A vicious circle

Regulators are looking at how best to ensure capital adequacy rules are not pro-cyclical. The Basel Committee has proposed changes to its market risk rules, but further, counter-cyclical changes have been suggested. What is being considered and what are the ramifications of any change? By Joel Clark

p23-tattersall-jpg

Critics of Basel II have long argued the rules are inherently pro-cyclical. The risk-sensitive nature of the framework means capital requirements would fall in a boom, yet rise in a downturn - a feature some claimed would force banks, facing severe capital constraints, to cut back lending in any recession, further aggravating the slump.

The financial crisis has meant tackling this issue has taken on a sudden urgency. In March, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision declared it intends to

Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.

To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe

You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.

Sorry, our subscription options are not loading right now

Please try again later. Get in touch with our customer services team if this issue persists.

New to Risk.net? View our subscription options

Most read articles loading...

You need to sign in to use this feature. If you don’t have a Risk.net account, please register for a trial.

Sign in
You are currently on corporate access.

To use this feature you will need an individual account. If you have one already please sign in.

Sign in.

Alternatively you can request an individual account here