BANKTHINK

Raise Capital Levels, But Ditch Basel III

Print
Email
Reprints
Comments (4)
Twitter
LinkedIn
Facebook
Google+

There is a solid case that the banking system and the stability of the economy would benefit from more capital. How we get there is an open question.

The industry stated loudly and clearly what they thought of the proposed solution under Basel III. The fact is that U.S. banking regulators have the authority to increase the capital requirements regardless of Basel III. Keeping in mind we are only talking about "minimum" capital, the agencies should increase the levels. The current levels are well below where most banks would be comfortable operating.  No buffers, no unrealized gains and losses, just tell the industry what the minimum capital should be. For most of the industry, they should have little trouble meeting a reasonable requirement.

The risk-based capital measurements are a different story. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Vice Chairman Thomas Hoenig has characterized risk-based capital as "an experiment that has lasted too long." FDIC Director Jeremiah Norton recently stated the risk weights were "not reliable predictors of future default." Many in the industry will tell you risk-based capital measurements are a regulatory exercise. This tells me we need a greater understanding of the value and role of risk-based capital.

If we believe that risk-based capital has supervisory utility, we would be far better off if the regime also enhanced the bank's risk management. We also need to determine the appropriate method to determine risk weights. We run the real chance of setting risk weights to be intentionally punitive and discourage certain types of lending. The foundation of capital adequacy is to support the risk within the institution. Capital policy should not be used to allocate credit.

Finally, we should assess the appropriateness of risk-based capital for all institutions. We should be open to the fact that perhaps even for supervision, risk-based capital may have limited value for smaller banks that have a much deeper understanding of their risk exposures.

There are fundamental truths about capital. Even banks with "a lot" of capital may not have enough on hand when it begins to experience losses. When a bank is in real need, capital is hard to come by. The federal agencies have the authority and ability to raise minimum capital in a direct and meaningful way. For the bulk of our industry, this can be done outside of the Basel III process.

The agencies can use Basel III parameters and the heightened prudential standards under Dodd-Frank to address the significant risks posed by the "Too Big to Fail" institutions. Quick, clear, and straightforward action for the rest of the industry will go a long way toward reducing uncertainty about capital requirements, achieving regulators' goal of improving the quantity and quality of capital, and fueling additional economic growth.

Greg Gonzales is commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Financial Institutions and chairman of the Conference of State Bank Supervisors. 

JOIN THE DISCUSSION

(4) Comments

SEE MORE IN

RELATED TAGS

Winners, Losers and Draws in Race for Deposits
Deposit surged despite all the challenges in banking, according to the FDIC's latest Summary of Deposits. However, underneath that upbeat number are a lot banks and thrifts that are suffering and a few that are capitalizing on the chaos. Here is a slideshow with the highlights and lowlights.

(Image: Fotolia)

Comments (4)
Well said and you are spot on. Applying Basel III to all banks or using it as a smoke screen to raise capital just doen't make sense, is hard to understand and creates another regulatory burden. If they want a higher level of capital just say so.
Posted by Rhsmith999 | Friday, March 01 2013 at 2:54PM ET
I agree. If regulators wanted more capital they should have come out and said all banks need ??% capital instead of bringing out Basel III which was so complicated and such a heavey regulatory burden.
Posted by loanmaker | Friday, March 01 2013 at 4:33PM ET
Make this man Chairman of FDIC, give him 3 years, and he could heal the banking industry, and by doing so, we banks could put some juice back into the economy. A very succinct observation, but it will never fly: it makes too much sense.
Posted by diggerdog | Friday, March 01 2013 at 5:30PM ET
A very good example of why the state banking commissioners should be at the table in the evaluation of the public comments on Basel III.
Posted by WayneAbernathy | Friday, March 01 2013 at 6:09PM ET
Add Your Comments:
Not Registered?
You must be registered to post a comment. Click here to register.
Already registered? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.
Already a subscriber? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.