巴塞尔协议三中英对照

合集下载

巴塞尔协议3全文

巴塞尔协议3全文

巴塞尔协议3全文介绍巴塞尔协议3(Basel III)是一个国际上的银行监管规范,旨在增强银行的资本充足性和抵御金融风险的能力。

该协议于2010年12月由巴塞尔银行监管委员会发布,是对前两个巴塞尔协议(巴塞尔协议1和巴塞尔协议2)的进一步改进和完善。

背景巴塞尔协议3的制定是对全球金融危机的应对措施之一。

全球金融危机爆发后,许多银行陷入资本不足的困境,无法应对金融市场的风险。

因此,国际社会开始呼吁改革银行监管制度,以防范未来类似的金融危机。

巴塞尔协议3作为回应,采取了一系列措施来强化银行资本和风险管理。

核心要点1. 资本要求巴塞尔协议3规定了更严格的资本要求,以确保银行有足够的资本来应对损失。

首先,对风险加权资产计量的方法进行了改进,旨在更准确地反映银行资产的风险水平。

其次,规定了更高的最低资本要求,包括最低的核心一级资本比率和总资本比率。

2. 流动性风险管理巴塞尔协议3要求银行制定和实施更加严格的流动性风险管理政策。

银行需要具备足够的流动性资产,以应对紧急情况下的资金需求。

此外,银行还需要进行定期的压力测试,以确保其流动性风险管理措施的有效性。

3. 杠杆比率巴塞尔协议3引入了杠杆比率作为一种更简单的资本要求衡量指标。

杠杆比率是银行核心一级资本与风险敞口的比例。

该指标旨在衡量银行的杠杆风险水平,以防止过度借贷。

4. 缓冲储备巴塞尔协议3要求银行建立缓冲储备,以应对经济衰退期间的损失。

缓冲储备由国际流动性缓冲储备和资本缓冲储备两部分组成。

国际流动性缓冲储备用于应对流动性风险,而资本缓冲储备用于应对信用风险。

影响巴塞尔协议3的实施对金融体系和全球经济有着重要的影响。

首先,它有助于提高银行的资本充足性和稳定性,减少金融风险,防止金融危机的发生。

其次,巴塞尔协议3的推行可能会导致银行的成本上升,因为它要求银行持有更多的资本和流动性资产。

但与此同时,这也可以促使银行更加谨慎和适度的风险管理,从而提高整个金融体系的稳定性。

巴塞尔资本协议中英文完整版(首封)

巴塞尔资本协议中英文完整版(首封)

概述导言1. 巴塞尔银行监管委员会(以下简称委员会)现公布巴塞尔新资本协议(BaselII,以下简称巴塞尔II)第三次征求意见稿(CP3,以下简称第三稿)。

第三稿的公布是构建新资本充足率框架的一项重大步骤。

委员会的目标仍然是在今年第四季度完成新协议,并于2006年底在成员国开始实施。

2. 委员会认为,完善资本充足率框架有两方面的公共政策利好。

一是建立不仅包括最低资本而且还包括监管当局的监督检查和市场纪律的资本管理规定。

二是大幅度提高最低资本要求的风险敏感度。

3. 完善的资本充足率框架,旨在促进鼓励银行强化风险管理能力,不断提高风险评估水平。

委员会认为,实现这一目标的途径是,将资本规定与当今的现代化风险管理作法紧密地结合起来,在监管实践中并通过有关风险和资本的信息披露,确保对风险的重视。

4. 委员会修改资本协议的一项重要内容,就是加强与业内人士和非成员国监管人员之间的对话。

通过多次征求意见,委员会认为,包括多项选择方案的新框架不仅适用于十国集团国家,而且也适用于世界各国的银行和银行体系。

5. 委员会另一项同等重要的工作,就是研究参加新协议定量测算影响分析各行提出的反馈意见。

这方面研究工作的目的,就是掌握各国银行提供的有关新协议各项建议对各行资产将产生何种影响。

特别要指出,委员会注意到,来自40多个国家规模及复杂程度各异的350多家银行参加了近期开展的定量影响分析(以下称简QIS3)。

正如另一份文件所指出,QIS3的结果表明,调整后新框架规定的资本要求总体上与委员会的既定目标相一致。

6. 本文由两部分内容组成。

第一部分简单介绍新资本充足框架的内容及有关实施方面的问题。

在此主要的考虑是,加深读者对新协议银行各项选择方案的认识。

第二部分技术性较强,大体描述了在2002年10月公布的QIS3技术指导文件之后对新协议有关规定所做的修改。

第一部分新协议的主要内容7. 新协议由三大支柱组成:一是最低资本要求,二是监管当局对资本充足率的监督检查,三是信息披露。

巴塞尔协议三中英对照

巴塞尔协议三中英对照

巴塞尔协议三中英对照本页仅作为文档页封面,使用时可以删除This document is for reference only-rar21year.MarchGroup of Governors and Heads of Supervision announces higher global minimum capital standards12 September 2010At its 12 September 2010 meeting, the Group of Governors and Heads of Supervision, the oversight body of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, announced a substantial strengthening of existing capital requirements and fully endorsed the agreements it reached on 26 July 2010. These capital reforms, together with the introduction of a global liquidity standard, deliver on the core of the global financial reform agenda and will be presented to the Seoul G20 Leaders summit in November.The Committee's package of reforms will increase the minimum common equity requirement from 2% to 4.5%. In addition, banks will be required to hold a capital conservation buffer of 2.5% to withstand future periods of stress bringing the total common equity requirements to 7%. This reinforces the stronger definition of capital agreed by Governors and Heads of Supervision in July and the higher capital requirements for trading, derivative and securitisation activities to be introduced at the end of 2011.Mr Jean-Claude Trichet, President of the European Central Bank and Chairman of the Group of Governors and Heads of Supervision, said that "the agreements reached today are a fundamental strengthening of global capital standards." He added that "their contribution to long term financial stability and growth will be substantial. The transition arrangements will enable banks to meet the new standards while supporting the economic recovery." Mr Nout Wellink, Chairman of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and President of the Netherlands Bank, added that "the combination of a much stronger definition of capital, higher minimum requirements and the introduction of new capital buffers will ensure that banks are better able to withstand periods of economic and financial stress, therefore supporting economic growth."Increased capital requirementsUnder the agreements reached today, the minimum requirement for common equity, the highest form of loss absorbing capital, will be raised from the current 2% level, before the application of regulatory adjustments, to 4.5% after the application of stricter adjustments. This will be phased in by 1 January 2015. The Tier 1 capital requirement, which includes common equity and other qualifying financial instruments based on stricter criteria, will increase from 4% to 6% over the same period. (Annex 1 summarises the new capital requirements.)The Group of Governors and Heads of Supervision also agreed that the capital conservation buffer above the regulatory minimum requirement be calibrated at 2.5% and be met with common equity, after the application of deductions. The purpose of the conservation buffer is to ensure that banks maintain a buffer of capital that can be used to absorb losses during periods of financial and economic stress. While banks are allowed to draw on the buffer during such periods of stress, the closer their regulatory capital ratios approach the minimum requirement, the greater the constraints on earnings distributions. This framework will reinforce the objective of sound supervision and bank governance and address the collective action problem that has prevented some banks from curtailing distributions such as discretionary bonuses and high dividends, even in the face of deteriorating capital positions.A countercyclical buffer within a range of 0% - 2.5% of common equity or other fully loss absorbing capital will be implemented according to national circumstances. The purpose of the countercyclical buffer is to achieve the broader macroprudential goal of protecting the banking sector from periods of excess aggregate credit growth. For any given country, this buffer will only be in effect when there is excess credit growth that is resulting in a system wide build up of risk. The countercyclical buffer, when in effect, would be introduced as an extension of the conservation buffer range.These capital requirements are supplemented by a non-risk-based leverage ratio that will serve as a backstop to the risk-based measures described above. In July, Governors and Heads of Supervision agreed to test a minimum Tier 1 leverage ratio of 3% during the parallel run period. Based on the results of the parallel run period, any final adjustments would be carried out in the first half of 2017 with a view to migrating to a Pillar 1 treatment on 1 January 2018 based on appropriate review and calibration.Systemically important banks should have loss absorbing capacity beyond the standards announced today and work continues on this issue in the Financial Stability Board and relevant Basel Committee work streams. The Basel Committee and the FSB are developing a well integrated approach to systemically important financial institutions which could include combinations of capital surcharges, contingent capital and bail-in debt. In addition, work is continuing to strengthen resolution regimes. The Basel Committee also recently issued a consultative document Proposal to ensure the loss absorbency of regulatory capital at the point of non-viability. Governors and Heads of Supervision endorse the aim to strengthen the loss absorbency of non-common Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital instruments.Transition arrangementsSince the onset of the crisis, banks have already undertaken substantial efforts to raise their capital levels. However, preliminary results of the Committee's comprehensive quantitative impact study show that as of the end of 2009, large banks will need, in the aggregate, a significant amount of additional capital to meet these new requirements. Smaller banks, which are particularly important for lending to the SME sector, for the most part already meet these higher standards.The Governors and Heads of Supervision also agreed on transitional arrangements for implementing the new standards. These will help ensure that the banking sector can meet the higher capital standards through reasonable earnings retention and capital raising, while still supporting lending to the economy. The transitional arrangements, which are summarised in Annex 2, include:National implementation by member countries will begin on 1 January 2013. Member countries must translate the rules into national laws and regulations before this date. As of 1 January 2013, banks will be required to meet the following new minimum requirements in relation to risk-weighted assets (RWAs):3.5% common equity/RWAs;4.5% Tier 1 capital/RWAs, and8.0% total capital/RWAs.The minimum common equity and Tier 1 requirements will be phased in between 1 January 2013 and 1 January 2015. On 1 January 2013, the minimum common equity requirement will rise from the current 2% level to 3.5%. The Tier 1 capital requirement will rise from 4% to 4.5%. On 1 January 2014, banks will have to meeta 4% minimum common equity requirement and a Tier 1 requirement of 5.5%. On1 January 2015, banks will have to meet the 4.5% common equity and the 6% Tier 1 requirements. The total capital requirement remains at the existing level of 8.0% and so does not need to be phased in. The difference between the total capital requirement of 8.0% and the Tier 1 requirement can be met with Tier2 and higher forms of capital.The regulatory adjustments (ie deductions and prudential filters), including amounts above the aggregate 15% limit for investments in financial institutions, mortgage servicing rights, and deferred tax assets from timing differences, would be fully deducted from common equity by 1 January 2018.In particular, the regulatory adjustments will begin at 20% of the required deductions from common equity on 1 January 2014, 40% on 1 January 2015, 60% on 1 January 2016, 80% on 1 January 2017, and reach 100% on 1 January 2018. During this transition period, the remainder not deducted from common equity will continue to be subject to existing national treatments.The capital conservation buffer will be phased in between 1 January 2016 and year end 2018 becoming fully effective on 1 January 2019. It will begin at0.625% of RWAs on 1 January 2016 and increase each subsequent year by an additional 0.625 percentage points, to reach its final level of 2.5% of RWAs on 1 January 2019. Countries that experience excessive credit growth should consider accelerating the build up of the capital conservation buffer and the countercyclical buffer. National authorities have the discretion to impose shorter transition periods and should do so where appropriate.Banks that already meet the minimum ratio requirement during the transition period but remain below the 7% common equity target (minimum plus conservation buffer) should maintain prudent earnings retention policies with a view to meeting the conservation buffer as soon as reasonably possible.Existing public sector capital injections will be grandfathered until 1 January 2018. Capital instruments that no longer qualify as non-common equity Tier 1 capital or Tier 2 capital will be phased out over a 10 year horizon beginning 1 January 2013. Fixing the base at the nominal amount of such instruments outstanding on 1 January 2013, their recognition will be capped at 90% from 1 January 2013, with the cap reducing by 10 percentage points in each subsequent year. In addition, instruments with an incentive to be redeemed will be phased out at their effective maturity date.Capital instruments that no longer qualify as common equity Tier 1 will be excluded from common equity Tier 1 as of 1 January 2013. However, instruments meeting the following three conditions will be phased out over the same horizon described in the previous bullet point: (1) they are issued by a non-joint stock company 1 ; (2) they are treated as equity under the prevailing accounting standards; and (3) they receive unlimited recognition as part of Tier 1 capital under current national banking law.Only those instruments issued before the date of this press release should qualify for the above transition arrangements.Phase-in arrangements for the leverage ratio were announced in the 26 July 2010 press release of the Group of Governors and Heads of Supervision. That is, the supervisory monitoring period will commence 1 January 2011; the parallel run period will commence 1 January 2013 and run until 1 January 2017; and disclosure of the leverage ratio and its components will start 1 January 2015. Based on the results of the parallel run period, any final adjustments will be carried out in the first half of 2017 with a view to migrating to a Pillar 1 treatment on 1 January 2018 based on appropriate review and calibration.After an observation period beginning in 2011, the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) will be introduced on 1 January 2015. The revised net stable funding ratio (NSFR) will move to a minimum standard by 1 January 2018. The Committee will put in place rigorous reporting processes to monitor the ratios during the transition period and will continue to review the implications of these standards for financial markets, credit extension and economic growth, addressing unintended consequences as necessary.The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision provides a forum for regular cooperation on banking supervisory matters. It seeks to promote and strengthen supervisory and risk management practices globally. The Committee comprises representatives from Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Hong Kong SAR, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States.The Group of Central Bank Governors and Heads of Supervision is the governing body of the Basel Committee and is comprised of central bank governors and (non-central bank) heads of supervision from member countries. The Committee's Secretariat is based at the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland.Annex 1: Calibration of the Capital Framework (PDF 1 page, 19 kb)Annex 2: Phase-in arrangements (PDF 1 page, 27 kb)Full press release (PDF 7 pages, 56 kb)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 Non-joint stock companies were not addressed in the Basel Committee's 1998 agreement on instruments eligible for inclusion in Tier 1 capital as they do not issue voting common shares.最新巴塞尔协议3全文央行行长和监管当局负责人集团1宣布较高的全球最低资本标准国际银行资本监管改革是本轮金融危机以来全球金融监管改革的重要组成部分。

巴塞尔资本协议中英文完整版

巴塞尔资本协议中英文完整版

巴塞尔资本协议中英文完整版导言1. 巴塞尔银行监管委员会〔以下简称委员会〕现公布巴塞尔新资本协议〔Basel II, 以下简称巴塞尔II〕第三次征求意见稿〔CP3,以下简称第三稿〕。

