There seems to be little appetite for proposals to vary capital adequacy requirements counter cyclically.

Similarly, banks would have incentives to game capital adequacy requirements by manipulating how capital and assets are defined.

For instance, we know that the global capital adequacy requirements produced by the Basel Committee reflect overwhelmingly the influence of large banks.

The United States is emphasizing higher capital requirements.

There seems to be little appetite for proposals to vary capital adequacy requirements counter cyclically. This would enable capital buffers to be created in good years, which could then be drawn down in bad years.

Counter cyclical capital requirements fit with this idea, and a range of indicators could be used to calibrate the increase in capital requirements, coupled perhaps with some discretion.

And equity capital requirements for large, systemically important financial institutions remain too low.

Banks capital adequacy ratios were set globally, and, once set, remained fixed.

There have been some increases in capital requirements but far short of what is needed.

Smarter capital requirements better Basel rules aren t the answer.

The best known tools for this are margin requirements and minimum capital requirements.

At the source, capital requirements for currency mismatches in portfolios, together with margin requirements on foreign exchange derivatives, make sense.

Even during the crisis, banks capital adequacy ratios were higher than the Basel II requirement of 8 , and their distribution of profits has been under the BRSA s close supervision since 2008.

In the Basel III negotiations that concluded last year, the French and Germans strongly favored relatively low capital requirements.

All this financial engineering would avoid the obsolete capital requirements that burden banks operation.

The banks claim that higher capital requirements and other regulations will drive up the cost of credit.

Since high risk premiums on government bonds endanger the capital adequacy of banks, half a solution is not enough.

European banks, traditionally a major source of trade finance, have pulled back dramatically, owing to capital adequacy problems caused by sovereign debt capital losses and, in some cases, losses from real estate lending.

High capital and provision requirements for certain transactions, or prohibition of such transactions, should also be introduced for prudential reasons.

No working capital requirements have been included in this budget submission to leave room for other priority expenditure requirements.

This put financial capital in a privileged position governments had to pay more attention to the requirements of international capital than to the aspirations of their own people.

But, when it comes to upping equity requirements against risk weighted assets, who is to do the weighting, and according to what methodology?

Over time, however, the interest rate premium is likely to be small, because higher capital requirements and contingent capital should significantly reduce the likelihood of ever reaching the triggers.

The capital requirements attached to that subsidiary would be more burdensome, with minimum Tier One capital set at 10 , compared to the new Basel 3 standard of 7 .

Combined with elevated capital requirements for banks, it would reduce the chance of another simultaneous failure of all credit channels.

Indeed, ignorance about what is actually at risk makes debates about the right formula for capital buffers surreal. Moreover, the use of mechanistic rules to determine capital adequacy has also inadvertently encouraged systemic imprudence.

Moreover, the use of mechanistic rules to determine capital adequacy has also inadvertently encouraged systemic imprudence.

But how much higher? There is much discussion of breaking up banks that are too big to fail.

Initial capital

WASHINGTON, DC European leaders are convinced that bank capital is expensive, in the sense that raising capital requirements would slow economic growth.

There are some international agreements, notably the Basel Accords on minimum capital requirements and there is also good cooperation among market regulators.

For example, capital charges should account for the degree of friction and rivalry in the banking sector, with tighter requirements in more competitive contexts.

The rejected proposals are thus good policy money market funds should be made safer via capital requirements and liquidity restrictions because they already receive a de facto government guarantee.

As above, firm value is enhanced when, and if, the return on capital exceeds the cost of capital.

Banks serve a special function in the economy that does warrant a special role for the government not in setting pay, but in imposing effective capital requirements.

The Basle rules on capital requirements and the World Trade Organization s rules on subsidies, intellectual property, and investment measures typify this kind of overreaching.

In the Basel III negotiations that concluded last year, the French and Germans strongly favored relatively low capital requirements. This was folly for their big banks today, more capital would reduce the probability of needing further government bailouts.

The Art of Capital Flight

Damming Capital

The Capital Flow Conundrum

Capital flows and remittances

E. Financial capital and resilience

The portion of capital inflows that is not re exported represents net capital inflows.

In a growth mechanism where the external oil windfall component weakens, the internal component, which is dependent on higher productivity, technology and an adequate articulation between physical and human capital, would be best employed in offsetting the fall in oil rents.

First, capital requirements should be set as a straightforward ratio of common equity to total assets, thereby abandoning all reference to banks own risk management models.