As demonstrated by a plethora of empirical research, the 2008 financial crisis exposed systemic weaknesses in the banking sector, driven by over-optimistic lending and fraudulent mortgage lending, thus leading to systematic risks that affected global economies to their detriment. In response, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) introduced Basel III, a regulatory framework designed to enhance banks' resilience and ensure financial stability. Implemented between 2013 and 2015, Basel III aims to strengthen capital adequacy, risk management, and liquidity requirements, fostering a more robust global financial system.
Evolution of the Basel Accords from Basel I and Basel II
The Basel Accords are a series of international regulatory frameworks developed by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS), designed to ensure that banks maintain adequate capital to cover risks and safeguard the global financial system. The transition highlights increasing levels of sophistication and development in regulatory philosophy, exemplifying the focus on minimum capital requirements (Basel I) to more comprehensive risk management standards (Basel II) and, finally, to enhanced capital and liquidity requirements (Basel III).
Forensic Analysis of Basel III’s Measures
Basel III (2010): Basel III was introduced in response to the 2008 financial crisis, aiming to address the shortcomings of Basel II while focusing on the aforementioned characteristics of banks concerning capital and liquidity positions. Under Basel III, banks are required to hold a higher percentage of common equity tier 1 (CET1) capital, which serves as the highest quality capital, as it is fully loss-absorbing. The minimum CET1 ratio was raised from 2% under Basel II to 4.5% under Basel III, with an additional capital conservation buffer of 2.5%. Furthermore, Basel III introduced a countercyclical capital buffer of up to 2.5%, designed to protect the banking sector from periods of excessive credit growth (Fratianni and Pattison, 2015). This buffer aims to reduce the procyclicality of bank lending, ensuring that banks build up capital in good times that can be drawn upon during downturns. The Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) requires banks to maintain a sufficient level of high-quality liquid assets (HQLA) that can be easily converted to cash to meet short-term obligations.
Regulatory and Operational Implications
Both the Prudential Regulatory Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority are instrumental with working with the Bank of England to oversee the regulatory environment and ensure that it is functioning in accordance with UK laws and harmoniously in banking standards, thus concerning the monitoring and reinforcement of Basel III. Observation and risk assessment by the two bodies have elevated in stringency significantly since the imposition of the regulation since the financial crisis while reflecting the importance of verifiable and ethical credit lending. The difference between the two bodies is that the PRA is responsible for micro-prudential regulation and supervision of financial firms while the FCA is defined as a financial conduct works independently with UK government, as well as regulating the corporate activities of financial institutions in order to maintain the strength of the of UK’s financial markets while ensuring parity and fairness transactions for consumers. Both entities are a partial body of the Bank of England with the most important elements of micro-prudent regulation being addressed by the Prudential Regulation Committee due to the levels of expertise and holistic assessments, resulting in an approach known as the UK Macroprudential regulation.
Stakeholder Impacts
Basel III has created opportunities for technology vendors and advisory firms. Banks require sophisticated software for compliance, while advisory firms assist with navigating the complex regulatory landscape. Smaller banks, however, face challenges meeting stringent requirements, often leading to consolidation or mergers to achieve the scale needed for compliance.
Challenges and Global Coordination
While Basel III represents a significant step forward in global banking regulation, its implementation has been accompanied by difficulties with Allen (p.1, 2012) suggesting if Basel III ‘Is the Cure that is worse than the disease?’ One of the key implications for regulators is the need to develop enhanced supervisory frameworks that can effectively monitor compliance with the new standards. The complexity of Basel III, with its multiple layers of capital, liquidity, and leverage requirements, requires regulators to have a deep understanding of the banking business and sophisticated tools to assess compliance, particularly when banking regulation in particular is defined by vast uncertainty and volatility in accordance with financial markets.
Conclusion
Despite these challenges, Basel III has set a new benchmark for banking regulation, emphasizing the importance of capital adequacy, risk management, and liquidity. It has prompted regulators to adopt a more holistic approach to supervision, focusing not only on the safety of individual banks but also on the resilience of the financial system as a whole. The increased regulatory burden has, however, placed significant costs on banks, which must invest heavily in compliance infrastructure, technology, and personnel. These costs can be particularly challenging for smaller banks, which may struggle to meet the stringent requirements of Basel III without compromising their profitability. As a result, some smaller banks have opted to merge or consolidate with larger institutions to achieve the scale needed to absorb these costs, leading to increased concentration in the banking sector.
References
Allen, B., Chan, K.K., Milne, A. and Thomas, S., 2012. Basel III: Is the cure worse than the disease?. International Review of Financial Analysis, 25, pp.159-166.
Akinbami, F., 2010. The global financial crisis: causes, effects and issues to consider in the reform of financial regulation. In International Banking in the New Era: Post-Crisis Challenges and Opportunities (pp. 167-190). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Bank of England, 2024. What is the Prudential Regulation Authority? [online]. Explainers: Bank of England. Available at: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/explainers/what-is-the-prudential-regulation-authority-pra [Accessed 03 December 2024].
Barr, M.S. and Miller, G.P., 2006. Global administrative law: the view from Basel. European Journal of International Law, 17(1), pp.15-46.
Blundell-Wignall, A., Atkinson, P. and Roulet, C., 2014. Bank business models and the Basel system: Complexity and interconnectedness. OECD Journal: Financial Market Trends, 2013(2), pp.43-68.
Chabanel, P.E., 2011. Implementing Basel III: challenges, options & opportunities. AmericAS, 1, pp.553-1658.
Du, B., 2017. How useful is Basel III's liquidity coverage ratio? Evidence from US bank holding companies. European Financial Management, 23(5), pp.902-919.
Elizalde, A., 2007. From Basel I to Basel II: an analysis of the three pillars. Documentos de Trabajo (CEMFI), (4), p.1.
Fratianni, M. and Pattison, J.C., 2015. Basel III in reality. Journal of Economic Integration, pp.1-28.
Hanies, F., 2011. the Paradox of Regulation: What Regulation Can Achieve And What It Cannot. London: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Harris, K., 2004. Anticipatory regulation for the management of banking crises. Colum. JL & Soc. Probs., 38, p.251.
Le Leslé, V. and Avramova, M.S., 2012. Revisiting risk-weighted assets. International Monetary Fund.
Luo, D. and Ran, Y., 2019. Micro Drivers behind the Changes of CET1 Capital Ratio: An empirical analysis based on the results of EU-wide stress test.
Simkovic, M., 2009. Secret liens and the financial crisis of 2008. Am. Bankr. LJ, 83, p.253.
Shakdwipee, P. and Mehta, M., 2017. From Basel i to Basel ii to Basel iii. International Journal of New Technology and Research (IJNTR), 3(1), pp.66-70.
Comments