第三稿的公布是构建新资本充足率框架的一项重大步骤。

委员会的目标仍旧是在今年第四季度完成新协议,并于2006年底在成员国开始实施。

2. 委员会认为,完善资本充足率框架有两方面的公共政策利好。

一是建立不仅包括最低资本而且还包括监管当局的监督检查和市场纪律的资本治理规定。

二是大幅度提高最低资本要求的风险敏锐度。

3. 完善的资本充足率框架,旨在促进鼓舞银行强化风险治理能力,不断提高风险评估水平。

委员会认为,实现这一目标的途径是,将资本规定与当今的现代化风险治理作法紧密地结合起来,在监管实践中并通过有关风险和资本的信息披露,确保对风险的重视。

4. 委员会修改资本协议的一项重要内容,确实是加强与业内人士和非成员国监管人员之间的对话。

通过多次征求意见,委员会认为,包括多项选择方案的新框架不仅适用于十国集团国家,而且也适用于世界各国的银行和银行体系。

5. 委员会另一项同等重要的工作,确实是研究参加新协议定量测算阻碍分析各行提出的反馈意见。

这方面研究工作的目的,确实是把握各国银行提供的有关新协议各项建议对各行资产将产生何种阻碍。

专门要指出,委员会注意到,来自40多个国家规模及复杂程度各异的350多家银行参加了近期开展的定量阻碍分析〔以下称简QIS3〕。

正如另一份文件所指出,QIS3的结果说明,调整后新框架规定的资本要求总体上与委员会的既定目标相一致。

6. 本文由两部分内容组成。

第一部分简单介绍新资本充足框架的内容及有关实施方面的问题。

在此要紧的考虑是,加深读者对新协议银行各项选择方案的认识。

第二部分技术性较强,大体描述了在2002年10月公布的QIS3技术指导文件之后对新协议有关规定所做的修改。

第一部分新协议的要紧内容7. 新协议由三大支柱组成:一是最低资本要求,二是监管当局对资本充足率的监督检查,三是信息披露。

巴塞尔新资本协议第三版(中文版)-232页

巴塞尔新资本协议第三版(中文版)-232页

巴塞尔委员会Basel Committeeon Banking Supervision征求意见稿(第三稿)巴塞尔新资本协议The NewBasel Capital Accord 中国银行业监督管理委员会翻译目录概述 (10)导言 (10)第一部分新协议的主要内容 (11)第一支柱:最低资本要求 (11)信用风险标准法 (11)内部评级法(Internal ratings-based (IRB) approaches) (12)公司、银行和主权的风险暴露 (13)零售风险暴露 (14)专业贷款(Specialised lending) (14)股权风险暴露(Equity exposures) (14)IRB法的实施问题 (15)证券化 (15)操作风险 (16)第二支柱和第三支柱:监管当局的监督检查和市场纪律 (17)监管当局的监督检查 (17)市场纪律 (18)新协议的实施 (18)朝新协议过渡 (18)有关前瞻性问题 (19)跨境实施问题 (20)今后的工作 (20)第二部分: 对QIS3技术指导文件的修改 (21)导言 21允许使用准备 (21)合格的循环零售风险暴露(qualifying revolving retail exposures,QRRE)..22住房抵押贷款 (22)专业贷款(specialised lending, SL) (22)高波动性商业房地产(high volatility commercial real estate ,HVCRE).23信用衍生工具 (23)证券化 (23)操作风险 (24)缩写词 (26)第一部分:适用范围 (28)A.导言 (28)B.银行、证券公司和其他附属金融企业 (28)C.对银行、证券公司和其他金融企业的大额少数股权投资 (29)D.保险公司 (29)E.对商业企业的大额投资 (30)F.根据本部分的规定对投资的扣减 (31)第二部分:第一支柱-最低资本要求 (33)I. 最低资本要求的计算 (33)II.信用风险-标准法(Standardised Approach) (33)A.标准法 — 一般规则 (33)1.单笔债权的处理 (34)(i)对主权国家的债权 (34)(ii)对非中央政府公共部门实体(public sector entities)的债权 (35)(iii)对多边开发银行的债权 (35)(iv) 对银行的债权 (36)(v)对证券公司的债权 (37)(vi)对公司的债权 (37)(vii)包括在监管定义的零售资产中的债权 (37)(viii) 对居民房产抵押的债权 (38)(ix)对商业房地产抵押的债权 (38)(x)逾期贷款 (39)(xi)高风险的债权 (39)(xii)其他资产 (40)(xiii) 资产负债表外项目 (40)2.外部评级 (40)(i)认定程序 (40)(ii)资格标准 (40)3.实施中需考虑的问题 (41)(i)对应程序(mapping process) (41)(ii)多方评级结果的处理 (42)(iii)发行人评级和债项评级(issuer versus issues assessment) (42)(iv)本币和外币的评级 (42)(v)短期和长期评级 (43)(vi)评级的适用范围 (43)(vii)被动评级(unsolicited ratings) (43)B. 标准法—信用风险缓释(Credit risk mitigation) (44)1.主要问题 (44)(i)综述 (44)(ii) 一般性论述 (44)(iii)法律确定性 (45)2.信用风险缓释技术的综述 (45)(i)抵押交易 (45)(ii) 表内净扣(On-balance sheet netting) (47)(iii)担保和信用衍生工具 (47)(iv) 期限错配 (47)(v) 其他问题 (48)3.抵押品 (48)(i)合格的金融抵押品 (48)(ii) 综合方法 (49)(iii)简单方法 (56)(iv) 抵押的场外衍生工具交易 (57)4.表内净扣 (57)5.担保和信用衍生工具 (58)(i)操作要求 (58)(ii)合格的担保人/信用保护提供者的范围 (60)(iii)风险权重 (60)(iv)币种错配 (60)(v)主权担保 (61)6.期限错配 (61)7.与信用风险缓释相关的其他问题的处理 (62)(i)对信用风险缓释技术池(pools of CRM techniques)的处理 (62)(ii) 第一违约的信用衍生工具 (62)(iii)第二违约的信用衍生工具 (62)III. 信用风险——IRB法 (62)A.概述 (62)B.IRB法的具体要求 (63)1.风险暴露类别 (63)(i) 公司暴露的定义 (63)(ii) 主权暴露的定义 (65)(iii) 银行暴露的定义 (65)(iv) 零售暴露的定义 (65)(v)合格的循环零售暴露的定义 (66)(vi) 股权暴露的定义 (67)(vii)合格的购入应收账款的定义 (68)2.初级法和高级法 (69)(i)公司、主权和银行暴露 (69)(ii) 零售暴露 (70)(iii) 股权暴露 (70)(iv) 合格的购入应收账款 (70)3. 在不同资产类别中采用IRB法 (70)4.过渡期安排 (71)(i)采用高级法的银行平行计算资本充足率 (71)(ii) 公司、主权、银行和零售暴露 (72)(iii) 股权暴露 (72)C.公司、主权、及银行暴露的规定 (73)1.公司、主权和银行暴露的风险加权资产 (73)(i)风险加权资产的推导公式 (73)(ii) 中小企业的规模调整 (73)(iii) 专业贷款的风险权重 (74)2.风险要素 (75)(i)违约概率 (75)(iii)违约风险暴露 (79)(iv) 有效期限 (80)D.零售暴露规定 (82)1.零售暴露的风险加权资产 (82)(i) 住房抵押贷款 (82)(ii) 合格的循环零售贷款 (82)(iii) 其他零售暴露 (83)2.风险要素 (83)(i)违约概率和违约损失率 (83)(ii) 担保和信贷衍生产品的认定 (83)(iii) 违约风险暴露 (83)E.股权暴露的规则 (84)1.股权暴露的风险加权资产 (84)(i)市场法 (84)(ii) 违约概率/违约损失率方法 (85)(iii) 不采用市场法和违约概率/违约损失率法的情况 (86)2. 风险要素 (87)F. 购入应收账款的规则 (87)1.违约风险的风险加权资产 (87)(i)购入的零售应收账款 (87)(ii) 购入的公司应收账款 (87)2.稀释风险的风险加权资产 (89)(i)购入折扣的处理 (89)(ii) 担保的认定 (89)G. 准备的认定 (89)H.IRB法的最低要求 (90)1.最低要求的内容 (91)2.遵照最低要求 (91)3.评级体系设计 (91)(i)评级维度 (92)(ii) 评级结构 (93)(iv) 评估的时间 (94)(v)模型的使用 (95)(vi) 评级体系设计的记录 (95)4.风险评级体系运作 (96)(i) 评级的涵盖范围 (96)(ii) 评级过程的完整性 (96)(iii) 推翻评级的情况(Overrides) (97)(iv) 数据维护 (97)(v)评估资本充足率的压力测试 (98)5. 公司治理和监督 (98)(i)公司治理(Corporate governance) (98)(ii) 信用风险控制 (99)(iii) 内审和外审 (99)6. 内部评级的使用 (99)7.风险量化 (100)(i)估值的全面要求 (100)(ii) 违约的定义 (101)(iii) 重新确定帐龄(Re-ageing) (102)(iv) 对透支的处理 (102)(v) 所有资产类别损失的的定义 (102)(vi) 估计违约概率的要求 (102)(vii) 自行估计违约损失率的要求 (104)(viii) 自己估计违约风险暴露的要求 (104)(ix) 评估担保和信贷衍生产品成熟性效应的最低要求 (106)(x)估计合格的购入应收账款违约概率和违约损失率的要求 (107)8. 内部评估的验证 (109)9. 监管当局确定的违约损失率和违约风险暴露 (110)(i)商用房地产和居民住房作为抵押品资格的定义 (110)(ii) 合格的商用房地产/居民住房的操作要求 (110)(iii) 认定金融应收账款的要求 (111)10.认定租赁的要求 (113)11.股权暴露资本要求的计算 (114)(i)内部模型法下的市场法 (114)(ii) 资本要求和风险量化 (114)(iv) 验证和形成文件 (116)12.披露要求 (118)IV.信用风险--- 资产证券化框架 (119)A.资产证券化框架下所涉及交易的范围和定义 (119)B. 定义 (120)1. 银行所承担的不同角色 (120)(i)银行作为投资行 (120)(ii) 银行作为发起行 (120)2. 通用词汇 (120)(i) 清收式赎回(clean-up call) (120)(ii) 信用提升(credit enhancement) (120)(iii) 提前摊还(early amortisation) (120)(iv) 超额利差(excess spread) (121)(v)隐性支持(implicit support) (121)(vi) 特别目的机构(Special purpose entity (SPE)) (121)C. 确认风险转移的操作要求 (121)1.传统型资产证券化的操作要求 (121)2.对合成型资产证券化的操作要求 (122)3.清收式赎回的操作要求和处理 (123)D. 对资产证券化风险暴露的处理 (123)1.最低资本要求 (123)(i)扣减 (123)(ii) 隐性支持 (123)2. 使用外部信用评估的操作要求 (124)3. 资产证券化风险暴露的标准化方法 (124)(i) 范围 (124)(ii) 风险权重 (125)(iii) 对于未评级资产证券化风险暴露一般处理方法的例外情况 (125)(iv) 表外风险资产的信用转换系数 (126)(v)信用风险缓释的确认 (127)(vi) 提前摊还规定的资本要求 (128)(viii)对于非控制型具有提前摊还特征的风险暴露的信用风险转换系数的确定 (130)4.资产证券化的内部评级法 (131)(i)范围 (131)(ii) KIRB定义 (131)(iii) 各种不同的方法 (132)(iv) 所需资本最高限 (133)(v) 以评级为基础的方法 (133)(vi) 监管公式 (135)(vii)流动性便利 (137)(viii) 合格服务人现金透支便利 (138)(ix) 信用风险缓释的确认 (138)(x) 提前摊还的资本要求 (138)V. 操作风险 (139)A. 操作风险的定义 (139)B. 计量方法 (139)1.基本指标法 (139)2.标准法 (140)3.高级计量法(Advanced Measurement Approaches ,AMA) (141)C.资格标准 (142)1.一般标准 (142)2.标准法 (142)3. 高级计量法 (143)D.局部使用 (147)VI.交易账户 (148)A.交易账户的定义 (148)B.审慎评估标准 (149)1.评估系统和控制手段 (149)2.评估方法 (149)3.计值调整(储备) (150)C.交易账户对手信用风险的处理 (151)D.标准法对交易账户特定风险资本要求的处理 (152)1.政府债券的特定风险资本要求 (152)2.对未评级债券特定风险的处理原则 (152)3. 采用信用衍生工具套做保值头寸的专项资本要求 (152)4.信用衍生工具的附加系数 (153)第三部分:监督检查 (155)A.监督检查的重要性 (155)B.监督检查的四项主要原则 (155)C.监督检查的具体问题 (161)D:监管检查的其他问题 (167)第四部分:第三支柱——市场纪律 (169)A.总体考虑 (169)1.披露要求 (169)2.指导原则 (169)3.恰当的披露 (169)4. 与会计披露的相互关系 (169)5.重要性(Materiality) (170)6.频率 (170)B.披露要求 (171)1.总体披露原则 (171)2.适用范围 (171)3.资本 (173)4.风险暴露和评估 (175)(i)定性披露的总体要求 (175)(ii)信用风险 (175)(iii)市场风险 (183)(iv)操作风险 (184)(v)银行账户的利率风险 (184)附录1 创新工具在一级资本中的上线为15% (185)附录2 标准法-实施对应程序 (186)附录3 IRB法风险权重的实例 (190)附录4 监管当局对专业贷款设定的标准 (193)附录5 按照监管公式计算信用风险缓释的影响 (207)附录 6 (211)附录7 损失事件分类详表 (215)附录8 (220)概 述导言1.巴塞尔银行监管委员会(以下简称委员会)现公布巴塞尔新资本协议(Basel II, 以下简称巴塞尔II)第三次征求意见稿(CP3,以下简称第三稿)。

巴塞尔协议三

巴塞尔协议三

The Basel III Capital Framework:a decisive breakthroughHervé HannounDeputy General Manager, Bank for International Settlements1BoJ-BIS High Level Seminar onFinancial Regulatory Reform: Implications for Asia and the PacificHong Kong SAR, 22 November 2010IntroductionTen days ago, the Basel III framework was endorsed by the G20 leaders in South Korea. Basel III is the centrepiece of the financial reform programme coordinated by the Financial Stability Board.2 This endorsement represents a critical step in the process to strengthen the capital rules by which banks are required to operate. When the international rule-making process is completed and Basel III has been implemented domestically, we will have considerably reduced the probability and severity of a crisis in the banking sector, and by extension enhanced global financial stability.The title of my intervention, “The Basel III Capital Framework: a decisive breakthrough”, sounds like a military metaphor, which may be surprising in the context of a speech on banking regulation. But indeed, the supervisory community had to fight a fierce battle to require more capital and less leverage in the financial system in the face of significant resistance from some quarters of the banking industry.I will highlight nine key breakthroughs in Basel III, from a focus on tangible equity capital to a reduced reliance on banks’ internal models and a greater focus on stress testing, that will increase the safety and soundness of banks individually and the banking system more broadly.1This speech was prepared together with Jason George and Eli Remolona, and benefited from comments by Robert McCauley, Frank Packer, Ilhyock Shim, Bruno Tissot, Stefan Walter and Haibin Zhu.2Basel III: towards a safer financial system, speech by Mr Jaime Caruana, General Manager of the BIS, at the 3rd Santander International Banking Conference, Madrid, 15 September 2010Restricted3Thirty years of bank capital regulation11/2010G20 endorsement of Basel III06/2004Basel II issued 12/1996Market risk amendmentissued 07/1988Basel Iissued 01/2019Full implementation of Basel III12/1997 Market risk amendmentimplemented 12/1992Basel I fullyimplemented 12/2009Basel III consultative document issued 12/2006Basel II implemented 07/2009Revised securitisation & trading book rulesissued 12/2007Basel II advanced approaches implemented 01/2013Basel III implementation begins12/2011Trading book rules implementedTo understand the importance of the Basel III reforms and where we are headed in terms of capital regulation, I think it is instructive if we briefly look back to see where we have come from.Basel I, the first internationally agreed capital standard, was issued some 22 years ago in 1988. Although it only addressed credit risk, it reflected the thinking that we continue to subscribe to today, namely, that the amount of capital required to protect against losses in an asset should vary depending upon the riskiness of the asset. At the same time, it set 8% as the minimum level of capital to be held against the sum of all risk-weighted assets.Following Basel I, in 1996 market risk was added as an area for which capital was required. Then, in 2004, Basel II was issued, adding operational risk, as well as a supervisory review process and disclosure requirements. Basel II also updated and expanded upon the credit risk weighting scheme introduced in Basel I, not only to capture the risk in instruments and activities that had developed since 1988, but also to allow banks to use their internal risk rating systems and approaches to measure credit and operational risk for capital purposes. What could more broadly be referred to as Basel III began with the issuance of the revised securitisation and trading book rules in July 2009, and then the consultative document in December of that year. The trading book rules will be implemented at the end of next year and the new definition of capital and capital requirements in Basel III over a six-year period beginning in January 2013. This extended implementation period for Basel III is designed to give banks sufficient time to adjust through earnings retention and capital-raising efforts.Restricted5The Basel III reform of bank capital regulationCapital ratio =Capital Risk-weighted assets Enhancing risk coverage ●Securitisation products●Trading book●Counterparty credit riskNew capital ratios●Common equity●Tier 1●Total capital●Capital conservation buffer Raising the quality of capital ●Focus on common equity ●Stricter criteria for Tier 1●Harmonised deductions from capital Macroprudential overlay Mitigating procyclicality●Countercyclical bufferLeverage ratio Mitigating systemic risk(work in progress)●Systemic capitalsurcharge for SIFIs●Contingent capital●Bail-in debt●OTC derivativesIn my remarks today I will try to illustrate the fundamental change introduced by Basel III, that of marrying the microprudential and the macroprudential approaches to supervision. Basel III builds upon the firm-specific, risk based frameworks of Basel I and Basel II by introducing a system-wide approach. I will structure my remarks around these two approaches and, in so doing, will demonstrate how Basel III is BOTH a firm-specific, risk based framework and a system-wide, systemic risk-based framework.I. Basel III: a firm-specific, risk-based frameworkLet us look first at the microprudential, firm-specific approach, and consider in turn the three elements of the capital equation: the numerator of the new solvency ratios, ie capital, the denominator, ie risk-weighted assets, and finally the capital ratio itself.A. The numerator: a strict definition of capitalRegarding the numerator, the Basel III framework substantially raises the quality of capital. Basically, in the old definition of capital, a bank could report an apparently strong Tier 1 capital ratio while at the same time having a weak tangible common equity ratio. Prior to the crisis, the amount of tangible common equity of many banks, when measured against risk-weighted assets, was as low as 1 to 3%, net of regulatory deductions. That’s a risk-based leverage of between 33 to 1 and 100 to 1. Global banks further increased their leverage by infesting the Tier 1 part of their capital structure with hybrid “innovative” instruments with debt-like features.In the old definition, capital comprised various elements with a complex set of minimums and maximums for each element. We had Tier 1 capital, innovative Tier 1, upper and lower Tier 2, Tier 3 capital, each with their own limits which were sometimes a function of other capital elements. The complexity in the definition of capital made it difficult to determine what capital would be available should losses arise. This combination of weaknesses permitted tangible common equity capital, the best form of capital, to be as low as 1% of risk-weighted assets.In addition to complicated rules around what qualifies as capital, there was a lack of harmonisation of the various deductions and filters that are applied to the regulatory capital calculation. And finally there was a complete lack of transparency and disclosure on banks’ structure of capital, making it impossible to compare the capital adequacy of global banks.As we learned again during the crisis, credit losses and writedowns come directly out of retained earnings and therefore common equity. It is thus critical that banks’ risk exposures are backed by a high-quality capital base. This is why the new definition of capital properly focuses on common equity capital.The concept of Tier 1 that we are familiar with will continue to exist and will include common equity and other instruments that have a loss-absorbing capacity on a “going concern” basis,3 for example certain preference shares. Innovative capital instruments which were permitted in limited amount as part of Tier 1 capital will no longer be permitted and those currently in existence will be phased out.Tier 2 capital will continue to provide loss absorption on a “gone concern” basis1 and will typically consist of subordinated debt. Tier 3 capital, which was used to cover a portion of a bank’s market risk capital charge, will be eliminated and deductions from capital will be harmonised. With respect to transparency, banks will be required to provide full disclosure and reconciliation of all capital elements.The overarching point with respect to the numerator of the capital equation is the focus on tangible common equity, the highest-quality component of a bank’s capital base, and therefore, the component with the greatest loss-absorbing capacity. This is the first breakthrough in Basel III.B. The denominator: enhanced risk coverageRegarding the denominator, Basel III substantially improves the coverage of the risks, especially those related to capital market activities: trading book, securitisation products, counterparty credit risk on OTC derivatives and repos.In the period leading up to the crisis, when banks were focusing their business activities on these areas, we saw a significant increase in total assets. Yet under the Basel II rules, risk-weighted assets showed only a modest increase. This point is made clear in the following chart showing the increase in both total assets and risk-weighted assets for the 50 largest banks in the world from 2004 to 2010. This phenomenon was more pronounced for some countries and regions than for others.3Tier 1 capital is loss-absorbing on a “going concern” basis (ie the financial institution is solvent). Tier 2 capital absorbs losses on a “gone concern” basis (ie following insolvency and upon liquidation).Restricted9I. Firm specific framework (microprudential)B. The denominator: enhanced risk coverage1. From 2004 to 2009, total assets at the top 50 banks have increased at a more rapid pace than risk weighted assets2. The need to monitor the relationship between risk weighted assets and total assets which varies greatly across countriesand underscores the importance of consistent implementation of theglobal regulatory standards across jurisdictionsFor global banks the enhanced risk coverage under Basel III is expected to cause risk-weighted assets to increase substantially. This, combined with a tougher definition and level of capital, may tempt banks to understate their risk-weighted assets. This points to the need in future to monitor closely the relationship between risk-weighted assets and total assets with a view to promoting a consistent implementation of the global capital standards across jurisdictions.Risk weighting challengesLet me now focus for a moment on the challenges of getting the risk weights right in a risk-based framework.Many asset classes may appear to be low-risk when seen from a firm-specific perspective. But we have seen that the system-wide build-up of seemingly low-risk exposures can pose substantial threats to broader financial stability. Before the recent crisis, the list of apparently low-risk assets included highly rated sovereigns, tranches of AAA structured products, collateralised repos and derivative exposures, to name just a few. The leverage ratio will help ensure that we do not lose sight of the fact that there are system-wide risks that need to be underpinned by capital.The basic approach of the Basel capital standards has always been to attach higher risk weights to riskier assets. The risk weights themselves and the methodology were significantly enhanced as we moved from Basel I to Basel II, and they have now been further refined under Basel III. Nonetheless, as the crisis has made clear, what is not so risky in normal times may suddenly become very risky during a systemic crisis. Something that looks risk-free may turn out to have rather large tail risk.Focusing a bit more on exposures with low risk weights, let me cite a few examples to illustrate the difficulty of getting the risk weights correct.Sovereigns: the sovereign debt crisis of 2010 has shown that the zero risk weightassumption for AAA and AA-rated sovereigns under the standardised approach of Basel II did not account for the dramatic deterioration in the fiscal and debt positionsof major advanced economies. These exposures are still considered as low-risk but certainly not totally risk-free.∙ OTC derivatives (under CSAs) and repos: the Lehman and Bear Stearns failuresdemonstrated that the very low capital charge on OTC derivatives and repos did not capture the systemic risk associated with the interconnectedness and potential cascade effects in these markets.∙ Senior tranches of securitisation exposures: financial engineering produced AAA-rated tranches of complex products, such as the super-senior tranches of ABS CDOs. These proved much more risky than what would be expected from a AAA exposure. The preferential risk weight of 7% for those super-senior tranches was too low, and the risk weight has now been raised to 20%.For assets with medium risk weights, one could cite the following examples: ∙ Residential mortgages: 35% risk weight under the standardised approach. For highest-quality mortgages: 4.15% risk weight (IRB approach)∙ Highly rated corporates: 20% risk weight under the standardised approach. For best-quality corporates: 14.4% risk weight (IRB approach)∙ Highly rated banks: 20% risk weight (standardised approach)For assets with high risk weights, the following examples can be considered:∙ HVCRE (high volatility commercial real estate)∙ Mezzanine tranches of ABS/CDOs∙ Hedge fund equity stakes: 400% risk weight ∙ Claims on unrated corporates: 100% risk weight Restricted3I. Firm specific framework (microprudential)●●B. The denominator: risk weighting challengesWeak correlation between risk-weights and crisis-related losses Low risk-weights may have contributed to the build-up of system wide risksThe chart above shows how different asset classes fared during the crisis. Relative to their Basel II risk weights, equity stakes in hedge funds, claims on corporates and some retailexposures experienced modest losses during the crisis. By contrast, mortgages, highly rated banks, AAA-rated CDO tranches and sovereigns inflicted rather heavy losses on banks. These cases show that there is a rather weak correlation between risk weights and crisis-related losses during periods of system-wide stress. Moreover, we have also discovered that low risk weights can lead to an excessive build-up of system-wide risks. Recognising this problem, the Basel Committee has now introduced a backstop simple leverage ratio, which will require a minimum ratio of capital to total assets without any risk weights. I will come back to this later.The trading book and securitisationsTwo areas the crisis has revealed as needing enhanced risk coverage are the trading book and securitisations. Here capital charges fell short of risk exposures. Basel II focused primarily on the banking book, where traditional assets such as loans are held. But the major losses during the 2007–09 financial crisis came from the trading book, especially the complex securitisation exposures such as collateralised debt obligations. As shown in the table below, the capital requirements for trading assets were extremely low, even relative to banks’ own economic capital estimates. The Basel Committee has addressed this anomaly.Restricted15Trading assetsand marketriskcapitalrequirements¹The revised framework now requires the following:∙Introduction of a 12-month stressed VaR capital charge; ∙Incremental risk capital charge applied to the measurement of specific risk in credit sensitive positions when using VaR; ∙Similar treatment for trading and banking book securitisations; ∙Higher risk weights for resecuritisations (20% instead of 7% for AAA-rated tranches); ∙ Higher credit conversion factors for short-term liquidity facilities to off-balance sheetconduits and SIVs (the shadow banking system); andMore rigorous own credit analyses of externally rated securitisation exposures with less reliance on external ratings.As a result of this enhanced risk coverage, banks will now hold capital for trading book assets that, on average, is about four times greater than that required by the old capital requirements. The Basel Committee is also conducting a fundamental review of the market risk framework rules, including the rationale for the distinction between banking book and trading book. This is the second Basel III breakthrough: eradicate the trading book loophole, ie eliminate the possibility of regulatory arbitrage between the banking and trading books.Counterparty credit risk on derivatives and reposThe Basel Committee is also strengthening the capital requirements for counterparty credit risk on OTC derivatives and repos by requiring that these exposures be measured using stressed inputs. Banks also must hold capital for mark to market losses (credit valuation adjustments – CVA) associated with the deterioration of a counterparty’s credit quality. The Basel II framework addressed counterparty credit risk only in terms of defaults and credit migrations. But during the crisis, mark to market losses due to CVA (which actually represented two thirds of the losses from counterparty credit risk, only one third being due to actual defaults) were not directly capitalised.C. Capital ratios: calibration of the new requirementsWith a capital base whose quality has been enhanced, and an expanded coverage of risks both on- and off-balance sheet, the Basel Committee has made great strides in strengthening capital standards. But in addition to the quality of capital and risk coverage, it also calibrated the capital ratio such that it will now be able to absorb losses not only in normal times, but also during times of economic stress.To this end, banks will now be required to hold a minimum of 4.5% of risk-weighted assets in tangible common equity versus 2% under Basel II. In addition, the Basel Committee is requiring a capital conservation buffer – which I will discuss in just a moment – of 2.5%. Taken together, this means that banks will need to maintain a 7% common equity ratio. When one considers the tighter definition of capital and enhanced risk coverage, this translates into roughly a sevenfold increase in the common equity requirement for internationally active banks. This represents the third breakthrough.Restricted18I. Firm-specific framework (microprudential)C. Capital ratio: the new requirementsIncreases under Basel III are even greater when one considersthe stricter definition of capital and enhanced risk-weighting10.588.567.02.54.5Basel IIINewdefinition andcalibration Equivalent to around 2% for an average international bank underthe new definition Equivalent to around 1% for an averageinternational bank under the new definition Memo:842Basel II RequiredMinimum Required Minimum Required Conservationbuffer Minimum Total capital Tier 1 capital Common equityCapital requirementsAs a percentageof risk-weightedassets Third breakthrough: an average sevenfold increase in the common equityrequirements for global banksThis higher level of capital is calibrated to absorb the types of losses associated with crises like the previous one.The private sector has complained that these new requirements will cause them to curtail lending or increase the cost of borrowing. In an effort to address some of the industry’s concerns, the Basel Committee has agreed upon extended transitional arrangements that will allow the banking sector to meet the higher capital standards through earnings retention and capital-raising.The new standards will take effect on 1 January 2013 and for the most part will become fully effective by January 2019.D. Capital conservationA fourth key breakthrough of Basel III is that banks will no longer be able to pursue distribution policies that are inconsistent with sound capital conservation principles. We have learned from the crisis that it is prudent for banks to build capital buffers during times of economic growth. Then, as the economy begins to contract, banks may be forced to use these buffers to absorb losses. But to offset the contraction of the buffer, banks could have the ability to restrict discretionary payments such as dividends and bonuses to shareholders, employees and other capital providers. Of course they could also raise additional capital in the market.In fact, what we witnessed during the crisis was a practice by banks to continue making these payments even as their financial condition and capital levels deteriorated. This practice, in effect, puts the interest of the recipients of these payments above those of depositors, and this is simply not acceptable.To address the need to maintain a buffer to absorb losses and restrict the ability of banks to make inappropriate distributions as their capital strength declines, the Basel Committee will now require banks to maintain a buffer of 2.5% of risk-weighted assets. This buffer must be held in tangible common equity capital.As a bank’s capital ratio declines and it uses the conservation buffer to absorb losses, the framework will require banks to retain an increasingly higher percentage of their earnings and will impose restrictions on distributable items such as dividends, share buybacks and discretionary bonuses. Supervisors now have the power to enforce capital conservation discipline. This is a fundamental change.II. Basel III: A system-wide, systemic risk-based frameworkOverviewReturning to the theme of my discussion, Basel III is not only a firm-specific risk-based framework, it is also a system-wide, systemic risk-based framework. The so-called macroprudential overlay is designed to address systemic risk and is an entirely new way of thinking about capital.This new dimension of the capital framework consists of five elements. The first is a leverage ratio, a simple measure of capital that supplements the risk-based ratio and which constrains the build-up of leverage in the system. The second is steps taken to mitigate procyclicality, including a countercyclical capital buffer and, although outside a strict discussion of capital, efforts to promote a provisioning framework based upon expected losses rather than incurred losses. The third element of the macroprudential overlay is steps to address the externalities generated by systemically important financial institutions through higher loss-absorbing capacity. The fourth is a framework to address the risk arising from systemically important markets and infrastructures. In particular, I am referring to the OTC derivatives markets. And finally, the macroprudential overlay aims to better capture systemic risk and tail events in the banks’ own risk management framework, including through risk modelling, stress testing and scenario analysis.ratioA. LeverageIn the lead up to the crisis many banks reported strong Tier 1 risk based ratios while, at the same time, still being able to build up high levels of on and off balance sheet leverage.In response to this, the Basel Committee has introduced a simple, non-risk-based leverage ratio to supplement the risk-based capital requirements. The leverage ratio has the added benefit of serving as a safeguard against model risk and any attempts to circumvent the risk-based capital requirements.The leverage ratio will be a measure of a bank’s Tier 1 capital as a percentage of its assets plus off balance sheet exposures and derivatives.For derivatives, regulatory net exposure will be used plus an add-on for potential future exposure. Netting of all derivatives will be permitted. In so doing, the Basel Committee has successfully solved the difficulty resulting from the divergence between the main accounting frameworks. (Bank leverage is significantly lower under US GAAP than under IFRS due to the netting of OTC derivatives allowed under the former. Given that banks may hold offsetting contracts, US GAAP allows banks to report their net exposures while IFRS does not allow netting. As a result, the size of a bank‘s total assets can vary significantly based on the treatment of this one accounting item.)The leverage ratio will also include off-balance sheet items in the measure of total assets. These off-balance sheet items, including commitments, letters of credit and the like, unless they are unconditionally cancellable, will be converted using a flat 100% credit conversion factor.To highlight the importance of the leverage ratio we need look no further than the increase in total assets in the years leading up to the crisis versus the increase in risk-weighted assets. It is obvious that balance sheets were being leveraged, but the risk-based framework failed tocapture this dynamic, as suggested by the following chart depicting risk-weighted and totalassets for the top 50 banks.Restricted5II. System-wide approach (macroprudential)A. Leverage ratiothe importance of the banking sector building up additional capital defences in periods where the risks of system-wide stress are growing markedly.While some in the financial community are sceptical about the usefulness of a leverage ratio, the Basel Committee’s Top-down Capital Calibration Group recently completed a study that showed that the leverage ratio did the best job of differentiating between banks that ultimately required official sector support in the recent crisis and those that did not.This leads me to the fifth breakthrough: Basel III is a framework that remains risk-based but now includes – through the Tier 1 leverage ratio – a backstop approach that also captures risks arising from total assets. The risk-based and leverage ratios reinforce each other.For all of these reasons, public policymakers and legislators must resist the intense lobbying effort of the industry to water down the leverage ratio to merely a Pillar 2 instrument. Giving in to this lobbying would increase the exposure of taxpayers to future bank failures and hurt long-term growth over a full credit cycle since sustainable credit growth cannot be achieved through excessive leverage.B. Countercyclical capital bufferWe have learned that procyclicality, which is inherent in banking, has exacerbated the impact of the crisis. While we will not eliminate cyclicality, what we would like to do is prevent its amplification through the banking sector, particularly that caused by excessive credit growth. This can be achieved through the new countercyclical capital buffer.As the volume of loans grows, if asset price bubbles burst or the economy subsequently enters a downturn and loan quality begins to deteriorate, banks will adopt a very conservative stance when it comes to the granting of new credit. This lack of credit availability only serves to exacerbate the problem, pushing the real economy deeper into trouble with asset prices declining further and the level of non-performing loans increasing further. This in turn causes bank lending to become scarcer still. These interactions highlights of stress, but it helps to ensure that by leading to the build-up of ed in each of the jurisdictions in which the bank has credit exposures.th breakthrough in Basel III.As you know, there is considerable work being done by the Financial Stability Board on how tions, ework for identifying SIFIs and a study of the magnitude of se to the global financial ically infrastructures. This is clearly illustrated ring and trade reporting on OTC derivatives. Derivative counterparty credit exposures to central counterparty clearing The countercyclical capital buffer not only protects the banking sector from losses resulting from periods of excess credit growth followed by period credit remains available during this period of stress. Importantly, during the build-up phase, as credit is being granted at a rapid pace, the countercyclical capital buffer may cause the cost of credit to increase, acting as a brake on bank lending.Each jurisdiction will monitor credit growth in relation to measures such as GDP and, using judgment, assess whether such growth is excessive, there system-wide risk. Based on this assessment they may put in place a countercyclical buffer requirement ranging from 0 to 2.5%. This requirement will be released when system-wide risk dissipates.For banks that are operating in multiple jurisdictions, the buffer will be a weighted average of the buffers appli To give banks time to adjust to a buffer level, jurisdictions will preannounce their countercyclical buffer decisions by 12 months.The introduction of a countercyclical capital charge to mitigate the procyclicality caused by excessive credit growth is the six C. Systemically important financial institutions: additional loss-absorbing capacityto design the best framework for the oversight of systemically important financial institu or SIFIs.4 It is broadly recognised that systemically important banks should have loss-absorbing capacity beyond the basic Basel III standards. This can be achieved by a combination of a systemic capital charge, contingent bonds that convert to equity at a certain trigger point and bail-in debt.Although the work on SIFIs is incomplete at this time, the Basel Committee has committed to complete by mid-2011 a fram additional loss absorbency that global systemically important banks should have. Also by mid-2011, the Basel Committee will complete its assessment of going-concern loss absorbency in some of the various contingent capital structures.What is clear, and this is the seventh breakthrough, is that SIFIs need higher loss-absorbing capacity to reflect the greater risks that they po system. A systemic capital surcharge is the most straightforward, but not the only way to achieve this.D. Systemically important markets and infrastructures (SIMIs): the case of OTCderivativesJust as there are systemically important financial institutions, there are also system important markets and systemically important market by the case of OTC derivatives. In particular, the Lehman failure demonstrated that the very low capital charge on OTC derivatives did not capture the systemic risk associated with the interconnectedness and potential cascade effects in these markets.To address the problem of interconnectedness as it relates to derivatives, the Basel Committee and Financial Stability Board have endorsed central clea4 Reducing the moral hazard posed by systemically important financial institutions , FSB Recommendations and Time Lines, 20 October 2010.。

巴塞尔资本协议中英文完整版(13附录5)

巴塞尔资本协议中英文完整版(13附录5)

附录5例子:按照监管公式计算信用风险缓释的影响以下举例说明按监管公式(SF)下,如何认定抵押品和担保的作用。

关于抵押品的例子—按比例抵补假定一发起行购买了€100 的证券化的风险暴露,存在超出K IRB 水平的信用提升,但超出部分无外部的或可推出的评级。

此外,假定对资产证券化部分的风险暴露,按监管公式资本需求为€1.6(乘以12.5,加权资产为€20)。

在进一步假定,该发起行持有€80的现金作为资产证券化的抵押品,计价货币与资产证券化货币相同。

该头寸的资本要求为将按监管公式的资本要求乘以调整后风险暴露与原始风险暴露的比率,如下所示。

第1步:调整后风险暴露(E*) = {0, [E x (1 + He) - C x (1 - Hc - Hfx)]} 式的最大值E* ={0, [100 x (1 + 0) - 80 x (1 - 0 - 0)]} 式的最大值= € 20其中 (根据以上信息):E* = 考虑风险缓释后的风险暴露(€20)E = 当前的风险暴露(€100)He = 适用于风险暴露的折扣系数(由于银行未借出资产证券化的风险暴露以交换抵押品,这个折扣系数无相关性).C = 接受抵押品的当前价值(€80)Hc = 适用于抵押品的折扣系数(0)Hfx= 适用于抵押品和风险暴露错配的折扣系数 (0)第2步:资本要求= E* / E x 监管公式的资本要求其中 (根据以上信息):资本要求= €20 / €100 x €1.6 = €0.32.关于担保的例子—按比例抵补除信用风险缓释工具外,该例子中所有涉及抵押品的假设条件均适用。

假定发起行持有其他银行提供的合格,无抵押品的担保,金额为80€。

因此,货币错配的折扣系数不适用。

资本要求如下所示:∙ 资产证券化的保护部分(80€ )的风险权重为保护提供者的风险权重。

保护提供者的风险权重与提供给担保银行无担保贷款的风险权重相同,在内部评级法下也是如此。

假定风险权重是10%。

巴塞尔协议3

巴塞尔协议3

巴塞尔协议III巴塞尔协议III(The Basel III Accord)目录• 1 什么是巴塞尔协议III• 2 巴塞尔协议III的出台• 3 巴塞尔协议III的主要内容• 4 巴塞尔协议III对中国银行业的影响• 5 相关条目什么是巴塞尔协议III《巴塞尔协议》是国际清算银行(BIS)的巴塞尔银行业条例和监督委员会的常设委员会———“巴塞尔委员会”于1988年7月在瑞士的巴塞尔通过的“关于统一国际银行的资本计算和资本标准的协议”的简称。

该协议第一次建立了一套完整的国际通用的、以加权方式衡量表内与表外风险的资本充足率标准,有效地扼制了与债务危机有关的国际风险。

[编辑]巴塞尔协议III的出台巴塞尔协议一直都秉承稳健经营和公平竞争的理念,也正因为如此,巴塞尔协议对现代商业银行而言显得日益重要,已成为全球银行业最具有影响力的监管标准之一。

新巴塞尔协议也即巴塞尔协议II经过近十年的修订和磨合于2007年在全球范围内实施,但正是在这一年,爆发了次贷危机,这次席卷全球的次贷危机真正考验了巴塞尔新资本协议。

显然,巴塞尔新资本协议存在顺周期效应、对非正态分布复杂风险缺乏有效测量和监管、风险度量模型有内在局限性以及支持性数据可得性存在困难等固有问题,但我们不能将美国伞形监管模式的缺陷和不足致使次贷危机爆发统统归结于巴塞尔新资本协议。

其实,巴塞尔协议在危机中也得到了不断修订和完善。

经过修订,巴塞尔协议已显得更加完善,对银行业的监管要求也明显提高,如为增强银行非预期损失的抵御能力,要求银行增提缓冲资本,并严格监管资本抵扣项目,提高资本规模和质量;为防范出现类似贝尔斯登的流动性危机,设置了流动性覆盖率监管指标;为防范“大而不能倒”的系统性风险,从资产规模、相互关联性和可替代性评估大型复杂银行的资本需求。

如上所述,自巴塞尔委员会2007年颁布和修订一系列监管规则后,2010年9月12日,由27个国家银行业监管部门和中央银行高级代表组成的巴塞尔银行监管委员会就《巴塞尔协议Ⅲ》的内容达成一致,全球银行业正式步入巴塞尔协议III时代。

巴塞尔资本协议中英文完整版(10附录2(英文))

巴塞尔资本协议中英文完整版(10附录2(英文))

Annex 2Standardised Approach - Implementing the Mapping Process1. Because supervisors will be responsible for assigning eligible ECAI’s credit risk assessments to the risk weights available under the standardised approach, they will need to consider a variety of qualitative and quantitative factors to differentiate between the relative degrees of risk expressed by each assessment. Such qualitative factors could include the pool of issuers that each agency covers, the range of ratings that an agency assigns, each rating’s meaning, and each agency’s definition of default, among others.2. Quantifiable parameters may help to promote a more consistent mapping of credit risk assessments into the available risk weights under the standardised approach. This annex summarises the Committee’s proposals to help supervisors with mapping exercises. The parameters presented below are intended to provide guidance to supervisors and are not intended to establish new or complement existing eligibility requirements for ECAIs. Evaluating CDRs: two proposed measures3. To help ensure that a particular risk weight is appropriate for a particular credit risk assessment, the Committee recommends that supervisors evaluate the cumulative default rate (CDR) associated with all issues assigned the same credit risk rating. Supervisors would evaluate two separate measures of CDRs associated with each risk rating contained in the standardised approach, using in both cases the CDR measured over a three-year period.∙To ensure that supervisors have a sense of the long-run default experience over time, supervisors should evaluate the ten-year average of the three-year CDR when this depth of data is available.150 For new rating agencies or for those that have compiled less than ten years of default data, supervisors may wish to ask rating agencies what they believe the 10-year average of the three-year CDR would be for each risk rating and hold them accountable for such an evaluation thereafter for the purpose of risk weighting the claims they rate.∙The other measure that supervisors should consider is the most recent three-year CDR associated with each credit risk assessment of an ECAI4. Both measurements would be compared to aggregate, historical default rates of credit risk assessments compiled by the Committee that are believed to represent an equivalent level of credit risk.5. As three-year CDR data is expected to be available from ECAIs, supervisors should be able to compare the default experience of a particular ECAI’s assessments with t hose issued by other rating agencies, in particular major agencies rating a similar population.150 In 2002, for example, a supervisor would calculate the average of the three-year CDRs for issuers assigned to each rating grade (the “cohort”) for each of the ten years 1990-1999.170Mapping risk ratings to risk weights using CDRs6. To help supervisors determine the appropriate risk weights to which an ECAI’s risk ratings should be mapped, each of the CDR measures mentioned above could be compared to the following reference and benchmark values of CDRs:∙For each step in an ECAI’s rating scale, a ten-year average of the three-year CDR would be compared to a long run “reference” three-year CDR that would represent a sense of the long-run international default experience of risk assessments.∙Likewise, for each step in the ECAI’s rating scale, the two most recent three-year CDR would be compared to “benchmarks” for CDRs. This comparison would be intended to determine whether the ECAI’s most recent record of assessing credit risk remains within the CDR supervisory benchmarks.7. Table 1 below illustrates the overall framework for such comparisons.Table 1Comparisons of CDR Measures1511. Comparing an ECAI’s long-run average three-year CDR to a long-run“reference” CDR8. For each credit risk category used in the standardised approach of the New Accord, the corresponding long-run reference CDR would provide information to supervisors on what its default experience has been internationally. The ten-year average of an eligible ECAI’s particular assessment would not be expected to match exactly the long-run reference CDR. The long run CDRs are meant as guidance for supervisors, and not as “targets” that ECAIs would have to meet. The recommended long-run “reference” three-year CDRs for each of the Committee’s credit risk categories are presented in Table 2 below, based on the Committee’s observations of the default experience reported by major rating agencies internationally.151 It should be noted that each major rating agency would be subject to these comparisons as well, in which its individual experience would be compared to the aggregate international experience.171Table 2Proposed long run "reference" three-year CDRs2. Comparing an ECAI’s most recent three-year CDR to CDR Benchmarks9. Since an ECAI’s own CDRs are not intended to match the reference CDRs exactly, it is important to provide a better sense of what upper bounds of CDRs are acceptable for each assessment, and hence each risk weight, contained in the standardised approach. 10. It is the Committee’s general sense that the upper bounds for CDRs should serve as guidance for supervisors and not necessarily as mandatory requirements. Exceeding the upper bound for a CDR would therefore not necessarily require the supervisor to increase the risk weight associated with a particular assessment in all cases if the supervisor is convinced that the higher CDR results from some temporary cause other than weaker credit risk assessment standards.11. To assist supervisors in interpreting whether a CDR falls within an acceptable range for a risk rating to qualify for a particular risk weight, two benchmarks would be set for each assessment, namely a “monitoring” level benchmark and a “trigger” level benchmark.(a) “Monitoring” level benchmark12. Exceeding the “monitoring” level CDR benchmark implies that a rating agency’s current default experience for a particular credit risk-assessment grade is markedly higher than international default experience. Although such assessments would generally still be considered eligible for the associated risk weights, supervisors would be expected to consult with the relevant rating agency to understand why the default experience appears to be significantly worse. If supervisors determine that the higher default experience is attributable to weaker standards in assessing credit risk, they would be expected to assign a higher risk category to the agency’s credit risk assessment.(b) “Trigger” level13. Exceeding the “trigger” level benchmark implies that a rating agency’s default experience is considerably above the international historical default experience for a p articular assessment grade. Thus there is a presumption that the ECAI’s standards for assessing credit risk are either too weak or are not applied appropriately. If the observed three-year CDR exceeds the trigger level in two consecutive years, supervisors would be expected to move the risk assessment into a less favourable risk category. However, if supervisors determine that the higher observed CDR is not attributable to weaker 172assessment standards, then they may exercise judgement and retain the original risk weight.15214. In all cases where the supervisor decides to leave the risk category unchanged, it may wish to rely on Pillar 2 of the New Accord and encourage banks to hold more capital temporarily or to establish higher reserves.15. When the supervisor has increased the associated risk category, there would be the opportunity for the assessment to again map to the original risk category if the ECAI is able to demonstrate that its three-year CDR falls and remains below the monitoring level for two consecutive years.(c) Calibrating the benchmark CDRs16. After reviewing a variety of methodologies, the Committee decided to use Monte Carlo simulations to calibrate both the monitoring and trigger levels for each credit risk assessment category. In particular, the proposed monitoring levels were derived from the 99.0th percentile confidence interval and the trigger level benchmark from the 99.9th percentile confidence interval. The simulations relied on publicly available historical default data from major international rating agencies. The levels derived for each risk assessment category are presented in Table 3 below, rounded to the first decimal:Table 3Proposed three-year CDR benchmarks152 For example, if supervisors determine that the higher default experience is a temporary phenomenon, perhaps because it reflects a temporary or exogenous shock such as a natural disaster, then the risk weighting proposed in the standardised approach could still apply. Likewise, a breach of the trigger level by several ECAIs simultaneously may indicate a temporary market change or exogenous shock as opposed to a loosening of credit standards. In either scenario, supervisors would be expected to monitor the ECAI’s assessments to ensure that the higher default experience is not the result of a loosening of credit risk assessment standards.173。

Basel+III 巴塞尔协议3英文版

Basel+III 巴塞尔协议3英文版

2. 3. 4. 5. B. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. III. A. B. C. IV. A. B. C. D. E. F. V. A. B.
Asset value correlation multiplier for large financial institutions ................. 39 Collateralised counterparties and margin period of risk ............................. 40 Central counterparties................................................................................ 46 Enhanced counterparty credit risk management requirements.................. 46 Standardised inferred rating treatment for long-term exposures................ 51 Incentive to avoid getting exposures rated................................................. 52 Incorporation of IOSCO’s Code of Conduct Fundamentals for Credit Rating Agencies .................................................................................................... 52 “Cliff effects” arising from guarantees and credit derivatives - Credit risk mitigation (CRM) ........................................................................................ 53 Unsolicited ratings and recognition of ECAIs ............................................. 54

巴塞尔协议三中英对照

巴塞尔协议三中英对照

Group of Governors and Heads of Supervision announces higher global minimum capital standards12 September 2010At its 12 September 2010 meeting, the Group of Governors and Heads of Supervision, the oversight body of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, announced a substantial strengthening of existing capital requirements and fully endorsed the agreements it reached on 26 July 2010. These capital reforms, together with the introduction of a global liquidity standard, deliver on the core of the global financial reform agenda and will be presented to the Seoul G20 Leaders summit in November.The Committee's package of reforms will increase the minimum common equity requirement from 2% to %. In addition, banks will be required to hold a capital conservation buffer of % to withstand future periods of stress bringing the total common equity requirements to 7%. This reinforces the stronger definition of capital agreed by Governors and Heads of Supervision in July and the higher capital requirements fortrading, derivative and securitisation activities to be introduced at the end of 2011.Mr Jean-Claude Trichet, President of the European Central Bank and Chairman of the Group of Governors and Heads of Supervision, said that "the agreements reached today are a fundamental strengthening of global capital standards." He added that "their contribution to long term financial stability and growth will be substantial. The transition arrangements will enable banks to meet the new standards while supporting the economic recovery." Mr Nout Wellink, Chairman of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and President of the Netherlands Bank, added that "the combination of a much stronger definition of capital, higher minimum requirements and the introduction of new capital buffers will ensure that banks are better able to withstand periods of economic and financial stress, therefore supporting economic growth."Increased capital requirementsUnder the agreements reached today, the minimum requirement for common equity, the highest form of loss absorbing capital,will be raised from the current 2% level, before the application of regulatory adjustments, to % after the application of stricter adjustments. This will be phased in by 1 January 2015. The Tier 1 capital requirement, which includes common equity and other qualifying financial instruments based on stricter criteria, will increase from 4% to 6% over the same period. (Annex 1 summarises the new capital requirements.)The Group of Governors and Heads of Supervision also agreed that the capital conservation buffer above the regulatory minimum requirement be calibrated at % and be met with common equity, after the application of deductions. The purpose of the conservation buffer is to ensure that banks maintain a buffer of capital that can be used to absorb losses during periods of financial and economic stress. While banks are allowed to draw on the buffer during such periods of stress, the closer their regulatory capital ratios approach the minimum requirement, the greater the constraints on earnings distributions. This framework will reinforce the objective of sound supervision and bank governance and address the collective action problem that has prevented some banks fromcurtailing distributions such as discretionary bonuses and high dividends, even in the face of deteriorating capital positions.A countercyclical buffer within a range of 0% - % of common equity or other fully loss absorbing capital will be implemented according to national circumstances. The purpose of the countercyclical buffer is to achieve the broader macroprudential goal of protecting the banking sector from periods of excess aggregate credit growth. For any given country, this buffer will only be in effect when there is excess credit growth that is resulting in a system wide build up of risk. The countercyclical buffer, when in effect, would be introduced as an extension of the conservation buffer range.These capital requirements are supplemented by a non-risk-based leverage ratio that will serve as a backstop to the risk-based measures described above. In July, Governors and Heads of Supervision agreed to test a minimum Tier 1 leverage ratio of 3% during the parallel run period. Based on the results of the parallel run period, any final adjustmentswould be carried out in the first half of 2017 with a view to migrating to a Pillar 1 treatment on 1 January 2018 based on appropriate review and calibration.Systemically important banks should have loss absorbing capacity beyond the standards announced today and work continues on this issue in the Financial Stability Board and relevant Basel Committee work streams. The Basel Committee and the FSB are developing a well integrated approach to systemically important financial institutions which could include combinations of capital surcharges, contingent capital and bail-in debt. In addition, work is continuing to strengthen resolution regimes. The Basel Committee also recently issued a consultative document Proposal to ensure the loss absorbency of regulatory capital at the point of non-viability. Governors and Heads of Supervision endorse the aim to strengthen the loss absorbency of non-common Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital instruments.Transition arrangementsSince the onset of the crisis, banks have already undertakensubstantial efforts to raise their capital levels. However, preliminary results of the Committee's comprehensive quantitative impact study show that as of the end of 2009, large banks will need, in the aggregate, a significant amount of additional capital to meet these new requirements. Smaller banks, which are particularly important for lending to the SME sector, for the most part already meet these higher standards.The Governors and Heads of Supervision also agreed on transitional arrangements for implementing the new standards. These will help ensure that the banking sector can meet the higher capital standards through reasonable earnings retention and capital raising, while still supporting lending to the economy. The transitional arrangements, which are summarised in Annex 2, include:National implementation by member countries will begin on 1 January 2013. Member countries must translate the rules into national laws and regulations before this date. As of 1 January 2013, banks will be required to meet the following new minimum requirements in relation to risk-weighted assets (RWAs):% common equity/RWAs;% Tier 1 capital/RWAs, and% total capital/RWAs.The minimum common equity and Tier 1 requirements will be phased in between 1 January 2013 and 1 January 2015. On 1 January 2013, the minimum common equity requirement will rise from the current 2% level to %. The Tier 1 capital requirement will rise from 4% to %. On 1 January 2014, banks will have to meet a 4% minimum common equity requirement and a Tier 1 requirement of %. On 1 January 2015, banks will have to meet the % common equity and the 6% Tier 1 requirements. The total capital requirement remains at the existing level of % and so does not need to be phased in. The difference between the total capital requirement of % and the Tier 1 requirement can be met with Tier 2 and higher forms of capital.The regulatory adjustments (ie deductions and prudential filters), including amounts above the aggregate 15% limit for investments in financial institutions, mortgage servicing rights, and deferred tax assets from timing differences, would be fully deducted from common equity by 1 January 2018.In particular, the regulatory adjustments will begin at 20% of the required deductions from common equity on 1 January 2014, 40% on 1 January 2015, 60% on 1 January 2016, 80% on 1 January 2017, and reach 100% on 1 January 2018. During this transition period, the remainder not deducted from common equity will continue to be subject to existing national treatments.The capital conservation buffer will be phased in between 1 January 2016 and year end 2018 becoming fully effective on 1 January 2019. It will begin at % of RWAs on 1 January 2016 and increase each subsequent year by an additional percentage points, to reach its final level of % of RWAs on 1 January 2019. Countries that experience excessive credit growth should consider accelerating the build up of the capital conservation buffer and the countercyclical buffer. National authorities have the discretion to impose shorter transition periods and should do so where appropriate.Banks that already meet the minimum ratio requirement during the transition period but remain below the 7% common equity target (minimum plus conservation buffer) should maintain prudent earnings retention policies with a view to meeting the conservation buffer as soon as reasonably possible.Existing public sector capital injections will be grandfathered until 1 January 2018. Capital instruments that no longer qualify as non-common equity Tier 1 capital or Tier 2 capital will be phased out over a 10 year horizon beginning 1 January 2013. Fixing the base at the nominal amount of such instruments outstanding on 1 January 2013, their recognition will be capped at 90% from 1 January 2013, with the cap reducing by 10 percentage points in each subsequent year. In addition, instruments with an incentive to be redeemed will be phased out at their effective maturity date.Capital instruments that no longer qualify as common equity Tier 1 will be excluded from common equity Tier 1 as of 1 January 2013. However, instruments meeting the following three conditions will be phased out over the same horizon described in the previous bullet point: (1) they are issued by a non-joint stock company 1 ; (2) they are treated as equity under the prevailing accounting standards; and (3) they receive unlimited recognition as part of Tier 1 capital under current national banking law.Only those instruments issued before the date of this press release should qualify for the above transition arrangements.Phase-in arrangements for the leverage ratio were announced in the 26 July 2010 press release of the Group of Governors and Heads of Supervision. That is, the supervisory monitoring period will commence 1 January 2011; the parallel run period will commence 1 January 2013 and run until 1 January 2017; and disclosure of the leverage ratio and its components will start 1 January 2015. Based on the results of the parallel run period, any final adjustments will be carried out in the first half of 2017 with a view to migrating to a Pillar 1 treatment on 1 January 2018 based on appropriate review and calibration.After an observation period beginning in 2011, the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) will be introduced on 1 January 2015. The revised net stable funding ratio (NSFR) will move to a minimum standard by 1 January 2018. The Committee will put in place rigorous reporting processes to monitor the ratios during the transition period and will continue to review the implications of these standards for financial markets, credit extension and economic growth, addressing unintended consequences as necessary.The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision provides a forum for regular cooperation on banking supervisory matters. It seeks to promote and strengthen supervisory and risk management practices globally. The Committee comprises representatives from Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Hong Kong SAR, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States.The Group of Central Bank Governors and Heads of Supervision is the governing body of the Basel Committee and is comprised of central bank governors and (non-central bank) heads of supervision from member countries. The Committee's Secretariat is based at the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland.Annex 1: Calibration of the Capital Framework (PDF 1 page, 19 kb)Annex 2: Phase-in arrangements (PDF 1 page, 27 kb)Full press release (PDF 7 pages, 56 kb)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 Non-joint stock companies were not addressed in the Basel Committee's 1998 agreement on instruments eligible for inclusion in Tier 1 capital as they do not issue voting common shares.最新巴塞尔协议3全文央行行长和监管当局负责人集团1宣布较高的全球最低资本标准1央行行长和监管当局负责人集团是巴塞尔委员会中的监管机构,是由成员国央行行长和监管当局负责人组成的。

巴塞尔资本协议中英文完整版(17附录9(英文))

巴塞尔资本协议中英文完整版(17附录9(英文))

Annex 9The Simplified Standardised Approach156I. Credit risk - general rules for risk weights1. Exposures should be risk weighted net of specific provisions.(i) Claims on sovereigns and central banks2. Claims on sovereigns and their central banks will be risk weighted on the basis of the consensus country risk scores of export credit agencies (ECA) participating in the “Arrangement on Guidelines for Officially Supported Export Credits”. These scores are available on the OECD’s website.157 The methodology establishes seven risk score categories associated with minimum export insurance premiums. As detailed below, each ECA risk score will correspond to a specific risk weight category.3. At national discretion, a lower risk weight may be applied to banks’ exposures to their sovereign (or central bank) of incorporation denominated in domestic currency and funded158 in that currency.159 Where this discretion is exercised, other national supervisory authorities may also permit their banks to apply the same risk weight to domestic currency exposures to this sovereign (or central bank) funded in that currency.(ii) Claims on other official entities4. Claims on the Bank for International Settlements, the International Monetary Fund, the European Central Bank and the European Community will receive a 0% risk weight.5. The following Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) will be eligible for a 0% risk weight:∙the World Bank Group, comprised of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the International Finance Corporation (IFC),∙the Asian Development Bank (ADB),∙the African Development Bank (AfDB),156This approach should not be seen as another approach for determining regulatory capital. Rather, it collects in one place the simplest options for calculating risk weighted assets.157The consensus country risk classification is available on the OECD’s website () in the Export Credit Arrangement web-page of the Trade Directorate.158 This is to say that the bank should also have liabilities denominated in the domestic currency.159 This lower risk weight may be extended to the risk weighting of collateral and guarantees.206∙the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD),∙the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB),∙the European Investment Bank (EIB),∙the Nordic Investment Bank (NIB),∙the Caribbean Development Bank (CDB),∙the Islamic Development Bank (IDB), and∙the Council of Europe Development Bank (CEDB).6. The standard risk weight for claims on other MDBs will be 100%.7. Claims on domestic public sector entitles (PSEs) will be risk-weighted according to the risk weight framework for claims on banks of that country.160 Subject to national discretion, claims on a domestic PSE may also be treated as claims on the sovereign in whose jurisdiction the PSEs are established. Where this discretion is exercised, other national supervisors may allow their banks to risk weight claims on such PSEs in the same manner.(iii) Claims on banks and securities firms8. Banks will be assigned a risk weight based on the weighting of claims on the country in which they are incorporated (see paragraph 2). The treatment is summarised in the table below:9. When the national supervisor has chosen to apply the preferential treatment for claims on the sovereign as described in paragraph 3, it can also assign a risk weight that is160T he following examples outline how PSEs might be categorised when focusing upon the existence of revenue raising powers. However, there may be other ways of determining the different treatments applicable to different types of PSEs, for instance by focusing on the extent of guarantees provided by the central government:- Regional governments and local authorities could qualify for the same treatment as claims on their sovereign or central government if these governments and local authorities have specific revenue-raising powers and have specific institutional arrangements the effect of which is to reduce their risks of default.- Administrative bodies responsible to central governments, regional governments or to local authorities and other non-commercial undertakings owned by the governments or local authorities may not warrant the same treatment as claims on their sovereign if the entities do not have revenue raising powers or other arrangements as described above. If strict lending rules apply to these entities and a declaration of bankruptcy is not possible because of their special public status, it may be appropriate to treat these claims in the same manner as claims on banks.- Commercial undertakings owned by central governments, regional governments or by local authorities might be treated as normal commercial enterprises. However, if these entities function as a corporate in competitive markets even though the state, a regional authority or a local authority is the major shareholder of these entities, supervisors should decide to consider them as corporates and therefore attach to them the applicable risk weights.207one category less favourable than that assigned to claims on the sovereign, subject to a floor of 20%, to claims on banks of an original maturity of 3 months or less denominated and funded in the domestic currency.10. Claims on securities firms may be treated as claims on banks provided such firms are subject to supervisory and regulatory arrangements comparable to those under the New Accord (including, in particular, risk-based capital requirements).161 Otherwise such claims would follow the rules for claims on corporates.(iv) Claims on corporates11. The standard risk weight for claims on corporates, including claims on insurance companies, will be 100%.(v) Claims included in the regulatory retail portfolios12. Claims that qualify under the criteria listed in paragraph 13 may be considered as retail claims for regulatory capital purposes and included in a regulatory retail portfolio. Exposures included in such a portfolio may be risk-weighted at 75%, except as provided in paragraph 17 for past due retail claims.13. To be included in the regulatory retail portfolio, claims must meet the following four criteria:∙Orientation criterion - The exposure is to an individual person or persons or to a small business;∙Product criterion - The exposure takes the form of any of the following: revolving credits and lines of credit (including credit cards and overdrafts), personal term loans and leases (e.g. instalment loans, auto loans and leases, student and educational loans, personal finance) and small business facilities and commitments.Securities (such as bonds and equities), whether listed or not, are specifically excluded from this category. Mortgage loans are excluded to the extent that they qualify for treatment as claims secured by residential property (see paragraph 14). ∙Granularity criterion - The supervisor must be satisfied that the regulatory retail portfolio is sufficiently diversified to a degree that reduces the risks in the portfolio, warranting the 75% risk weight. One way of achieving this may be to set a numerical limit that no aggregate exposure to one counterpart162 can exceed 0.2% of the overall regulatory retail portfolio.∙Low value of individual exposures. The maximum aggregated retail exposure to one counterpart cannot exceed an absolute threshold of €1 million.161 That is capital requirements that are comparable to those applied to banks in the New Accord. Implicit in the meaning of the word "comparable" is that the securities firm (but not necessarily its parent) is subject to consolidated regulation and supervision with respect to any downstream affiliates.162 Aggregated exposure means gross amount (i.e. not taking any credit risk mitigation into account) of all forms of debt exposures (e.g. loans or commitments) that individually satisfy the three other criteria. In addition, “on one counterpart” means one or several entities tha t may be considered as a single beneficiary (e.g. in the case of a small business that is affiliated to another small business, the limit would apply to the bank's aggregated exposure on both businesses).208(vi) Claims secured by residential property14. Lending fully secured by mortgages on residential property that is or will be occupied by the borrower, or that is rented, will be risk weighted at 35%. In applying the 35% weight, the supervisory authorities should satisfy themselves, according to their national arrangements for the provision of housing finance, that this concessionary weight is applied restrictively for residential purposes and in accordance with strict prudential criteria, such as the existence of substantial margin of additional security over the amount of the loan based on strict valuation rules. Supervisors should increase the standard risk weight where they judge the criteria are not met.15. National supervisory authorities should evaluate whether the preferential risk weights in paragraphs 13 and 14 are appropriate for their circumstances. Supervisors may require banks to increase these preferential risk weights as appropriate.(vii) Claims secured by commercial real estate16. Mortgages on commercial real estate will be risk weighted at 100%.(viii) Treatment of past due loans17. The unsecured portion of any loan (other than a qualifying residential mortgage loan) that is past due for more than 90 days, net of specific provisions, will be risk-weighted as follows:163∙150% risk weight if provisions are less than 20% of the outstanding amount of the loan;∙100% risk weight when specific provisions are no less than 20% of the outstanding amount of the loan; and∙100% risk weight when specific provisions are no less than 50% of the outstanding amount of the loan, but with supervisory discretion to reduce the risk weight to 50%.18. For the purpose of defining the secured portion of the past due loan, eligible collateral and guarantees will be the same as for credit risk mitigation purposes (see section II).164 Past due retail loans are to be excluded from the overall regulatory retail portfolio when assessing the granularity criterion specified in paragraph 13, for risk-weighting purposes. 19. In addition to the circumstances described in paragraph 17, where a past due loan is fully secured by those forms of collateral that are not recognised in paragraph 46, a 100% risk weight may apply when specific provisions reach 15% of the outstanding amount of the loan. These types of collateral are not recognised elsewhere in the Simplified Standardised Approach. Supervisors should set strict operational criteria to ensure the quality of collateral.20. In the case of qualifying residential mortgage loans, when such loans are past due for more than 90 days they will be risk weighted at 100%, net of specific provisions. If such163Subject to national discretion, supervisors may permit banks to treat non-past due loans extended to counterparties subject to a 150% risk weight in the same way as past due loans described in paragraphs 17 to19.164 There will be a transitional period of three years during which a wider range of collateral may be recognised, subject to national discretion.209loans are past due but specific provisions are no less than 50% of their outstanding amount, the risk weight applicable to the remainder of the loan can be reduced to 50% at national discretion.(ix) Higher-risk categories21. National supervisors may decide to apply a 150% or higher risk weight reflecting the higher risks associated with some other assets, such as venture capital and private equity investments.(x) Other assets22. The treatment of securitisation exposures is presented separately in section III. The standard risk weight for all other assets will be 100%.165 Investments in equity or regulatory capital instruments issued by banks or securities firms will be risk weighted at 100%, unless deducted from the capital base according to Part I of the present framework.(xi) Off-balance sheet items23. Off-balance-sheet items under the standardised approach will be converted into credit exposure equivalents through the use of credit conversion factors, as specified in the current Accord, except as specified below. Counterparty risk weightings for OTC derivative transactions will not be subject to any specific ceiling.24. Commitments with an original maturity up to one year and commitments with an original maturity over one year will receive, respectively, a credit conversion factor of 20% and 50%. However, any commitments that are unconditionally cancellable at any time by the bank without prior notice, or that effectively provide for automatic cancellation due to deterioration in a borrower’s creditworthiness, will receive a 0% credit conversion factor.166 25. A credit conversion factor of 100% will be applied to the lending of banks’ securities or the posting of securities as collateral by banks, including instances where these arise out of repo-style transactions (i.e. repurchase/reverse repurchase and securities lending/securities borrowing transactions). See credit risk mitigation (section II) for the calculation of risk weighted assets where the credit converted exposure is secured by eligible collateral.26. For short-term self-liquidating trade letters of credit arising from the movement of goods (e.g. documentary credits collateralised by the underlying shipment), a 20% credit conversion factor will be applied to both issuing and confirming banks.27. Where there is an undertaking to provide a commitment, banks are to apply the lower of the two applicable credit conversion factors.165 However, at national discretion, gold bullion held in own vaults or on an allocated basis to the extent backed by bullion liabilities can be treated as cash and therefore risk-weighted at 0%.166 In certain countries, retail commitments are considered unconditionally cancellable if the terms permit the bank to cancel them to the full extent allowable under consumer protection and related legislation.210II. Credit risk mitigation1. Overarching issues(i) Introduction28. Banks use a number of techniques to mitigate the credit risks to which they are exposed. Exposure may be collateralised in whole or in part with cash or securities, or a loan exposure may be guaranteed by a third party.29. Where these various techniques meet the operational requirements below credit risk mitigation (CRM) may be recognised.(ii) General remarks30. The framework set out in this section is applicable to the banking book exposures under the Simplified Standardised Approach.31. No transaction in which CRM techniques are used should receive a higher capital requirement than an otherwise identical transaction where such techniques are not used.32. The effects of CRM will not be double counted. Therefore, no additional supervisory recognition of CRM for regulatory capital purposes will be granted on claims for which an issue-specific rating is used that already reflects that CRM. Principal-only ratings will also not be allowed within the framework of CRM.33. Although banks use CRM techniques to reduce their credit risk, these techniques give rise to risks (residual risks) which may render the overall risk reduction less effective. Where these risks are not adequately controlled, supervisors may impose additional capital charges or take other supervisory actions as detailed in Pillar 2.34. While the use of CRM techniques reduces or transfers credit risk, it simultaneously may increase other risks to the bank, such as legal, operational, liquidity and market risks. Therefore, it is imperative that banks employ robust procedures and processes to control these risks, including strategy; consideration of the underlying credit; valuation; policies and procedures; systems; control of roll-off risks; and management of concentration risk arising from the bank’s use of CRM techniques and its interaction with the bank’s overall credit risk profile.35. The Pillar 3 requirements must also be observed for banks to obtain capital relief in respect of any CRM techniques.(iii) Legal certainty36. In order for banks to obtain capital relief, all documentation used in collateralised transactions and for documenting guarantees must be binding on all parties and legally well founded in all relevant jurisdictions. Banks must have appropriate legal opinions to verify this, and update them as necessary to ensure continuing enforceability.(iv) Proportional cover37. Where the amount collateralised or guaranteed (or against which credit protection is held) is less than the amount of the exposure, and the secured and unsecured portions are of equal seniority, i.e. the bank and the guarantor share losses on a pro-rata basis, capital relief will be afforded on a proportional basis, i.e. the protected portion of the exposure will211receive the treatment applicable to the collateral or counterparty, with the remainder treated as unsecured.2. Collateralised transactions38. A collateralised transaction is one in which:∙banks have a credit exposure or potential credit exposure to a counterparty;167 and ∙that credit exposure or potential credit exposure is hedged in whole or in part by collateral posted by the counterparty or by a third party on behalf of the counterparty.39. Under the Simplified Standardised Approach, only the simple approach from the Standardised Approach will apply, which, similar to the current Accord, substitutes the risk weighting of the collateral for the risk weighting of the counterparty for the collateralised portion of the exposure (generally subject to a 20% floor). Partial collateralisation is recognised. Mismatches in the maturity or currency of the underlying exposure and the collateral will not be allowed.(i) Minimum conditions40. In addition to the general requirements for legal certainty set out in paragraph 36, the following operational requirements must be met.41. The collateral must be pledged for at least the life of the exposure and it must be marked to market and revalued with a minimum frequency of six months.42. In order for collateral to provide protection, the credit quality of the counterparty and the value of the collateral must not have a material positive correlation. For example, securities issued by the counterparty - or by any related group entity - would provide little protection and so would be ineligible.43. The bank must have clear and robust procedures for the timely liquidation of collateral.44. Where the collateral is held by a custodian, banks must take reasonable steps to ensure that the custodian segregates the collateral from its own assets.45. Where a bank, acting as agent, arranges a repo-style transaction (i.e. repurchase/reverse repurchase and securities lending/borrowing transactions) between a customer and a third party and provides a guarantee to the customer that the third party will perform on its obligations, then the risk to the bank is the same as if the bank had entered into the transaction as principal. In such circumstances, banks will be required to calculate capital requirements as if they were themselves the principal.167 In this section "counterparty" is used to denote a party to whom a bank has an on- or off-balance sheet credit exposure or a potential credit exposure. That exposure may, for example, take the form of a loan of cash or securities (where the counterparty would traditionally be called the borrower), of securities posted as collateral, of a commitment or of exposure under an OTC derivative contract.212(ii) Eligible collateral46. The following collateral instruments are eligible for recognition:∙Cash on deposit with the bank which is incurring the counterparty exposure including certificates of deposit or comparable instruments issued by the lending bank,168, 169∙Gold, and∙Debt securities rated issued by sovereigns rated category 4 or above170 or issued by PSE that are treated as sovereigns by the national supervisor.(iii) Risk weights47. Those portions of claims collateralised by the market value of recognised collateral receive the risk weight applicable to the collateral instrument. The risk weight on the collateralised portion will be subject to a floor of 20%. The remainder of the claim should be assigned to the risk weight appropriate to the counterparty. A capital requirement will be applied to banks on either side of the collateralised transaction: for example, both repos and reverse repos will be subject to capital requirements.48. The 20% floor for the risk weight on a collateralised transaction will not be applied and a 0% risk weight can be provided where the exposure and the collateral are denominated in the same currency, and either:∙the collateral is cash on deposit; or∙the collateral is in the form of sovereign/PSE securities eligible for a 0% risk weight, and its market value has been discounted by 20%.3. Guaranteed transactions49. Where guarantees meet and supervisors are satisfied that banks fulfil the minimum operational conditions set out below, they may allow banks to take account of such credit protection in calculating capital requirements.(i) Minimum conditions50. A guarantee must represent a direct claim on the protection provider and must be explicitly referenced to specific exposures, so that the extent of the cover is clearly defined and incontrovertible. Other than non-payment by a protection purchaser of money due in respect of the credit protection contract it must be irrevocable; there must be no clause in the contract that would increase the effective cost of cover as a result of deteriorating credit quality in the hedged exposure. It must also be unconditional; there should be no clause in168 Where a bank issues credit-linked notes against exposures in the banking book, the exposures will be treated as being collateralised by cash.169 When cash on deposit, certificates of deposit or comparable instruments issued by the lending bank are held as collateral at a third-party bank, if they are openly pledged/assigned to the lending bank and if the pledge/assignment is unconditional and irrevocable, the exposure amount covered by the collateral (after any necessary haircuts for currency risk) will receive the risk weight of the third-party bank.170 The rating category refers to the ECA country risk score as described in paragraph 2.213the protection contract outside the control of the bank that could prevent the protection provider from being obliged to pay out in a timely manner in the event that the original counterparty fails to make the payment(s) due.51. In addition to the legal certainty requirements in paragraph 36 above, the following conditions must be satisfied:(a) On the qualifying default/non-payment of the counterparty, the bank may in a timelymanner pursue the guarantor for monies outstanding under the documentation governing the transaction, rather than having to continue to pursue the counterparty.By making a payment under the guarantee the guarantor must acquire the right to pursue the obligor for monies outstanding under the documentation governing the transaction.(b) The guarantee is an explicitly documented obligation assumed by the guarantor.(c) The guarantor covers all types of payments the underlying obligor is expected tomake under the documentation governing the transaction, for example notional amount, margin payments, etc.(ii) Eligible guarantors52. Credit protection given by the following entities will be recognised: sovereign entities171, PSEs and other entities with a risk weight of 20% or better and a lower risk weight than the counterparty.(iii) Risk weights53. The protected portion is assigned the risk weight of the protection provider. The uncovered portion of the exposure is assigned the risk weight of the underlying counterparty.54. As specified in paragraph 3, a lower risk weight may be applied at national discretion to a bank’s exposure to the sovereign (or central bank) where the bank is incorporated and where the exposure is denominated in domestic currency and funded in that currency. National authorities may extend this treatment to portions of claims guaranteed by the sovereign (or central bank), where the guarantee is denominated in the domestic currency and the exposure is funded in that currency.55. Materiality thresholds on payments below which no payment will be made in the event of loss are equivalent to retained first loss positions and must be deducted in full from the capital of the bank purchasing the credit protection.4. Other items related to the treatment of CRM techniquesTreatment of pools of CRM techniques56. In the case where a bank has multiple CRM covering a single exposure (e.g. a bank has both collateral and guarantee partially covering an exposure), the bank will be required171 This includes the Bank for International Settlements, the International Monetary Fund, the European Central Bank and the European Community.214to subdivide the exposure into portions covered by each type of CRM tool (e.g. portion covered by collateral, portion covered by guarantee) and the risk weighted assets of each portion must be calculated separately. When credit protection provided by a single protection provider has differing maturities, they must be subdivided into separate protection as well. III. Credit risk – Securitisation framework(i) Scope of transactions covered under the securitisation framework57. A traditional securitisation is a structure where the cash flow from an underlying pool of exposures is used to service at least two different stratified risk positions or tranches reflecting different degrees of credit risk. Payments to the investors depend upon the performance of the specified underlying exposures, as opposed to being derived from an obligation of the entity originating those exposures. The stratified/tranched structures that characterise securitisations differ from ordinary senior/subordinated debt instruments in that junior securitisation tranches can absorb losses without interrupting contractual payments to more senior tranches, whereas subordination in a senior/subordinated debt structure is a matter of priority of rights to the proceeds of a liquidation.58. Banks’ exposures to securitisation are referred to as “securitisation exposures”.(ii) Permissible role of banks59. A bank operating under the Simplified Standardised Approach can only assume the role of an investing bank in a traditional securitisation. An investing bank is an institution, other than the originator or the servicer that assumes the economic risk of a securitisation exposure.60. A bank is considered to be an originator if it originates directly or indirectly credit exposures included in the securitisation. A servicer bank is one that manages the underlying credit exposures of a securitisation on a day-to-day basis in terms of collection of principal and interest, which is then forwarded to investors in securitisation exposures. A bank under the Simplified Standardised Approach should not offer credit enhancement, liquidity facilities or other financial support to a securitisation.(iii) Treatment of Securitisation Exposures61. Banks using the Simplified Standardised Approach to credit risk for the type of underlying exposure(s) securitised are permitted to use a simplified version of the standardised approach under the securitisation framework.62. The standard risk weight for securitisation exposures for an investing bank will be 100%. For first loss positions acquired, deduction from capital will be required. The deduction will be taken 50% from Tier 1 and 50% from Tier 2 capital.215。

巴塞尔资本协议中英文完整版(02概述(英文))

巴塞尔资本协议中英文完整版(02概述(英文))

