Jamie Dimon thinks it is, and I still don't understand why (maybe it's because of the way it treats Fannie bonds?). But this Times Room for Debate gives you something of an overview, featuring the usual suspects (Peter Wallison, Steve Bartlett, Simon Johnson). Basel is the place where the most onerous financial regulation will happen, and it is the only place where you might ever get something like the emerging Swiss, and maybe British, requirement that banks hold 20% equity against their other assets, which some finance professors here think is interesting (they also wouldn't bother to risk-weight it - also interesting). Here's how the Times sets the scene:
Jamie Dimon has been on the warpath this month against new international banking rules, saying their capital requirements are "anti-American." At a closed-door meeting of the Financial Stability Forum in Washington last week, he reportedly "launched a tirade" against the Basel III regulatory standards and against Mark Carney, the central banker of Canada who is seen as the successor to lead the forum.
On Sunday, Mr. Carney said publicly: "If some institutions feel pressure today, it is because they have done too little for too long, rather than because they are being asked to do too much, too soon."
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Links to weblogs that reference Debating Whether Basel III Is Anti-American: