Summary of document history Previous version Previousconsultation This version Subsequentconsultation Subsequentversion This version BCBS | Newsletters | 26 November 2019 | Status: Current Topics: The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision expects the Basel Framework - encompassing the Basel III standards - to be implemented in full by Committee member jurisdictions for internationally active banks. The Core principles for effective banking supervision embed the role of proportionality, including that "supervisory practices should be commensurate with the risk
International Settlement considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
Bank of Japan writes Average Interest Rates by Type of Deposit
Bank of Japan writes Summary of Opinions at the Monetary Policy Meeting on January 20 and 21, 2020
IMFBlog writes A Call for Vigilance After a Strong Year for Risky Assets
Amol Agrawal writes It’s a wonderful life: A short history of building and loan associations
The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision expects the Basel Framework - encompassing the Basel III standards - to be implemented in full by Committee member jurisdictions for internationally active banks.
The Core principles for effective banking supervision embed the role of proportionality, including that "supervisory practices should be commensurate with the risk profile and systemic importance of the banks being supervised". These principles are relevant for all banks and jurisdictions around the world and provide the basis for a resilient banking system.
The Basel Committee and the Basel Consultative Group (BCG) support the use of proportionality in implementing the Basel Framework in a manner consistent with the Core Principles. The Basel Framework envisions a range of approaches, from simpler standardised approaches to advanced approaches.
The Committee recently conducted a stocktake of proportionality measures in place across jurisdictions, which highlighted that a majority of Committee and BCG jurisdictions currently apply such measures. Moreover, proportionality can take different forms, including, but not limited to, the following:
- implementing the most appropriate approaches among those available in the Basel Framework (ie among the range of standardised and internally-modelled approaches) for internationally-active banks in member jurisdictions. There is no expectation - even for internationally-active banks - that they must use internally-modelled approaches; and
- implementing standards for banks in non-BCBS member jurisdictions that are broadly consistent with the principles of the applicable Basel standards.
A proportionate regulatory framework should not reduce the resilience of banks or dilute the prudential regulatory framework, but rather reflect the relative differences in risk and complexity across banks and the markets in which they operate. Indeed, as the Basel Framework comprises minimum standards, jurisdictions are free to apply more conservative requirements. Many Committee and BCG jurisdictions have pursued such an approach. A proportionate framework should also consider supervisory capacity and resources, particularly when implementing more complex standards.