Basel Committeeon Banking SupervisionConsultative Document Overview ofThe NewBasel Capital Accord Issued for comment by 31 July 2003 April 2003Introduction1. The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (the Committee) is releasing this overview paper as an accompaniment to its third consultative paper (CP3) on the New Basel Capital Accord (also known as Basel II). The issuance of CP3 represents an important step in putting the new capital adequacy framework in place. The Committee‟s goal continues to be to finalise the New Accord by the fourth quarter of this year with implementation to take effect in member countries by year-end 2006.2. The Committee believes that important public policy benefits can be obtained by improving the capital adequacy framework along two important dimensions. First, by developing capital regulation that encompasses not only minimum capital requirements, but also supervisory review and market discipline. Second, by increasing substantially the risk sensitivity of the minimum capital requirements.3. An improved capital adequacy framework is intended to foster a strong emphasis on risk management and to encourage ongoing improvements in banks‟ risk assessment capabilities. The Committee believes this can be accomplished by closely aligning banks‟ capital requirements with prevailing modern risk management practices, and by ensuring that this emphasis on risk makes its way into supervisory practices and into market discipline through enhanced risk- and capital-related disclosures.4. A critical component of the Committee‟s efforts to revise the Basel Accord has been its extensive dialogue with industry participants and with supervisors from outside member countries. As a result of these consultations, the Committee believes the new framework with its various options will be suitable not only within the G10 but also for banks and for countries around the world to apply to their banking systems.5. An equally important aspect to the Committee‟s work has been the feedback received from banks participating in its impact studies. The aim of these studies has been to gather information from banks worldwide on the impact of the capital proposals on their existing portfolios. In particular, the Committee recognises the tremendous effort of the more than 350 banks of varying size and levels of complexity from more than 40 countries that participated in the most recent quantitative exercise known as QIS 3. As discussed in a separate paper, the QIS 3 results confirmed that the framework as currently calibrated produces capital requirements broadly consistent with the Committee‟s objectives.6. This overview paper is structured in two parts. The first part provides a summary of the new capital adequacy framework and also touches upon implementation considerations. It is targeted to readers that would like to increase their familiarity with the options available to banks in Basel II. The second part is more technical in nature. It outlines the specific modifications to the New Accord relative to the proposals embodied in the QIS 3 Technical Guidance released in October 2002.Part I: Key Elements of the New Accord7. The New Accord consists of three pillars: (1) minimum capital requirements, (2) supervisory review of capital adequacy, and (3) public disclosure. The proposals comprising each of the three pillars are summarised below.Pillar 1: Minimum capital requirements8. While the proposed New Accord differs from the current Accord along a number of dimensions, it is important to begin with a description of elements that have not changed. The current Accord is based on the concept of a capital ratio where the numerator represents the amount of capital a bank has available and the denominator is a measure of the risks faced by the bank and is referred to as risk-weighted assets. The resulting capital ratio may be no less than 8%.9. Under the proposed New Accord, the regulations that define the numerator of the capital ratio (i.e. the definition of regulatory capital) remain unchanged. Similarly, the minimum required ratio of 8% is not changing. The modifications, therefore, are occurring in the definition of risk-weighted assets, that is in the methods used to measure the risks faced by banks. The new approaches for calculating risk-weighted assets are intended to provide improved bank assessments of risk and thus to make the resulting capital ratios more meaningful.10. The current Accord explicitly covers only two types of risks in the definition of risk-weighted assets: (1) credit risk and (2) market risk. Other risks are presumed to be covered implicitly through the treatments of these two major risks. The treatment of market risk arising from trading activities was the subject of the Basel Committee‟s 1996 Amendment to the Capital Accord. The proposed New Accord envisions this treatment remaining unchanged. 11. The pillar one proposals to modify the definition of risk-weighted assets in the New Accord have two primary elements: (1) substantive changes to the treatment of credit risk relative to the current Accord; and (2) the introduction of an explicit treatment of operational risk that will result in a measure of operational risk being included in the denominator of a bank‟s capital ratio. The discussions below will fo cus on these two elements in turn.12. In both cases, a major innovation of the proposed New Accord is the introduction of three distinct options for the calculation of credit risk and three others for operational risk. The Committee believes that it is not feasible or desirable to insist upon a one-size-fits-all approach to the measurement of either risk. Instead, for both credit and operational risk, there are three approaches of increasing risk sensitivity to allow banks and supervisors to select the approach or approaches that they believe are most appropriate to the stage of development of banks‟ operations and of the financial market infrastructure. The following table identifies the three primary approaches available by risk type.Standardised approach to credit risk13. The standardised approach is similar to the current Accord in that banks are required to slot their credit exposures into supervisory categories based on observable characteristics of the exposures (e.g. whether the exposure is a corporate loan or a residential mortgage loan). The standardised approach establishes fixed risk weights corresponding to each supervisory category and makes use of external credit assessments to enhance risk sensitivity compared to the current Accord. The risk weights for sovereign, interbank, and corporate exposures are differentiated based on external credit assessments. For sovereign exposures, these credit assessments may include those developed by OECD export credit agencies, as well as those published by private rating agencies.14. The standardised approach contains guidance for use by national supervisors in determining whether a particular source of external ratings should be eligible for banks to use.The use of external ratings for the evaluation of corporate exposures, however, is consideredto be an optional element of the framework. Where no external rating is applied to anexposure, the standardised approach mandates that in most cases a risk weighting of 100%be used, implying a capital requirement of 8% as in the current Accord. In such instances,supervisors are to ensure that the capital requirement is adequate given the defaultexperience of the exposure type in question. An important innovation of the standardised approach is the requirement that loans considered past-due be risk weighted at 150%,unless a threshold amount of specific provisions has already been set aside by the bankagainst that loan.15. Another important development is the expanded range of collateral, guarantees, andcredit derivatives that banks using the standardised approach may recognise. Collectively,Basel II refers to these instruments as credit risk mitigants. The standardised approachexpands the range of eligible collateral beyond OECD sovereign issues to include most typesof financial instruments, while setting out several approaches for assessing the degree of capital reduction based on the market risk of the collateral instrument. Similarly, thestandardised approach expands the range of recognised guarantors to include all firms thatmeet a threshold external credit rating.16. The standardised approach also includes a specific treatment for retail exposures.The risk weights for residential mortgage exposures are being reduced relative to the currentAccord, as are those for other retail exposures, which will now receive a lower risk weightthan that for unrated corporate exposures. In addition, some loans to small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) may be included within the retail treatment, subject to meetingvarious criteria.17. By design the standardised approach draws a number of distinctions betweenexposures and transactions in an effort to improve the risk sensitivity of the resulting capitalratios. The same can also be said of the IRB approaches to credit risk and those forassessing the capital requirement for operational risk where capital requirements are moreclosely linked to risk. In order to assist banks and national supervisors where circumstancesmay not warrant a broad range of options, the Committee has developed the …simplified st andardised approach‟ outlined in Annex 9 of CP3. The annex collects in one place thesimplest options for calculating risk weighted assets. Banks intending to adopt the simplifiedstandardised methods are also expected to comply with the corresponding supervisoryreview and market discipline requirements of the New Accord.Internal ratings-based (IRB) approaches18. One of the most innovative aspects of the New Accord is the IRB approach to creditrisk, which includes two variants: a foundation version and an advanced version. The IRB approach differs substantially from the standardised approach in that banks‟ internal assessments of key risk drivers serve as primary inputs to the capital calculation. Because the approach is based on banks‟ internal assess ments, the potential for more risk sensitive capital requirements is substantial. However, the IRB approach does not allow banks themselves to determine all of the elements needed to calculate their own capital requirements. Instead, the risk weights and thus capital charges are determined through the combination of quantitative inputs provided by banks and formulas specified by the Committee.19. The formulas, or risk weight functions, translate a bank‟s inputs into a specificcapital requirement. They are based on modern risk management techniques that involve astatistical and thus quantitative assessment of risk. Ongoing dialogue with industryparticipants has confirmed that use of such methods represents an important step forward for developing a meaningful assessment of risk at the largest most complex banking organisations in today‟s market.20. The IRB approaches cover a wide range of portfolios with the mechanics of the capital calculation varying somewhat across exposure types. The remainder of this section highlights the differences between the foundation and advanced IRB approaches by portfolio, where applicable.Corporate, bank and sovereign exposures21. The IRB calculation of risk-weighted assets for exposures to sovereigns, banks, or corporate entities uses the same basic approach. It relies on four quantitative inputs: (1) Probability of default (PD), which measures the likelihood that the borrower will default over a given time horizon; (2) Loss given default (LGD), which measures the proportion of the exposure that will be lost if a default occurs; (3) Exposure at default (EAD), which for loan commitments measures the amount of the facility that is likely to be drawn if a default occurs; and (4) Maturity (M), which measures the remaining economic maturity of the exposure. 22. Given a value for each of these four inputs, the corporate IRB risk-weight function described in CP3 produces a specific capital requirement for each exposure. In addition, for exposures to SME borrowers defined as those with annual sales of less than 50 million of Euros, banks will be permitted to make use of a firm size adjustment to the corporate IRB risk weight formula.23. The foundation and advanced IRB approaches differ primarily in terms of the inputs that are provided by the bank based on its own estimates and those that have been specified by the supervisor. The following table summarises these differences.24. The table makes clear that for corporate, sovereign, and interbank exposures, all IRB banks must provide internal estimates of PD. In addition, advanced IRB banks must provide internal estimates of LGD and EAD, while foundation IRB banks will make use of supervisory values contained in CP3 that depend on the nature of the exposure. Advanced IRB banks will generally provide their own estimates of remaining maturity for theseexposures, although there are some exceptions where supervisors can allow fixed maturity assumptions to be used instead. For foundation IRB banks, supervisors can choose on a national basis whether all such banks are to apply fixed maturity assumptions described in CP3 or to provide their own estimates of remaining maturity.25. Another major element of the IRB framework pertains to the treatment of credit risk mitigants, namely, collateral, guarantees and credit derivatives. The IRB framework itself, particularly the LGD parameter, provides a great deal of flexibility to assess the potential value of credit risk mitigation techniques. For foundation IRB banks, therefore, the different supervisory LGD values provided in CP3 reflect the presence of different types of collateral. Advanced IRB banks have even greater flexibility to assess the value of different types of collateral. With respect to transactions involving financial collateral, the IRB approach seeks to ensure that banks are using a recognised approach to assessing the risk that such collateral could change in value, and thus a specific set of methods is provided, as in the standardised approach.Retail exposures26. For retail exposures, there is only a single, advanced IRB approach and no foundation IRB alternative. The key inputs to the IRB retail formulas are PD, LGD and EAD, all of which are to be provided by the bank based on its internal estimates. In contrast to the IRB approach for corporate exposures, these values would not be estimated for individual exposures, but instead for pools of similar exposures.27. In light of the fact that retail exposures address a broad range of products with each exhibiting different historical loss experiences, the framework divides retail exposures into three primary categories: (1) exposures secured by residential mortgages, (2) qualifying revolving retail exposures (QRRE), and (3) other non-mortgage exposures also known as …other retail.‟ Generally speaking, the QRRE category captures unsecured revolving credits that exhibit appropriate loss characteristics, which would include many credit card relationships. All other non-mortgage consumer lending including exposures to small businesses falls into the …other retail‟ category. A separate risk-weight formula for each of the three categories is provided in CP3.Specialised lending28. Basel II distinguishes several sub-categories of wholesale lending from other forms of corporate lending and refers to them as specialised lending. The term specialised lending is associated with the financing of individual projects where the repayment is highly dependent on the performance of the underlying pool or collateral. For all but one of the specialised lending sub-categories, if banks can meet the minimum criteria for the estimation of the relevant data inputs, they can simply use the corporate IRB framework to calculate the risk weights for these exposures. However, in recognition that the hurdles for meeting these criteria for this set of exposures may be more difficult in practice, CP3 also includes an additional option that only requires that a bank be able to classify such exposures into five distinct quality grades. CP3 provides a specific risk weight for each of these grades.29. For one sub-category of specialised lending, …high volatility commercial real estate‟ (HVCRE), IRB banks that can estimate the required data inputs will use a separate risk-weight formula that is more conservative than the general corporate risk-weight formula in light of the risk characteristics of this type of lending. Banks that cannot estimate the required inputs will classify their HVCRE exposures into five grades, for which CP3 also provides specific risk weights.Equity exposures30. IRB banks will be required to separately treat their equity exposures. Two distinctapproaches are described in CP3. One approach builds on the PD/LGD approach forcorporate exposures and requires banks to provide own PD estimates for the associatedequity exposures. This approach, however, mandates the use of a 90% LGD value and alsoimposes various other limitations, including a minimum risk weight of 100% in manycircumstances. The other approach is intended to provide banks with the opportunity tomodel the potential decrease in the market value of their equity holdings over a quarterly holding period. A simplified version of this approach with fixed risk weights for public andprivate equities is also included.Implementation of IRB31. By relying on internally generated inputs to the Basel II risk weight functions, there isbound to be some variation in the way in which the IRB approach is carried out. To ensuresignificant comparability across banks, the Committee has established minimum qualifyingcriteria for use of the IRB approaches that cover the comprehensiveness and integrity ofbanks‟ internal credit risk assessment c apabilities. While banks using the advanced IRB approach will have greater flexibility relative to those relying on the foundation IRB approach,at the same time they must also satisfy a more stringent set of minimum standards.32. The Committee believes that banks‟ internal rating systems should accurately andconsistently differentiate between different degrees of risk. The challenge is for banks todefine clearly and objectively the criteria for their rating categories in order to providemeaningful assessments of both individual credit exposures and ultimately an overall riskprofile. A strong control environment is another important factor for ensuring that banks‟ rating systems perform as intended and the resulting ratings are accurate. An independent ratings process, internal review and transparency are control concepts addressed in the minimum IRB standards.33. Clearly, an internal rating system is only as good as its inputs. Accordingly, banksusing the IRB approach will need to be able to measure the key statistical drivers of creditrisk. The minimum Basel II standards provide banks with the flexibility to rely on data derivedfrom their own experience, or from external sources as long as the bank can demonstrate therelevance of such data to its own exposures. In practical terms, banks will be expected to have in place a process that enables them to collect, to store and to utilise loss statistics over time in a reliable manner.Securitisation34. Basel II provides a specific treatment for securitisation, a risk management technique that the current Accord does not fully contemplate. The Committee recognises that securitisation by its very nature relates to the transfer of ownership and/or risks associated with the credit exposures of a bank to other parties. In this respect, securitisation is important in helping to provide better risk diversification and to enhance financial stability.35. The Committee believes that it is essential for the New Accord to include a robust treatment of securitisation. Otherwise the new framework would remain vulnerable to capital arbitrage, as some securitisations have enabled banks under the current Accord to avoid maintaining capital commensurate with the risks to which they are exposed. To address this concern, Basel II requires banks to look to the economic substance of a securitisation transaction when determining the appropriate capital requirement in both the standardised and IRB treatments.36. As elsewhere in the standardised approach to credit risk, banks must assign supervisory risk weights to securitisation exposures based on various criteria. Onenoteworthy point is the difference in treatment of lower quality and unrated securitisationsvis-à-vis comparable corporate exposures. In a securitisation, such positions are generallydesigned to absorb all losses on the underlying pool of exposures up to a certain level.Accordingly, the Committee believes this concentration of risk warrants higher capitalrequirements. In particular, for banks using the standardised approach, unrated securitisationpositions must be deducted from capital.37. For IRB banks that originate securitisations, a key element of the framework is thecalculation of the amount of capital that the bank would have been required to hold on theunderlying pool had it not securitised the exposures. This amount of capital is referred to asK IRB. If an IRB bank retains a position in a securitisation that obligates it to absorb losses upto or less than K IRB before any other holders bear losses (i.e. a first loss position), then thebank must deduct this position from capital. The Committee believes that this requirement iswarranted in order to provide strong incentives for originating banks to shed the riskassociated with highly subordinated securitisation positions that inherently contain the greatest risks. For IRB banks that invest in highly rated securitisation exposures, a treatmentbased on the presence of an external rating, the granularity of the underlying pool, and thethickness of an exposure has been developed.38. Because of their importance in ensuring the smooth functioning of commercial papermarkets and their importance to corporate banking generally, the Basel II securitisationframework includes an explicit treatment of liquidity facilities provided by banks. In the IRBframework, the capital requirement for a liquidity facility is dependent upon a number of factors including the asset quality of the underlying pool and the degree to which creditenhancements are available to absorb losses prior to use of the facility. Each is a criticalinput to the supervisory formula designed for use by originating banks to calculate capitalrequirements for unrated positions, such as liquidity facilities. A treatment of liquidity facilitiesin the standardised approach is also provided which sets out various criteria for ensuring thatmore preferential treatment is only provided to those liquidity facilities where the risks arelower.39. Many securitisations of revolving retail exposures contain provisions that call for the securitisation to be wound down if the quality of securitised assets begins to deteriorate. TheBasel II proposals include a specific treatment of securitisations with these …earlyamortisation‟ features, given that suc h mechanisms can in effect partly shield investors fromfully sharing in the losses of the underlying accounts. The Committee‟s approach is based ona measure of the quality of the underlying assets in the pool. When this is high, the approachimplies a zero capital requirement associated with the securitised exposures. As the qualitydeteriorates, however, the bank must increasingly hold capital as if future draws on existing credit card lines would remain on its balance sheet.Operational risk40. The Committee believes that operational risk is an important risk facing banks andthat banks need to hold capital to protect against losses from it. Within the Basel IIframework, operational risk is defined as the risk of losses resulting from inadequate or failedinternal processes, people and systems, or external events. This is another area where theCommittee has developed a new regulatory capital approach. As with credit risk, theCommittee builds on banks‟ rapidly developing internal assessment techniques and seeks to provide incentives for banks to improve upon those techniques, and more broadly, theirmanagement of operational risk over time. This is particularly true of the AdvancedMeasurement Approaches (AMA) to operational risk described below.41. Approaches to operational risk are continuing to evolve rapidly, but are not likely in the near term to attain the precision with which market and credit risk can be quantified. This situation has posed obvious challenges to the incorporation of a measure of operational risk within pillar one of the New Accord. Nevertheless, the Committee believes that such inclusion is essential to ensure that there are strong incentives for banks to continue to develop approaches to operational risk measurement and to ensure that banks are holding sufficient capital buffers for this risk. It is clear that a failure to establish a minimum capital requirement for operational risk within the New Accord would reduce these incentives and result in a reduction of industry resources devoted to operational risk.42. The Committee is prepared to provide banks with an unprecedented amount of flexibility to develop an approach to calculate operational risk capital that they believe is consistent with their mix of activities and underlying risks. In the AMA, banks may use their own method for assessing their exposure to operational risk, so long as it is sufficiently comprehensive and systematic. The extent of detailed standards and criteria for use of the AMA are limited in order to accommodate the rapid evolution in operational risk management practices that the Committee expects to see over the coming years.43. The Committee intends to review progress in regard to operational risk approaches on an ongoing basis. It has been strongly encouraged by the advances made at those banks that have been developing operational risk frameworks consistent with the spirit of the AMA. Management at these banking organisations has concluded that it is possible to develop a flexible and comprehensive approach to operational risk measurement within their firms. 44. Internationally active banks and banks with significant operational risk exposure (for example, specialised processing banks) are expected to adopt over time the more risk sensitive AMA. Basel II contains two simpler approaches to operational risk: the basic indicator and the standardised approach, which are targeted to banks with less significant operational risk exposures. In general terms, the basic indicator and standardised approaches require banks to hold capital for operational risk equal to a fixed percentage of a specified risk measure.45. In the basic indicator approach, the measure is a bank‟s average annual gross income over the previous three years. This average, multiplied by a factor of 0.15 set by the Committee, produces the capital requirement. As a point of entry for the capital calculation, there are no specific criteria for use of the basic indicator approach. Nevertheless banks using this approach are encouraged to comp ly with the Committee‟s guidance on sound practices for the management and supervision of operational risk, which was released in February 2003.46. In the standardised approach, gross income again serves as a proxy for the scale ofa bank‟s business oper ations and thus the likely scale of the related operational risk exposure for a given business line. However, rather than calculate capital at the firm level as under the basic indicator approach, banks must calculate a capital requirement for each business line. This is determined by multiplying gross income by specific supervisory factors determined by the Committee. The total operational risk capital requirement for a banking organisation is the summation of the regulatory capital requirements across all of its business lines. As a condition for use of the standardised approach, it is important for banks to have adequate operational risk systems that comply with the minimum criteria outlined in CP3. 47. Banks using the basic indicator or standardised approaches to operational risk are not permitted to recognise the risk mitigating impact of insurance. As discussed in Part II of this overview paper, banks using the AMA are permitted to do so subject to certain conditions.。

巴塞尔协议第三版核心中英文词汇梳理

巴塞尔协议第三版核心中英文词汇梳理

巴塞尔协议第三版核心词汇I. 巴三六大目标一、更严格的资本定义(Increased Quality of Capital):1.一级资本金包括:(1) 核心一级资本,(也叫普通股一级资本,common equity tier 1 capital):只包括普通股(common equity)和留存收益(retained earning),巴三规定,少数股东权益(minority interest)、递延所得税(deferred tax)、对其他金融机构的投资(holdings in other financial institutions) 、商誉(goodwill)等不得计入核心一级资本。

(2) 其他一级资本:永久性优先股(non-cumulative preferred stock)等二、更高的资本充足要求(Increased Quantity of Capital)1.核心一级资本充足率(common equity tier 1 capital):最低4.5%。

2.一级资本充足率:6%3.资本留存缓冲(capital conservation buffer):最低2.5%,由普通股(扣除递延税项及其他项目)构成,用于危机期间(periods of stress)吸收损失,但是当该比率接近最低要求将影响奖金和红利发放(earning distributions)4.全部核心一级资本充足率(核心一级资本+资本留存缓冲):最低7%5.总资本充足率(minimum total capital):8%6.总资本充足率+资本留存缓冲最低要求:10.5%7.逆周期资本缓冲(counter-cyclical buffer)0—0.25%:在信贷增速过快(excessive credit growth),导致系统范围内风险积聚时生效。

*** 巴三新资本要求:巴塞尔III将巴塞尔II中提出的一级资本、二级资本,并将一级资本重新划分为核心一级资本(主要包括普通股和留存收益)以及其他一级资本两大类。

巴塞尔协议3(中文版)

巴塞尔协议3(中文版)

巴塞尔银行监管委员会增强银行体系稳Array健性征求意见截至2010年4月16日2009年12月目录I 摘要 (3)1. 巴塞尔委员会改革方案综述及其所应对的市场失灵 (3)2. 加强全球资本框架 (5)(a)提高资本基础的质量、一致性和透明度 (5)(b)扩大风险覆盖范围 (6)(c)引入杠杆率补充风险资本要求 (8)(d)缓解亲周期性和提高反周期超额资本 (8)(e)应对系统性风险和关联性 (11)3. 建立全球流动性标准 (11)4. 影响评估和校准 (12)II加强全球资本框架 (14)1. 提高资本基础的质量、一致性和透明度 (14)(a)介绍 (14)(b)理由和目的 (15)(c)建议的核心要点 (16)(d)具体建议 (18)(e)一级资本中普通股的分类 (19)(f)披露要求 (28)2. 风险覆盖 (29)交易对手信用风险 (29)(a)介绍 (29)(b)发现的主要问题 (29)(c)政策建议概览 (31)降低对外部信用评级制度的依赖性,降低悬崖效应的影响 (53)3. 杠杆率 (59)(a)资本计量 (60)(b)风险暴露计量 (60)(c)其它事宜 (63)(d)计算基础建议概述 (64)4. 亲周期效应 (65)(a)最低资本要求的周期性 (65)(b)具有前瞻性的拨备 (65)(c)通过资本留存建立超额资本 (66)(d)信贷过快增长 (69)缩写词增强银行体系稳健性I. 摘要1.巴塞尔委员会改革方案综述及其所应对的市场失灵1. 本征求意见稿提出巴塞尔委员会1关于加强全球资本监管和流动性监管的政策建议,目标是提升银行体系的稳健性。

巴塞尔委员会改革的总体目标是改善银行体系应对由各种金融和经济压力导致的冲击的能力,并降低金融体系向实体经济的溢出效应。

2. 本文件提出的政策建议是巴塞尔委员会应对本轮金融危机而出台全面改革规划的关键要素。

巴塞尔委员会实施改革的目的是改善风险管理和治理以及加强银行的透明度和信息披露2。

巴塞尔资本协议中英文完整版(15附录7(英文))

巴塞尔资本协议中英文完整版(15附录7(英文))
Trade Counterparties
Non-client counterparty misperformance
Misc. non-client counterparty disputes
Vendors & Suppliers
Outsourcing
Vendor disputes
Annex 7
Detailed loss event type classification
Event-Type Category (Level 1)
Definition
Categories (Level 2)
Activity Examples (Level 3)
Internal fraud
Losses due to acts of a type intended to defraud, misappropriate property or circumvent regulations, the law or company policy, excluding diversity/ discrimination events, which involves at least one internal party.
Employee Relations
Compensation, benefit, termination issues
Organised labour activity
Safe Environment
General liability (slip and fall, etc.)
Employee health & safety rules events
Systems
Hardware

巴塞尔资本协议中英文完整版(09附录1)

巴塞尔资本协议中英文完整版(09附录1)

附件 1
创新工具在一级资本中的上线为15%
1. 本附件旨在说明委员会在1998年10月的新闻公报中确定的有关创新工具在一级资本中上线为15%的计算方法。

2. 创新工具在一级资本中的上线为15%,在此要扣除商誉。

为确定允许计处的创新规模,银行和监管当局应将非创新工具的一级资本乘以17.65%。

这一数字是根据15%与85%相乘计算出来的 (即: 15%/85% = 17.65%)。

3. 举例说明,一家银行的普通股为75欧元,15欧元的非积累优先股,并表计算出5欧元的普通股的少数股权,10欧元的商誉。

由非创新工具组成的一级资本为:€75+€15+€5-€10 = €85。

4. 该行一级资本可包括的创新工具为€85x17.65% = €15。

如果该行发行的创新工具达到此上线,总的一级资本为€85 + €15 = €100。

创新工具占一级资本的比例为15%。

139。

  1. 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性,平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
  2. 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
  3. 3、如文档侵犯您的权益,请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间:9:00-18:30)。

最新巴塞尔协议三中英对照work Information Technology Company.2020YEARGroup of Governors and Heads of Supervision announces higher global minimum capital standards12 September 2010At its 12 September 2010 meeting, the Group of Governors and Heads of Supervision, the oversight body of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, announced a substantial strengthening of existing capital requirements and fully endorsed the agreements it reached on 26 July 2010. These capital reforms, together with the introduction of a global liquidity standard, deliver on the core of the global financial reform agenda and will be presented to the Seoul G20 Leaders summit in November.The Committee's package of reforms will increase the minimum common equity requirement from 2% to 4.5%. In addition, banks will be required to hold a capital conservation buffer of 2.5% to withstand future periods of stress bringing the total common equity requirements to 7%. This reinforces the stronger definition of capital agreed by Governors and Heads of Supervision in July and the higher capital requirements for trading, derivative and securitisation activities to be introduced at the end of 2011.Mr Jean-Claude Trichet, President of the European Central Bank and Chairman of the Group of Governors and Heads of Supervision, said that "the agreements reached today are a fundamental strengthening of global capital standards." He added that "their contribution to long term financial stability and growth will be substantial. The transition arrangements will enable banks to meet the new standards while supporting the economic recovery." Mr Nout Wellink, Chairman of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and President of the Netherlands Bank, added that "the combination of a much stronger definition of capital, higher minimum requirements and the introduction of new capital buffers will ensure that banks are better able to withstand periods of economic and financial stress, therefore supporting economic growth."Increased capital requirementsUnder the agreements reached today, the minimum requirement for common equity, the highest form of loss absorbing capital, will be raised from the current 2% level, before the application of regulatory adjustments, to 4.5% after the application of stricter adjustments. This will be phased in by 1 January 2015. The Tier 1 capital requirement, which includes common equity and other qualifying financial instruments based on stricter criteria, will increase from 4% to 6% over the same period. (Annex 1 summarises the new capital requirements.)The Group of Governors and Heads of Supervision also agreed that the capital conservation buffer above the regulatory minimum requirement be calibrated at 2.5% and be met with common equity, after the application of deductions. Thepurpose of the conservation buffer is to ensure that banks maintain a buffer of capital that can be used to absorb losses during periods of financial and economic stress. While banks are allowed to draw on the buffer during such periods of stress, the closer their regulatory capital ratios approach the minimum requirement, the greater the constraints on earnings distributions. This framework will reinforce the objective of sound supervision and bank governance and address the collective action problem that has prevented some banks from curtailing distributions such as discretionary bonuses and high dividends, even in the face of deteriorating capital positions.A countercyclical buffer within a range of 0% - 2.5% of common equity or other fully loss absorbing capital will be implemented according to national circumstances. The purpose of the countercyclical buffer is to achieve the broader macroprudential goal of protecting the banking sector from periods of excess aggregate credit growth. For any given country, this buffer will only be in effect when there is excess credit growth that is resulting in a system wide build up of risk. The countercyclical buffer, when in effect, would be introduced as an extension of the conservation buffer range.These capital requirements are supplemented by a non-risk-based leverage ratio that will serve as a backstop to the risk-based measures described above. In July, Governors and Heads of Supervision agreed to test a minimum Tier 1 leverage ratio of 3% during the parallel run period. Based on the results of the parallel run period, any final adjustments would be carried out in the first half of 2017 with a view to migrating to a Pillar 1 treatment on 1 January 2018 based on appropriate review and calibration.Systemically important banks should have loss absorbing capacity beyond the standards announced today and work continues on this issue in the Financial Stability Board and relevant Basel Committee work streams. The Basel Committee and the FSB are developing a well integrated approach to systemically important financial institutions which could include combinations of capital surcharges, contingent capital and bail-in debt. In addition, work is continuing to strengthen resolution regimes. The Basel Committee also recently issued a consultative document Proposal to ensure the loss absorbency of regulatory capital at the point of non-viability. Governors and Heads of Supervision endorse the aim to strengthen the loss absorbency of non-common Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital instruments.Transition arrangementsSince the onset of the crisis, banks have already undertaken substantial efforts to raise their capital levels. However, preliminary results of the Committee's comprehensive quantitative impact study show that as of the end of 2009, large banks will need, in the aggregate, a significant amount of additional capital tomeet these new requirements. Smaller banks, which are particularly important for lending to the SME sector, for the most part already meet these higher standards.The Governors and Heads of Supervision also agreed on transitional arrangements for implementing the new standards. These will help ensure that the banking sector can meet the higher capital standards through reasonable earnings retention and capital raising, while still supporting lending to the economy. The transitional arrangements, which are summarised in Annex 2, include:National implementation by member countries will begin on 1 January 2013. Member countries must translate the rules into national laws and regulations before this date. As of 1 January 2013, banks will be required to meet the following new minimum requirements in relation to risk-weighted assets (RWAs):3.5% common equity/RWAs;4.5% Tier 1 capital/RWAs, and8.0% total capital/RWAs.The minimum common equity and Tier 1 requirements will be phased in between 1 January 2013 and 1 January 2015. On 1 January 2013, the minimum common equity requirement will rise from the current 2% level to 3.5%. The Tier 1 capital requirement will rise from 4% to 4.5%. On 1 January 2014, banks will have to meeta 4% minimum common equity requirement and a Tier 1 requirement of 5.5%. On1 January 2015, banks will have to meet the 4.5% common equity and the 6% Tier 1 requirements. The total capital requirement remains at the existing level of 8.0% and so does not need to be phased in. The difference between the total capital requirement of 8.0% and the Tier 1 requirement can be met with Tier2 and higher forms of capital.The regulatory adjustments (ie deductions and prudential filters), including amounts above the aggregate 15% limit for investments in financial institutions, mortgage servicing rights, and deferred tax assets from timing differences, would be fully deducted from common equity by 1 January 2018.In particular, the regulatory adjustments will begin at 20% of the required deductions from common equity on 1 January 2014, 40% on 1 January 2015, 60% on 1 January 2016, 80% on 1 January 2017, and reach 100% on 1 January 2018. During this transition period, the remainder not deducted from common equity will continue to be subject to existing national treatments.The capital conservation buffer will be phased in between 1 January 2016 and year end 2018 becoming fully effective on 1 January 2019. It will begin at 0.625% of RWAs on 1 January 2016 and increase each subsequent year by an additional 0.625 percentage points, to reach its final level of 2.5% of RWAs on 1 January 2019. Countries that experience excessive credit growth should consider accelerating the build up of the capital conservation buffer and the countercyclical buffer. National authorities have the discretion to impose shorter transition periods and should do so where appropriate.Banks that already meet the minimum ratio requirement during the transition period but remain below the 7% common equity target (minimum plus conservation buffer) should maintain prudent earnings retention policies with a view to meeting the conservation buffer as soon as reasonably possible.Existing public sector capital injections will be grandfathered until 1 January 2018. Capital instruments that no longer qualify as non-common equity Tier 1 capital or Tier 2 capital will be phased out over a 10 year horizon beginning 1 January 2013. Fixing the base at the nominal amount of such instruments outstanding on 1 January 2013, their recognition will be capped at 90% from 1 January 2013, with the cap reducing by 10 percentage points in each subsequent year. In addition, instruments with an incentive to be redeemed will be phased out at their effective maturity date.Capital instruments that no longer qualify as common equity Tier 1 will be excluded from common equity Tier 1 as of 1 January 2013. However, instruments meeting the following three conditions will be phased out over the same horizon described in the previous bullet point: (1) they are issued by a non-joint stock company 1 ; (2) they are treated as equity under the prevailing accounting standards; and (3) they receive unlimited recognition as part of Tier 1 capital under current national banking law.Only those instruments issued before the date of this press release should qualify for the above transition arrangements.Phase-in arrangements for the leverage ratio were announced in the 26 July 2010 press release of the Group of Governors and Heads of Supervision. That is, the supervisory monitoring period will commence 1 January 2011; the parallel run period will commence 1 January 2013 and run until 1 January 2017; and disclosure of the leverage ratio and its components will start 1 January 2015. Based on the results of the parallel run period, any final adjustments will be carried out in the first half of 2017 with a view to migrating to a Pillar 1 treatment on 1 January 2018 based on appropriate review and calibration.After an observation period beginning in 2011, the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) will be introduced on 1 January 2015. The revised net stable funding ratio (NSFR) will move to a minimum standard by 1 January 2018. The Committee will put in place rigorous reporting processes to monitor the ratios during the transition period and will continue to review the implications of these standards for financial markets, credit extension and economic growth, addressing unintended consequences as necessary.The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision provides a forum for regular cooperation on banking supervisory matters. It seeks to promote and strengthen supervisory and risk management practices globally. The Committee comprises representatives from Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Hong Kong SAR, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg,Mexico, the Netherlands, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States.The Group of Central Bank Governors and Heads of Supervision is the governing body of the Basel Committee and is comprised of central bank governors and (non-central bank) heads of supervision from member countries. The Committee's Secretariat is based at the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland.Annex 1: Calibration of the Capital Framework (PDF 1 page, 19 kb)Annex 2: Phase-in arrangements (PDF 1 page, 27 kb)Full press release (PDF 7 pages, 56 kb)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 Non-joint stock companies were not addressed in the Basel Committee's 1998 agreement on instruments eligible for inclusion in Tier 1 capital as they do not issue voting common shares.最新巴塞尔协议3全文央行行长和监管当局负责人集团1宣布较高的全球最低资本标准国际银行资本监管改革是本轮金融危机以来全球金融监管改革的重要组成部分。

相关文档
最新文档