Banking Blog

Finance Blogs » Banking Blog » New Basel rules promise safer banks

New Basel rules promise safer banks

By Claes Bell ·
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Posted: 1 pm ET

The politicians who crafted and ultimately passed the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill last year made some big promises about how the law would boost safety and soundness at America's biggest banks, but the biggest blow for bank safety and soundness may have been struck in Basel, Switzerland this week. From Huw Jones at Reuters:

Global banking regulators have agreed on a proposal to slap an extra capital charge on the world's biggest banks to make them safer by 2019.

The surcharge is part of a series of regulatory reforms launched in response to the financial crisis, which forced countries worldwide into costly bailouts of their banking sectors to prevent systemic collapses.

The Group of Governors and Heads of Supervision (GHOS) said after a meeting in Basel on Saturday the proposal would be put out to public consultation next month.

"The additional loss absorbency requirements are to be met with progressive common equity tier 1 capital requirement ranging from 1 percent to 2.5 percent, depending on a bank's systemic importance," the group said in a statement.

An additional 1 percent surcharge would also be imposed if a bank becomes significantly bigger, pushing the total to 3.5 percent.

The plans, which need approval from world leaders (G20) in November, would be phased in between January 1, 2016, and end of 2018.

Known as the systematically important financial institutions, or SIFI, surcharge, this extra reserve of capital will likely help banks weather severe financial crises more effectively. What's more, banks will have to use more solid assets to satisfy these requirements than had been expected. Banks were hoping to use shakier assets such as contingent capital, a sort of insurance policy that pays out in case of a financial crisis, rather than harder assets.

International agreements on bank safety are crucial for a couple of reasons. One is most of the SIFIs stretch across many different countries, so even if the U.S. effectively regulated banking operations within its borders, those banks could still be at risk from financial crises originating in their overseas operations.

The second is that in the absence of international standards, some SIFIs would seek out countries with the loosest regulations and create a huge incentive for countries seeking to become a base of operations for SIFIs to engage in a regulatory "race to the bottom."

In addition to the safety and soundness benefits of the new requirements, Reuters blogger Felix Salmon also points out they may bring some balance to the global banking market. Right now, SIFI institutions gain a huge advantage from investors believing they'll be bailed out by world governments in a financial crisis.

These more stringent capital requirements will offset that advantage to a certain extent, because banks will necessarily earn a lower return on investment on the capital they're forced to set aside to meet them.

The takeaway for consumers is that if their bank is a SIFI, it will be more secure and less subject to a chaotic government bailout than before. If they choose to bank at a small or midsized bank, a more level marketplace could make their bank less likely to be absorbed into a larger institution.

What do you think? Is forcing banks to meet expensive capital requirements a good idea? Or should banks be left to their own devices?

Bankrate wants to hear from you and encourages comments. We ask that you stay on topic, respect other people's opinions, and avoid profanity, offensive statements, and illegal content. Please keep in mind that we reserve the right to (but are not obligated to) edit or delete your comments. Please avoid posting private or confidential information, and also keep in mind that anything you post may be disclosed, published, transmitted or reused.

By submitting a post, you agree to be bound by Bankrate's terms of use. Please refer to Bankrate's privacy policy for more information regarding Bankrate's privacy practices.
June 29, 2011 at 11:16 am

Sadly, having VISIBLE costs like insurance would mean people would start putting money under their mattresses. We have come to be a society that wants EVERYTHING for free.

There are articles all over this site and many others about the fees that are going to be rising on bank accounts. This is because the government once again stuck their nose into something they don't understand (bc they sit up on CApitol Hill and don't have to deal with the real world"). They thought "Well, if we put a cap on interchange fees for credit use, the retailers won't have as many costs they have to embed in their prices, so they will lower prices for consumers, which will make the dumb consumers put more money into the system".

Problem is, the retialers are just as greedy as the bank. so that money they save will be used to line their pockets, increase profits, or provide extra capital to grow their business. It will NEVER get passed to the consumers.

Meanwhile, this leaves a BIG GAPING HOLE in the income that banks receive. Free Checking accounts have been loss leaders, something to get customers in the door and something they make money on with those sweet interchange fees. Now that all goes away and the bank ACTUALLY has to pay for the cost that comes with maintaining bank accounts (and there ARE costs). So of course, the banks have to make up that income. And everyone is up in arms.

NOTHING IN LIFE IS FREE...THERE IS ALWAYS A COST. IT MAY NOT ALWAYS BE IN YOUR FACE BUT IT'S THERE!! What people have to examine is their priorities and what they want out of the services they use. You get what you pay for...the services have a VALUE. Each individual has to determine what kind of value they are looking for and what they are willing to pay for it.

Obviously, people will have different priorites. That is what each person has to figure out!

June 28, 2011 at 6:20 pm

HERE IS THE ABSOLUTE BEST WAY TO GET AS CLOSE ( no one can get 100%) to 100% SAFE as possible

Let each bank operate in a CAPITALIST ENVIRONMENT where they are individual insured

That way its not only in the best interest of the bank BUT THE INSURANCE COMPANY WOULD BE ( should be) scouring the financials non stop of the bank they are insuring

Each depositor would pay for their own insurance on the accounts

Like any other insurance it would be a sliding scale

you have 10k to insure ( just like an auto) you would pay less than if you had 100k in the bank

THEY SYSTEM FAILED BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HOOKED ALL THE "CARS" (banks) together so when one falls off the track, they all go