The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision released for comment its latest set of principles for managing big banks. It's all very European and quite hands-off.
- A taste of the European (that is, principles, not rules): "Supervisors should assess the adequacy of both a bank's liquidity risk management framework and its liquidity position and should take prompt action if a bank is deficient in either area in order to protect depositors and to limit potential damage to the financial system." (that's principle 1, and sometimes I wonder if the principles afficianadoes in America would really want agencies like the SEC taking "prompt action" upon finding delicts in "management frameworks")
- The hands off: "While some supervisors may find it useful to issue quantitative standards (eg limits or ratios) for liquidity risk management, where these standards exist they should not be understood as a substitute for banks’ own measurement and active management of liquidity risk." (that's the guidance to principle 14, and a rebuke to the 8% of the first capital accord)
- Perhaps best of all, at least for those banking supervisors fond of Swiss hospitality, is the need for supervisors to meet regularly: "Regular dialogue and cooperation among relevant stakeholders during normal times helps to build working relationships that allow more effective communication and cooperation during times of firm-specific or market-wide stress." (that's the guidance to principle 17)
Two interesting things about the communication imperative: 1. it distinguishes between supervisors and central bankers, something that the current regulatory system in the US doesn't really do, and 2. it lauds the value of supervisors and central bankers being in close touch, which the Paulson Blueprint for American regulatory reform recommends.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/38673/30265184
Links to weblogs that reference How Can We Stop Big Banks From Blowing Up? Basel Weighs In:
1. Posted by Layedback on June 18, 2008 @ 12:06 | Permalink
This is the best place I could think of to post this, and I am sorry that it is not quite germane to the subject at hand. I know that alot of people who both contribute to and comment on here are concerned with property rights. Perhaps the most egregious example of government's usurpation of such rights is the 2005 case of Kelo v. New London. To mark the anniversary of this loss and the subsequent gains made at the state level against eminent domain abuse, Susette Kelo is trying to garner 10,000 donations to The Institute for Justice (The firm which represented Kelo)this Monday 23 June, go to ij.org/keloday and pledge $5 or whatever you can afford. This a good cause, and one that, no matter your political bend,everyone can embrace.
- fedgovernor on The Oil Mark
- Jake on The Oil Mark
- Cathy on The Oil Mark
- laborprof lpb on Bailout, Uni
- fedgovernor on The Oil Mark
- Brandon P. on BYU v. Utah
- David on What makes a
- Cathy on The Oil Mark
- Vic on Fleischer 1,
- Michael on BYU v. Utah
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |






