
More generally, they have
expressed support for improving capital regulation to
take into account changes in
banking and risk management practices while at
the same time preserving the benefits of a framework
that can be applied as uniformly as possible at the
national level.
*
International Convergence of Capital Measurement and
Capital Standards, Basel Committee on Banking
Supervision (July 1988), as amended
5. In developing the revised
Framework, the Committee has sought to arrive at
significantly more risk-sensitive capital requirements
that are conceptually sound and at the same time pay due
regard to particular features of the present supervisory
and accounting systems in individual member countries.
It believes that this objective
has been achieved.
The
Committee is also retaining key elements of the 1988
capital adequacy framework,
including
the general requirement for banks to hold total capital
equivalent to at least 8% of their risk-weighted assets;
the basic structure of the 1996 Market Risk Amendment
regarding the treatment of market risk; and the
definition of eligible capital.
6. A significant innovation
of the revised Framework is the greater use of
assessments of risk provided by banks’ internal systems
as inputs to capital calculations. In taking this step,
the Committee is also putting forward a detailed set of
minimum requirements designed to ensure the integrity of
these internal risk assessments.
It is not the Committee’s
intention to dictate the form or operational detail of
banks’ risk management policies and practices.
Each
supervisor will develop a set of review procedures
for ensuring that banks’ systems and controls are
adequate to serve as the basis for the capital
calculations.
Supervisors will need to
exercise sound judgements
when determining a bank’s state of readiness,
particularly during the implementation process.
The Committee expects national
supervisors will focus on compliance with the minimum
requirements as a means of ensuring the overall
integrity of a bank’s ability to provide prudential
inputs to the capital calculations and not as an end in
itself.
7. The revised Framework
provides a range of options for determining the capital
requirements for credit risk and operational risk to
allow banks and supervisors to select approaches that are
most appropriate for their operations and their
financial market infrastructure.
In addition, the Framework also
allows for a limited degree of national discretion
in the way in which each of these options may be
applied, to adapt the standards to different conditions
of national markets.
These features, however, will
necessitate substantial efforts by national authorities
to ensure sufficient consistency in application.
The Committee
intends to monitor
and review the application of the Framework in the
period ahead with a view to achieving even greater
consistency.
In particular, its Accord Implementation
Group (AIG) was established to promote consistency in
the Framework’s lication by encouraging supervisors to
exchange information on implementation
approaches.
8. The Committee has also
recognised that home country supervisors have an
important role in leading the enhanced cooperation
between home and host country supervisors that will be
required for effective implementation.
The AIG is
developing practical arrangements for cooperation and
coordination that reduce implementation burden on
banks and conserve supervisory resources.
Based on
the work of the AIG, and based on its interactions with
supervisors and the industry, the Committee has issued
general principles for the cross-border implementation
of the revised Framework and more focused principles for
the recognition of operational risk capital charges
under advanced measurement approaches for home and host
supervisors.
9. It should be stressed that
the revised Framework is designed
to establish minimum levels of capital for
internationally active banks.
As under the 1988 Accord,
national authorities will be free
to adopt arrangements that set higher levels of minimum
capital. Moreover, they are free to put in place
supplementary measures of capital adequacy for the
banking organisations they charter.
National
authorities may use a supplementary capital measure
as a way to address, for example, the potential
uncertainties in the accuracy of the measure of risk
exposures inherent in any capital rule or to constrain
the extent to which an organisation may fund itself with
debt.
Where a jurisdiction employs a
supplementary capital measure (such as a leverage ratio
or a large exposure limit) in conjunction with the
measure set forth in this Framework, in some instances
the capital required under the supplementary measure
may be more binding.
More generally,
under the second pillar,
supervisors should expect banks to operate above minimum
regulatory capital levels.
10. The revised Framework is
more risk sensitive than the 1988 Accord, but countries
where risks in the local banking market are relatively
high nonetheless need to consider if banks should be
required to hold additional capital over and above the
Basel minimum.
This is particularly the case with the
more broad brush standardised approach, but, even in the
case of the internal ratings-based (IRB) approach, the
risk of major loss events may be higher than allowed for
in this Framework.
Return to Index
Read more
about our
Certified Basel
ii Professional (CBiiPro)
program
Read more
about our
Certified Pillar 2 Expert
(CP2E)
program
Read more about our
Certified Pillar 3 Expert
(CP3E)
program
Read
more about our
Certified
Stress Testing Expert (CSTE)
program
E-book: 100 Job Descriptions in Risk and Compliance Management

|