Capital regulations, supervision and the international harmonization of bank capital ratios

  • Received January 30, 2017;
    Accepted March 9, 2017;
    Published June 19, 2017
  • Author(s)
    Kevin T. Jacques
  • DOI
    http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/bbs.12(1-1).2017.11
  • Article Info
    Volume 12 2017, Issue #1 (cont.), pp. 175-183
  • TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ
  • Cited by
    2 articles
  • 1082 Views
  • 185 Downloads

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

In recent decades, despite the Basel Committee’s effort to develop internationally uniform regulatory capital standards, the capital ratios of banks across countries continue to exhibit significant differences. This paper examines the fundamental question of whether, given a uniform regulatory capital standard, regulators should expect similar banks to exhibit similar risk-based capital ratios. More specifically, this study develops a one-period theoretical model to examine the level playing field argument in light of not only uniform regulatory capital standards but also differences in bank supervision. The results of the theoretical model suggest that even with an internationally uniform risk-based capital requirement, it is unreasonable to expect banks in different countries to hold similar capital ratios. This occurs, in part, because regulators have discretion in how they apply the risk-based capital standards. Furthermore, the results suggest that a necessary condition for banks to exhibit similar capital ratios is that uniform capital requirements must be accompanied by a uniform stringency and application of regulatory supervision.

view full abstract hide full abstract
    • Aggarwal, R., Jacques, K. T. (2001). The impact of FDICIA and prompt corrective action on bank capital and risk: estimates using a simultaneous equations model. Journal of Banking and Finance, 25, 1139-1160.
    • Barth, J. R., Gan, J., Nolle, D. E. (2004). Global trends in the bank regulatory and supervisory environments. In Reforms and Innovations in Bank Management, Duk-Hoon Lee and Gill-Chin Lim, editors, Seoul, Korea, Nanam Publishing House, 49-93.
    • Barth, J. R., Nolle, D. E. (2014). Regulation and supervision of the biggest banks by the biggest countries. Milken Institute Research Report, January 22, 2014.
    • Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. (2004). Basel II: International Convergence of Capital Measurement and Capital Standards: A Revised Framework.
    • Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. (2012). Core Principles for Effective Banking Supervision.
    • Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. (2013). The regulatory framework: balancing risk sensitivity, simplicity, and comparability. Discussion paper.
    • Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. (2014a). Capital floors: the design of a framework on standardized approaches – consultative document.
    • Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. (2014b). Basel capital framework national discretions.
    • Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. (2014c). Reducing excessive variability in banks’ regulatory capital ratios: A report to the G20.
    • Berger, A. N., Herring, R. J., Szego, G. P. (1995). The role of capital in financial institutions. Journal of Banking and Finance, 19, 393-430.
    • Brewer, E., Kaufman, G. G., Wall, L. D. (2008). Bank capital ratios across countries: why do they vary? Journal of Financial Services Research, 34, 177-201.
    • Duran, M. A., Lozano-Vivas, A. (2015). Moral hazard and the financial structure of banks. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions & Money, 34, 28-40.
    • Federal Financial Analytics, Inc. (2012). Basel’s burst bubble: how Basel has broken apart and what should be done to fix bank regulation, August 27.
    • Ferguson, R. W. (2003). Testimony of Vice Chairman Roger W. Ferguson, Jr., Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate, June 18, 2003.
    • Fisher, P. (2003). Keynote address: The need to reduce regulatory capital arbitrage. Brooklyn Journal of International Law, 28, 455-460.
    • Fonseca, A. R., Gonzalez, F. (2010). How bank capital buffers vary across countries: the influence of cost of deposits, market power, and bank regulation. Journal of Banking and Finance, 34, 892-902.
    • Furfine, C. (2001). Bank portfolio allocation: the impact of capital requirements, regulatory monitoring, and economic conditions. Journal of Financial Services Research, 20, 33-56.
    • Gropp, R., Heider, F. (2010). The determinants of bank capital structure. Review of Finance, 14, 587-622.
    • Gup, B. (2004a). The inadequacy of capital adequacy policies. The New Basel Capital Accord, Benton Gup ed., Thomson Publishing, 177-216.
    • Gup, B. (2004b). Basel II creates an uneven playing field. The New Basel Capital Accord, Benton Gup ed., Thomson Publishing, 53-66.
    • Gup, B. (2005). Insights from a global survey on bank capital. Capital Markets, Globalization and Economic Development, Benton Gup ed., Springer Publishing, 1-8.
    • Jackson, P, Furfine C., Groeneveld H., Hancock D., Jones D., Perraudin W. (1999). Capital requirements and bank behavior: the impact of the basle accord. Basle Committee on Banking Supervision Working Paper no. 1.
    • Jacques, K. T., Nigro, P. (1997). Risk-based capital, portfolio risk, and bank capital: a simultaneous equations approach. Journal of Economics and Business, 49, 533-547.
    • Klomp, J., De Haan, J. (2012). Banking risk and regulation: does one size fit all? Journal of Banking and Finance, 36, 3197-3212.
    • Mariathasan, M., Merrouche, O. (2014). The manipulation of risk weights. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 23, 300-321.
    • Marques Pereira, J. A. C., Saito, R. (2015). How banks respond to central bank supervision: Evidence from Brazil. Journal of Financial Stability, 19, 22-30.
    • Milne, A., Whalley, A. E. (1999). Bank capital and risk-taking. Bank of England Working Paper Series, no. 90.
    • Mishkin, F. (1995). The economics of money, banking and financial markets. 4th edition, Addison Wesley, New York, 268.
    • Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. (1989). Risk-based capital guidelines; final rule. Federal Register, January 27, 4167-4184.
    • Peek, J., Rosengren, E. (1995). The capital crunch: neither a borrower nor a lender be. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 27, 625-638.
    • Reserve Bank of India.
    • Rime, B. (2001). Capital requirements and bank behavior: empirical evidence for Switzerland. Journal of Banking and Finance, 25, 789-805.
    • Scott, H. S., Iwahara, S. (1994). In search of a level playing field: The implementation of the basle capital accord in Japan and the United States. The Group of Thirty Occasional Paper.
    • Shadow Financial Regulatory Committee. (2001). The Basel Committee’s Revised Capital Accord Proposal, Statement Number 169.
    • Shadow Financial Regulatory Committee. (2013). Making bank capital requirements simpler, more comparable, & more transparent. Statement number 343.
    • Shehzard, C. T., De Haan, J. (2015). Supervisory power and bank risk taking. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions & Money, 39, 15-34.
    • Stein, J. C. (1998). An adverse-selection model of bank asset and liability management with implications for the transmission of monetary policy. RAND Journal of Economics, 29, 466-486.
    • Wagster, J. D. (1996). Impact of the 1988 basel accord on international banks. Journal of Finance, 51, 1321-1346.
Related Articles

