ABA Banking Journal
No Result
View All Result
  • Topics
    • Ag Banking
    • Commercial Lending
    • Community Banking
    • Compliance and Risk
    • Cybersecurity
    • Economy
    • Human Resources
    • Insurance
    • Legal
    • Mortgage
    • Mutual Funds
    • Payments
    • Policy
    • Retail and Marketing
    • Tax and Accounting
    • Technology
    • Wealth Management
  • Newsbytes
  • Podcasts
  • Magazine
    • Subscribe
    • Advertise
    • Magazine Archive
    • Newsletter Archive
    • Podcast Archive
    • Sponsored Content Archive
SUBSCRIBE
ABA Banking Journal
  • Topics
    • Ag Banking
    • Commercial Lending
    • Community Banking
    • Compliance and Risk
    • Cybersecurity
    • Economy
    • Human Resources
    • Insurance
    • Legal
    • Mortgage
    • Mutual Funds
    • Payments
    • Policy
    • Retail and Marketing
    • Tax and Accounting
    • Technology
    • Wealth Management
  • Newsbytes
  • Podcasts
  • Magazine
    • Subscribe
    • Advertise
    • Magazine Archive
    • Newsletter Archive
    • Podcast Archive
    • Sponsored Content Archive
No Result
View All Result
No Result
View All Result
ADVERTISEMENT
Home Policy

Basel reforms reveal shortcomings of international standard-setting process

July 9, 2023
Reading Time: 5 mins read
Fed’s Quarles: Global Regulators Keeping Close Eye on Big Tech, Shadow Banking

The home of the Financial Stability Board and Basel Committee for Banking Supervision in Basel, Switzerland. Photo by Fred Romero.

By Hugh Carney and Hu Benton
ABA Viewpoint

The turmoil that led to bank closures earlier this year has receded, and top regulators have declared our banking system strong and well capitalized. All 23 of the larger institutions subjected to recent stress tests to determine their ability to withstand severe economic conditions passed those tests and the Federal Reserve declared them “well positioned to weather a severe recession.”

Despite these seemingly positive signs, federal regulators remain determined to push forward their preexisting agendas, using the bank failures as a fig leaf. The most concerning of these is the so-called “Basel III endgame reforms” — a proposal that is particularly ill-suited to the problem regulators claim it will solve, and one that would have painful implications for banks of all sizes and for the economy. Moreover, their lack of alignment with current financial market risks is a reminder of the shortcomings of the international standard setting process. While we don’t yet know the full details of what the proposal will entail, FDIC Chairman Martin Gruenberg recently offered a preview, and we may learn more details as soon as Monday from Fed Vice Chairman for Supervision Michael Barr.

“Basel III endgame” is the term that regulators use for the next round of regulatory capital reforms developed by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, an international consortium of central bankers. But don’t be disarmed by the name, which allows regulators to frame what is a fundamental overhaul of capital requirements as a tweak of existing rules. These changes should more appropriately be called “Basel IV,” given the substantial impact they would have on the banking system.

Besides being misleading about the scope of the reforms, the name also reveals how dated the upcoming reforms are. Basel IV has been in development for over a decade and is a package of a dozen Basel proposals that focus on trading risk, operational risk, and credit risk. Their silence on liquidity or interest rate risk — the key factors in the failures of Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank and First Republic Bank — highlights the disconnect with current concerns. While the apparent decision to move forward with an international standard does not address these current issues, it does reveal much about the messy business of international standard setting.

Global cooperation on financial regulatory issues can be valuable and important. When these global exercises stray into creating standards accorded the force of law through implementing rules and regulations that are binding on U.S. firms and their customers, serious problems of accountability and transparency arise. The participation of U.S. regulators in the work of these global groups should be conducted within a framework more consistent with U.S. law and subject to full congressional oversight and public review. That isn’t happening here.

The concern, which has been periodically the focus of congressional inquiry, is that U.S. regulators have agreed to these standards without the normal legislative review applied to treaties or trade agreements. Moreover, these standards are developed in a murky international process that does not offer the safeguards and transparency provided in domestic rulemakings by the Administrative Procedure Act. While the follow-on regulations may be subject to public comment, by that time regulators have already made up their minds and committed themselves to the global blueprint, and the public comment process is little more than a formality. Yet despite these shortcomings, international bodies are effectively setting U.S. domestic policy affecting our entire financial system.

It’s inappropriate to ask American consumers and businesses to simply rely on regulators’ assurances about the future — particularly when they’re being asked to accept new standards developed by an entity far removed from our financial system. Policymakers have not yet shown that the benefits will outweigh the significant costs to the U.S. economy, and ABA and our members will take the necessary time to closely review the proposed Basel IV rule in detail to ensure that any potential reforms are both necessary and justified.

The sudden and misplaced focus on Basel IV highlights the broader importance of revisiting how U.S. financial regulators interact with international bodies. An essential first step would be to require that our financial regulators provide notice and comment before an international standards negotiation gets underway. This can be done by requiring regulators to clearly present for public review as well as oversight by Congress the substance and potential scope of a nascent international standard using an advance notice of proposed rulemaking or a request for information — an important transparency and accountability process that is already part of U.S. administrative procedure. These information gathering steps would allow for broad public input and consensus building on the clearly outlined goals of the discussion. The ANPR or RFI would include a clear statement of the problem or issue to be addressed, the potential avenues for addressing the issue, and the impact of the various approaches on the U.S. economy, on financial institutions and on their customers.

Some international bodies, such as the Basel Committee, do issue proposals for some degree of comment, but these efforts often come relatively late in the process after the substance of the proposal has taken shape. Moreover, because the discussions usually take place outside of the United States and are usually described as intended to affect institutions that compete at the global level, the vast majority of U.S. banks, and the American public in general, are insufficiently aware of the international proposals and do not typically participate in any international comment process. Neither does it appear that Congress is brought actively into the process before U.S. regulators take up implementation of the international agreement. In most instances, the cake is already baked.

As U.S. regulators prepare to discuss developing standards they should be transparent about to whom and how the standard could apply domestically, and that understanding should be shared with affected banks, their customers and the public. Use of the ANPR process would alert the public that an international body is considering new standards, offering the public the critical opportunity to raise important issues publicly with both the U.S. regulators and the international standard setter before global negotiations narrow the options and coalesce around suboptimal approaches that are forced upon the U.S. economy.

Unfortunately, the international standards about to be forced on U.S. banks don’t include any of those protections and safeguards. Our members are being told to simply accept the wisdom of the international Basel process and the higher capital and other requirements mandated by it. In our democratic system, that’s not how any regulated entity should be treated. We can and should do better.

Hugh Carney is SVP for prudential regulation and asset management at ABA. He previously served as a senior attorney for the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Hu Benton is SVP and policy counsel for prudential regulation and asset management at ABA.

ADVERTISEMENT
Tags: ABA ViewpointBasel IIIBasel IVRegulatory capital
ShareTweetPin

Related Posts

CFPB launches ‘tip line’ to report on bureau employees

ABA, associations urge CFPB to rescind changes to adjudication process

Legal
June 13, 2025

ABA joined three associations in voicing support for a CFPB proposal to rescind a set of changes to the bureau’s rules that, among other things, gave its director authority to resolve adjudication hearings overseen by the agency.

Senate bill would mandate discount window testing, modernization

Proposal to end Fed interest payments to banks faces pushback

Newsbytes
June 13, 2025

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott (R-S.C.) said a proposal to prevent the Federal Reserve from paying interest to banks “is not a decision to be rushed” and must follow proper parliamentary procedure, Bloomberg Law reported.

Research roundup: ABA holds policymakers accountable with independent analyses of key banking issues

Senate passes ABA-advocated ‘trigger leads’ bill

Mortgage
June 13, 2025

The Senate granted unanimous consent to S. 1467, an ABA-advocated bill that would would prevent credit reporting agencies from selling so-called mortgage trigger leads to lenders in most circumstances.

Old ways in a new world of banking

Old ways in a new world of banking

Community Banking
June 13, 2025

Meet American Bankers Council chair Jim Ryan, chairman and CEO of Old National Bank.

ABA experts see reasons for optimism amid economic, regulatory uncertainty

ABA experts see reasons for optimism amid economic, regulatory uncertainty

Compliance and Risk
June 11, 2025

The Trump administration has rolled back a broad range of banking guidance and regulatory proposals made in the last few years, and while bankers are used to regulatory whiplash when administrations change, it is possible some of changes...

House panel advances ABA-backed bills on trigger leads, other topics

House panel advances ABA-backed bills on trigger leads, other topics

Community Banking
June 11, 2025

In a memo sent in advance of the markup, ABA noted that H.R. 2808 would “curb the abusive use of mortgage credit ‘trigger leads’ while narrowly preserving them for legitimate, transparent and accountable uses.”

NEWSBYTES

ABA, associations urge CFPB to rescind changes to adjudication process

June 13, 2025

ABA DataBank: May inflation cooler than expected, but still above Fed’s 2% target

June 13, 2025

Consumer sentiment rebounds in June

June 13, 2025

SPONSORED CONTENT

AI Compliance and Regulation: What Financial Institutions Need to Know

Unlocking Deposit Growth: How Financial Institutions Can Activate Data for Precision Cross-Sell

June 1, 2025
Choosing the Right Account Opening Platform: 10 Key Considerations for Long-Term Success

Choosing the Right Account Opening Platform: 10 Key Considerations for Long-Term Success

April 25, 2025
Outsourcing: Getting to Go/No-Go

Outsourcing: Getting to Go/No-Go

April 5, 2025
Six Payments Trends Driving the Future of Transactions

Six Payments Trends Driving the Future of Transactions

March 15, 2025

PODCASTS

Podcast: Old National’s Jim Ryan on the things that really matter

June 12, 2025

Podcast: What bankers need to know about ‘First Amendment audits’

June 5, 2025

Podcast: Accelerating banking for quick-service restaurants

May 8, 2025
ADVERTISEMENT

American Bankers Association
1333 New Hampshire Ave NW
Washington, DC 20036
1-800-BANKERS (800-226-5377)
www.aba.com
About ABA
Privacy Policy
Contact ABA

ABA Banking Journal
About ABA Banking Journal
Media Kit
Advertising
Subscribe

© 2025 American Bankers Association. All rights reserved.

No Result
View All Result
  • Topics
    • Ag Banking
    • Commercial Lending
    • Community Banking
    • Compliance and Risk
    • Cybersecurity
    • Economy
    • Human Resources
    • Insurance
    • Legal
    • Mortgage
    • Mutual Funds
    • Payments
    • Policy
    • Retail and Marketing
    • Tax and Accounting
    • Technology
    • Wealth Management
  • Newsbytes
  • Podcasts
  • Magazine
    • Subscribe
    • Advertise
    • Magazine Archive
    • Newsletter Archive
    • Podcast Archive
    • Sponsored Content Archive

© 2025 American Bankers Association. All rights reserved.