Banking Crisis
Global Banks Ease Basel Rules To Ease Strains

International bank capital and liquidity rules agreed by global
regulators
– often cited by private banks seeking to impress clients with
their financial strength
– have been made more flexible to encourage lending and hence
economic growth,
media reports said.
At the weekend, global regulators meeting at the Bank for
International Settlements gave banks four more years
and more flexibility on their “buffer capital”, reversing a move
towards a more
cautious stance in recent years in the wake of the 2008 financial
crisis.
The complex web of standards known as “Basel rules” has been
criticised for making
the economic cycle, and associated strains on banks, worse rather
than less
severe because, in the past, the system has worked so that banks
have thin
capital buffers when economies are strong and suddenly scramble
to expand
capital when markets turn more volatile.
One specific aspect of the rules is what is known as the
"liquidity
coverage ratio". This relates to the requirement on banks to hold
an
amount of
highly-liquid assets, such as cash or Treasury bonds, equal to
or
greater than their net cash over a 30 day period (having at least
100
per cent
coverage).
"The LCR will be introduced as planned on 1 January 2015, but the
minimum
requirement will begin at 60 per cent, rising in equal annual
steps of
10 percentage points to reach 100 per cent on 1 January
2019. This graduated
approach is designed to ensure that the LCR can be introduced
without
disruption to the orderly strengthening of banking systems or
the
ongoing financing of economic activity," BIS said in a statement.
In recent years, those private banks that have high capital
ratios, or are part of firms with such ratios, have been keen to
stress that
fact when speaking to this publication, reflecting how high net
worth
individuals have increasingly focused on the strength of a
financial
institution as a reason for choosing to do business with it. The
overall size
of a private bank is seen as less
important than the financial robustness of an institution.