  • Assessment of financial monitoring efficiency in the banking system of Ukraine

    Alina BukhtiarovaORCID Researcher ID, Andrii SemenogORCID Researcher ID, Мila RazinkovaORCID , Nataliia NebabaORCID Researcher ID, Józef Antoni HaberORCID doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/bbs.15(1).2020.10
    Banks and Bank Systems Volume 15, 2020         Issue #1         pp. 98-106 Views: 1323 Downloads: 550 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ

    The transformation processes taking place in the global economy and the expansion of global business ties increase the overall vulnerability of the international banking system. One of the problems related to money laundering is the process of evaluating the efficiency of financial monitoring measures. The article discusses the issues of assessing the effectiveness of financial monitoring in the banking system of the country. For Ukraine, this problem is especially relevant, because there is a bank-centric model of the financial market (about 90% of assets go through the banking system) in the country. According to official data, 50% of economic activity in Ukraine ends with money laundering. The article presents the improved method that quantifies the level of financial monitoring system effectiveness at commercial banks of Ukraine based on calculations of the integral index. The index indicates the dynamics of the financial system protection degree from the money laundering threat based on the expediency and efficiency of financial monitoring in the banking system. As a result, more comprehensive conclusions about the level of financial security of the country are made. According to assessments, in 2017–2018 the efficiency of financial monitoring of the banking system of Ukraine was at the middle level (about 64%). The proposed method can be applied to evaluate the effectiveness of the financial monitoring system in any country and become the basis for improving the anti-money laundering system through the banking system.

    Acknowledgment
    The study was conducted as part of state budget research of Sumy State University – Formation of a Public Finance Transparency System as a Prerequisite for Combating Corruption in Ukraine (0118U003585) (in the context of evaluating the effectiveness of financial monitoring of the Ukrainian banking system) and Formation of Tools for the Ukrainian Economy Unshadowing Based on Causal Modeling of Interaction Trajectories of Financial Intermediaries (0120U100473) (in the context of substantiating the need and directions for improving the financial monitoring system in Ukrainian banks).

Download Preview
Close
Banks and Bank Systems
Banks and Bank Systems