Global Regulatory Changes to the Banking Industry after the Financial Crisis: Basel III (original) (raw)
Related papers
Social Science Research Network, 2014
The financial crisis 2007-2009 will not be forgotten in a hurry because of its impact on the global financial system almost replicating the Great Depression. Major and causal factors contributed to the financial crisis, and this prompted the establishment of Basel III to contain the crisis. Basel III introduced improved capital and liquidity rules, but still could not contain the crisis. This leaves regulators with questions of how to prevent another financial crisis in the future. Evidences suggest that the financial market is evolving because of its complex and changing nature, and so are the international banking regulations (Basel I, Basel II and Basel III) that support the system in terms of maintaining economic and financial stability. It is clear that Basel III will not stop the next financial crisis even though the Basel accords continue to evolve in response to maintaining economic and financial stability, with the core purpose of preventing another financial crisis. Uncertainties lies ahead, and regulators cannot be sure of what will likely cause the next crisis, but indications suggest that the financial markets and international banking regulations in the form of Basel accords will continue to evolve.
1 Crisis and the Reform of International Financial Regulation1
Global Finance in Crisis: The politics of …, 2010
What began in the summer of 2007 as a problem in a relatively unknown segment of the US housing finance market has very quickly turned into the most severe global financial crisis since the 1930s. The impact of this crisis has escalated far beyond its point of origin, affecting countries around the world, and spilling over from the financial system into the real economy.
Global Financial Regulation after the Credit Crisis
Global Policy, 2010
Recent events have once again highlighted weaknesses in the global regulatory system. The highly complex network of bodies overseeing different parts of the financial markets failed to identify or respond to the macro trends that led to the crisis. There was too little capital in the banking system. There is also a serious accountability gap, with regulatory bodies free to work to their own timetables. And the links between macroeconomic policy makers in finance ministries and central banks, on the one hand, and regulators on the other, have been too weak. The changes made so far by the G20 summits are very modest and are unlikely to correct these flaws. There remains a particular problem in the European Union, where the crisis has shown that the single financial market requires more central coordination of regulation than the politicians have so far accepted. There remains, therefore, much unfinished business in financial regulatory reform.
Global Financial Standards and Regulatory Failure: Lessons for Reforms
Global Standards for Public Authorities, 2012
When the financial turmoil unfolded, a high number of global financial standards and rules, established by transnational regulatory networks such as the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) and the International Organization for Securities Commissioners (IOSCO), existed. The paper argues that attempts to reform the current regulatory framework and to create new rules must take into account – instead of the lack of global rules, which seems, despite existing, confined to limited areas – the reasons which led to the failure of global rules already in place when the crisis started. The Basel capital accord – the very well known Basel II, now revised as Basel III – is considered by many observers to be a case of “regulatory capture”. Data existing before the crisis about credit rating agencies’ compliance with the IOSCO Code of Conduct show compliance assessment is tricky. Reports measuring compliance with the Basel Committee’s Core Principles for Effective Banking Supervision (BCP) in countries like the UK, shortly before the spread of the financial turmoil, arise the question whether principle-based global rules can be effective. The analysis of the different cases of regulatory failure can contribute in assessing the on-going process of reform and can help better tailoring future reforms. In particular, implications for the structure and procedure of the standard setters, and for their overall accountability, are discussed.
New International Financial Regulation: Necessity Or Required By Crisis
Annals of Faculty …, 2010
The global economic and financial crisis showed the limits faced by the international financial system. International financial regulations in general, and especially the banking sector regulations, should be refined and adapted to build a stronger and stable ...
Regulating Financial Markets After the Global Crisis
The global financial crisis was the most severe international economic crisis since the Great Depression. As it was the case after the earlier crises, the financial system was intensely discussed and the regulatory framework was shaped accordingly. The regulatory changes are still in process. The purpose of this chapter is to provide insights into the financial regulations after the financial crisis and to submit some details about the regulatory bodies and changes. This chapter includes a general review of the discussions in the global financial system in the wake of the financial crisis. The regulatory changes in bank capital, the shadow banking system, trading and financial reporting of the financial products and credit rating agencies are briefly described. The criticisms of bank capital regulations are submitted. The effect of both the crises and the regulatory changes are discussed.
The End of an Era in International Financial Regulation? A Post-Crisis Research Agenda
International organization, 2011
The global financial crisis that erupted in summer 2007 has made the reform of international prudential financial regulation one of the top priorities of global public policy+ Past scholarship has usefully explained the creation and strengthening of international financial standards with reference to three policy arenas: interstate, domestic, and transnational+ Despite the accomplishments of this specialist literature, the recent crisis has revealed a number of limitations in the ways scholars have understood interstate power relations, the influence of domestic politics, and the significance of transnational actors within international financial regulatory politics+ Taken together, developments in each of these three arenas suggest that researchers may also need to be prepared to shift from explaining the strengthening of official international standards to analyzing their weakening in the postcrisis world+ The latter task will require scholars to devote more analytical attention to a wider set of international regulatory outcomes, including "informal regulatory convergence," "regulatory fragmentation," and especially "cooperative regulatory decentralization+"
Diverging financial regulation after the crisis
2015
The study aims to compare the regulatory changes occurring on both sides of the Atlantic. An inappropriate regulatory environment contributed to the onset of the financial and economic crisis, and therefore the post-crisis regulation attempts to remedy the earlier deficiencies and address the problems that emerged during the crisis. The study evaluates and compares the latest financial regulation initiatives on both sides of the Atlantic and assesses the diverging attitudes to regulation in the EU and the United States in six exemplary areas: remuneration, bank capital requirements, derivatives, credit rating agencies, the regulation of hedge funds, and consumer protection. Fundamental differences in regulation pose a challenge to firms operating in both environments and harmonisation remains elusive. However, in some areas, regulators from both sides of the Atlantic are willing to give broad deference to certain regulations of foreign jurisdictions, instead of their own ones. Regular dialogue between the United States and the European Union points in the right direction, but as the article points out there are many improvements which still need to be made in order to reach a consensus acceptable for financial market actors as well as regulators.