Thursday 17 April 2008

Yesterday's Basel press release

On Wednesday the Basel committee announced some changes to the Basel II framework. The press release is fairly short on detail, but it does give some insight into the forthcoming detailed proposals. Let's take a look.
The Committee reiterates the importance of implementing the Basel II framework.
This is shorthand for 'please Mr. Fed would you implement our Accord?'
...the Committee will revise the Framework to establish higher capital requirements for certain complex structured credit products, such as so called "resecuritisations" or CDOs of ABS.
Clearly CDO squared products and CDOs of tranched ABS have been a major issue so this is reasonable. But CDOs of pass throughs have much less model risk and behave in a much smoother fashion so I hope these will not be tarred with the same brush.
It will strengthen the capital treatment of liquidity facilities extended to off balance sheet vehicles such as ABCP conduits.
The issue here is implicit support: legally many of these lines were low risk, but reputational concerns forced banks to provide support where it was not contractually required. Rather than charging for liquidity, which will simply encourage the use of non-bank liquidity providers, the committee should cap the benefit available for securitisation.
The Committee will strengthen capital requirements in the trading book... The Committee ... is extending the scope of its existing proposal guidelines for "incremental default risk" to include other potential event risks in the trading book ... (planned 2010).
This is so frustrating. The capital requirements in the trading book are already high compared with the banking book, and the incremental default risk proposals are hardly a model of cogency or risk sensitivity. If the trading book charges are imprudent then the banking book ones are far too low. They should also be revising the correlations in the IRB formula and increasing the risk weights for risk below BBB- in the revised standardised approach. And surely they can get their act together a little faster than 2010?
The Committee will monitor Basel II minimum capital requirements ... over the credit cycle... [and] will take appropriate measures to help ensure Basel II provides a sound capital framework
So no discussion of procyclicality and no acknowledgement of the need for anti-cyclical capital requirements especially for fair value assets. This is disappointing. Basel II seems to have become a self-sustaining industry where wholescale change is almost impossible. The extended timeframes and modest revisions are evidence that major regulatory change will need more impetus than just the biggest banking crisis in a generation.
In July the Committee will publish for consultation global sound practice standards for the management and supervision of liquidity risks.
What about capital for liqudity risk?
Weaknesses in ... valuation practices for complex products have contributed to the build-up of concentrations in illiquid structured credit products and the undermining of confidence in the banking sector. The Committee is taking concrete action to promote stronger industry practices in this area.
What pray might those be? If it doesn't trade, it isn't Level 1. Stronger practices whatever they may be need to acknowledge that fair value is often an estimate and that uncertainty in valuation will always be with us. This is fundamentally an investor education problem: equity holders suffer the same realised earnings volatility whether the asset is fair value accounted or not; hiding that volatility via loan loss provisions in the banking book just turns the spotlight away, it does nothing about the real risk. Supervisors seem to be aware of the issues with structured credit in a fair value context but reluctant to acknowledge that these risks are still there in an accrual context, just concealed by the accounting.


Are these changes going to help? A little, although putting a charity slot in the wall of the BIS might be more effective: there is much more that needs to be done, and done quickly.

Labels: , , , ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home