Capital Adequacy And Internal Assessment System

-Probably the Reserve Requirements, if they didn’t have that the bank would be able to screw the government and anyone who uses the bank.

According to Barth, Prabha, and Wihlborg (2014), the capital adequacy regulation can result in rapid increase of compliance costs. What’s more, Volcker Rule prohibits proprietary trading, which can damage bank’s hedging capability and threaten bank’s profitability. Those extra regulatory burdens caused by the Act makes it less desirable to be too large.

First, high capital requirements could enable institutions to be more flexible facing financial stress and crises. Second, the CFPB strengthens the oversight responsibilities, lessens the regulatory infrastructure risky gaps, and improves the protection for consumers. Third, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s (FDIC) single-point-of-entry strategy installs standard procedures to wind down failed financial institutions,

Basel III is another law implemented that will place additional strain on Banks. Basel III is a set of reform measures, developed by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. It is a framework used to strengthen risk management and a banks ability to absorb shocks from financial and economic stress. Basel III implemented new tier 1 capital requirements, new minimum leverage ratio requirements and new liquidity coverage ratios requirements. Community banks enjoyed a small victory by delaying the final implementation requirements for Basel III to March 31, 2019.

With this title two new government departments are created The Financial stability Oversight Council and the Office of Financial Research. The authority of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is it expanded also to allow them to supervise nonbank financial companies and certain bank holding companies that could affect the health of the country’s economy.

To address this deficiency, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) proposed the post-crisis regulatory capital framework - Basel III, aimed to improve both the quantity and quality of banking organisations regulatory capital and to build additional capacity for loss absorbency into the banking system to withstand markets and economic shocks (BCBS). The importance of capital to a banking organisation cannot be overemphasised, the amount of capital held by a bank determine: (i) the level risk the bank can enter into. (ii) Loss absorbency capacity. (III) The profitability level. (iv) The cost of fund. (v) Investors' confidence, and (vi) the going - concern of the bank. It is vital that banking organisations are able to maintain a balance between their capital risk portfolios. As a result, banks tend to adjust their balance sheet components to achieve an internally set capital

  U.S. Government   European Union o  Commission o  Political figureheads   Banks o  U.S. o  E.U.   International Accounting Standards Board (IASB)   Investors and External Regulators

A period of relatively frequent use followed and by the late 1990s records show that it was also used outside the central banks circles. A prominent example is the IMF report “Toward a framework for a sound financial system”, according to which macroprudential supervision should focus

The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) is currently working towards agreement on a comprehensive package of reforms to international capital and liquidity standards by late 2010. These new standards (‘Basel III’) should aim for materially higher levels of capital and liquidity in the banking system.

This leads to increase from 4% (Basel II) to 8% of the risk-weighted assets in requirements regarding the Tier 1 Capital (which includes only common shares and undistributed profit). The second important inclusion of Basel III relates to the size of balance sheets which banks should strive to reduce: “leverage ratio” puts a limit on a list of activities a bank can develop compared to its capital. The minimum capital adequacy ratio that is required to be maintained by a bank is 8% (without the capital conservation buffer), which must reach 10,5% of the total assets. The third basic element of Basel III relates to liquidity. To provide a bank for equilibrium between loans and deposits Basel III has developed specific regulation which initiates with risk assessment through the stress test. Basel III compels banks to have sufficient liquidity available during a period of 30 days of “stressed” conditions. Under these circumstances only half serves to reimburse the bank and the bank is expected to inject the other 50% in the economy by granting new loans. Thus, loans with a maturity of 50% leave the bank once more. For deposits, Basel III states that the first group, individuals, and SMEs, leave the bank at the rate of 5% to 10% during the stress test. While for bank deposits, it is 100%. For corporates clients

Some of the measures announced in the new Basel III framework will need banks to hold 4.5% of common

In this section, we will describe the Basel Committee’s approach to financial regulation. The approach is described trough an exposition and analysis of the three Basel frameworks. We are going to explain all three of them, as the preparation of new regulation is build on top of the existing ones. It will therefore also be interesting to see in which direction the Basel Committee has changed the regulation

As a consequence of that the need arises for a regulation directly proportional with the extravagant risks banks take. This regulation is called the Capital adequacy regulation where banks are obliged to hold more capital as they increase the asset risk weight. It is calculated as the ratio of capital to the weight of the asset risk. Where the capital of the bank falls in two categories first, tier one capital which consists of shares representing stock holder’s equity ,reserves and retained earnings and the second type of capital is tier two consisting of tier one and other external sources (Bank for International Settlements Dec.2010).

The primary objective is that ISO 31000:2009 be used to make compatible, risk management procedures in present and future levels. It gives a general way and action plan to maintain the standards dealing with particular risk and does not replace those set levels.

This report provides analysis of the current liquidity management in banks. Methods of evaluation include peer, trend and horizontal analysis such as ratios, principle and regulations. In the first part, we analyze the differences between liability liquidity management and asset liquidity management and explore the features an effective liquidity management system should possess. Then we compare liquidity ratios of four banks in Australia to examine their performance on liquidity management according to line charts. Finally, Liquidity Coverage Ratio and Net Stable Funding ratio are introduced, how they improve mutually.