Basel Iii

Little regulation in the banking industry allowed for risky investments and banks to grow out of proportion ultimately causing the Great Recession. The Great Recession of 2008 had many parallels with the Great Depression of 1929 and when compared it can be concluded that history repeats itself when the necessary precautions are not put into place. The Great Depression and the Great Recession each followed periods of exceptional business investment, productivity growth and economic gain. Interestingly preceding both these events too much leveraging was taking place leading to both of the collapses. Although leverage can be a good financial strategy, in the cases of the Great

Accordingly, banking regulators assessed minimum values for each of these key measures. At 2007, “adequately capitalized” (i.e., minimum) levels were 4% for the Tier 1 capital ratio, 8% for the total capital ratio, and 3% for the leverage ratio; “well capitalized” levels were 6% for Tier 1 capital, 10% for total capital, and 5% for leverage. Well capitalized banks qualified for, among other things, lower premiums assessed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Undercapitalized banks (e.g., below the 8% minimum required total capital) received a warning from the FDIC; continued violation of capital requirements triggered further regulatory costs, including intervention or (in the extreme) takeover by government regulators.

This paper is about how did “Shadow Banking” precipitate the financial Crises. Then discusses the impacts of the crisis on the major financial institutions.

The banking crisis of the late 2000s, often called the Great Recession, is labelled by many economists as the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Its effect on the markets around the world can still be felt. Many countries suffered a drop in GDP, small or even negative growth, bankrupting businesses and rise in unemployment. The welfare cost that society had to paid lead to an obvious question: ‘Who’s to blame?’ The fingers are pointed to the United States of America, as it is obvious that this is where the crisis began, but who exactly is responsible? Many people believe that the banks are the only ones that are guilty, but this is just not true. The crisis was really a systematic failure, in which many problems in the

One of the primary factors that can be attributed as to have led the recent financial crisis is the financial deregulation allowing financial institutions a lot of freedom in the way they operated. The manifestation of this was seen in the form of:

The current economic-financial crisis was indeed caused by the simultaneous occurrence of events in different parts of the world that all had a negative effect. These events are subtly different and therefore it is common that only one event is held responsible for the crisis. In reality, the world economy became critical due to the mix of four major events: 1) the unrestrained greed of financiers in the U.S. and U.K., which transformed bad mortgages into toxic financial assets 2) the habit of getting deeply indebted in the U.S. and U.K., 3) the excessive liquidity in Europe, 4) the real estate bubble in the U.S. and some European countries (Thomas, 2011) At the beginning of the financial collapse in the United States, many commentators, among which was the President of the Federal Reserve, hastily affirmed that the situation would only affect the United States and at most, the UK, where the banks,

Since the onset of the financial crisis 2008, the sovereign debt crisis in western economies and the new financial regulation with Basel III coming up, the financial industry faces the challenge of reinventing itself. The ring-fence for Commercial and Investment Banking, and new economic and regulatory capital requirements will determine the kinds of products banks will be able to distribute. It will have a huge impact in the Investment Banking business, which will suffer tough regulation and supervisory procedures. At the same time, credit risk models will be reviewed because they have failed to predict the crisis of 2008. The current financial and economic crisis doesn’t have any precedent in the past.

The reality of systemic risk made the task of regulating the financial system increasingly complicated, as the crises aren’t contained in one country or market. The extreme inter-dependence between the different agents is the main reason why we need regulation today, as some misconducts can cause a domino effect, affecting markets globally. The structure of the banking system in itself explains this process. In the finance industry, banks borrow money from other banks. If one bank fails, the one who lent the funds in the first place might also follow the same path, creating panic in the markets. The government’s first prerogative is to protect its citizens from these

We all know from our course that leverage and liquidity risks of financial institutions are vulnerable to the crisis. The financial crisis that emerged in 2007 had many and varied causes, but one of its most

The financial crisis of 2007-2009 is considered to have been the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. The precipitating factor of the crisis was a high default rate in the subprime home mortgage sector. In response to the risky lending that was occurring, the crisis threatened the collapse of large financial institutions. National governments decided to offer support and bail these institutions out to prevent possible disaster to the greater economic system. In the GAO report, Additional Actions Could Help Ensure the Achievement of Stress Test Goals, the GAO exposed the inefficiencies with the stress tests implemented during the crisis as well as the lack of preparedness of big banks

The American Banking system has always focused on order, resiliency and the ability to withstand the storm. When comparing banking systems, it is required analyze both the strengths and the weaknesses of each system. While examining the American banking system, a key strength that is presented is the pride if its resiliency, “these improvements in the resiliency of the banking system have been reinforced by a series of key capital and liquidity rules that have been enacted in the United States, including the Basel III capital and liquidity frameworks as adopted in more stringent form” (The State of American Banking).

Bank’s debt structures and amount of loans reported on balance sheets post crisis had changed due to short-term creditors and borrowers. Banks with more deposit inflows reduced their lending amounts on short-term debt. The failure of Lehman Brothers caused banks to reduce their lending because they were greatly affected by the credit line cuts that came with the failure. Another finding on balance sheets was that there was an increase in commercial and industrial loans. However, that was not driven by growth in loans but rather it was increased through drawdowns on existing credit lines. The cause of the decline was due to the failure of Lehman Brothers along with decisions of firms to cut back on expansion plans because of the recession. The decrease in lending wasn’t only affected by the drop in demand but also the decrease in the amount of supply available at banks. Banks that had less access to deposit inflows and a higher threat to credit line cuts took steps to reduce their lending efforts when compared to other banks. (Ivashina et al., 20) Banks saw more changes in lending amounts when tightening of credit standards came into play as well. By tightening

To understand the development and the impact of the financial crisis, the following paragraph gives a general overview about the timeline of the financial crisis and the series of reactions which caused, at the end, the failure of the American banking system and led to a worldwide economic downturn with the result of the global economic crisis. The topic of this paper is the failure of the American banking system, but as the banking systems of the whole world are interdependent, the whole situation and the whole crisis has to be investigated.

The recent financial crisis has a huge impact on systemic Important Financial Institutions; it’s distressing effect can be felt in almost every business area and process of a bank. A fairly large literature investigates the impact of financial crisis on large, complex and interconnected banks. The great recession did affect banks in different ways, depending on the funding capability of each bank. Kapan and Minoiu (2013) find that banks that were ex ante more dependent on market funding and had lower structural liquidity reduced supply of credit more than other banks during crisis. The ability of banks to generate interest income during the financial crisis was hampered because there was a vast reduction in bank lending to individuals and

This chapter is about the background of 2007-2008 financial crisis. The 2007-2008 financial crisis has a huge impact on US banking system and how the banks operate and how they are regulated after the financial turmoil. This financial crisis started with difficulty of rolling over asset backed commercial papers in the summer of 2007 due to uncertainty on the liquidity of mortgage backed securities and questions about the soundness of banks and non-bank financial institutes when interest rate continued to go up at a faster pace since 2004. In March 2008 the second wave of liquidity loss occurred after US government decided to bailout Bear Stearns and some commercial banks, then other financial institutions took it as a warning of financial difficulty of their peers. In the meantime banks started hoarding cash and reserve instead of lending out to fellow banks and corporations. The third wave of credit crunch which eventually brought down US financial system and spread over the globe was Lehman Brother’s bankruptcy in August 2008. Many major commercial banks in US held structured products and commercial papers of Lehman Brother, as a result, they suffered a great loss as Lehman Brother went into insolvency. This panic of bank insolvency caused loss of liquidity in both commercial paper market and inter-bank market. Still banks were reluctant to turn to US government or Federal Reserve as this kind of action might indicate delicacy of