Talk:Basel III

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Leverage ratios[edit]

I feel like specifying only a 3% leverage ratio was not informative enough, as this could be assumed to mean a debt to equity ratio, which would be very wrong. I edited it to say Tier 1 Leverage ratio. Is this making it too complex?

Also, for reference 9, this one, http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs189.pdf, it's a large document and I want to specify in particular that it is Section B Five (V) that you should be looking at. Anyone know how to indicate this in the reference? Thanks.

Ujax (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ujax (talk • contribs) 14:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion is good, but in that particular sentence it is too complex. For this, reason I have changed it and I added a new sentence to the paragraph that defines the leverage ration more clearly. I hope you will find it better this way.
Obviously, the article could be improved so if anyone feels like adding a whole new section on Leverage Ratio, or Liquidity requirements, or Capital Requirements - please go on with that.
As regards the references, the general BIS document refers to the entire set of new rules, not just leverage, so I placed it after the sentence. I don't see a need to define particular sections of the document in references.
--Wikijasmin (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daily mail[edit]

Firstly I must apologize for not having the time (to gain the knowledge of how) to edit this.

I feel the Daily Mail source at the bottom of this article is irrelevant. Daily Mail as a source is generally disputable; in my personal opinion its copy holds little factual weight. This however is not the only basis - I feel - that should warrant its removal -- Basel III reforms are coming in across industrialized nations, so a story solely about the UK is of little use, not to mention the fact that it doesn't once mention Basel other than a fleeting mention of banks' required capital.

With this in mind, the Daily Mail source should be struck. Regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavin AD (talk • contribs) 14:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This however could be used in place: http://www.lawandtax-news.com/asp/Basel_III_To_Hit_Banking_Profits____45975.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.246.129.247 (talk) 09:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please update the planning[edit]

"December 31, 2010 Planned" is no more accurate --193.56.241.75 (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

update the article[edit]

I updated the article with the latest, but still lot work needs to be done. As per the comment above, the article needs to be updated to the current state of afairs also in subsections. Wikijasmin (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Newly exactly defined terms[edit]

As both Basel III and Federal Reserve definitions now exist for the following, they need articles of their own. The terminology is evidently very mature and it's time to reflect that in Wikipedia's financial accounting coverage. These are no longer fuzzy-wuzzy management accounting terms but they have hard law implications, especially in scenario analysis. The coverage is inadequate until we have all of these:

By splitting off all this technical stuff into other articles, even an entire category of articles, this main article could focus on the legal perspective. That is, explain the state of implementation in various currency (Euro) and national (US) regimes, and get into the politics of implementation which is extensively debated in the financial media.

In other words the scope of Basel III ought to be only its status as international law and enforcement of it, leaving literally all the financial technical material in sub-articles with names as outlined above (all of which come directly from the US Federal Reserve's own terminology and in turn from the US legislation [1]).

Really a complete refactoring of all the high finance material is required, making scenario analysis or financial scenario analysis the central article, because this is how all risk-based management must work, and it's now a legally defined concept.

When is Basel III to be implemented by[edit]

When is Basel III to be implemented by? It doesn't say. I think it's very important information - it's the only reason why I came to check the WP entry.

Re: It does say that in the part on Key Dates. It will be phased in several different phases, which have several different dates. --Wikijasmin (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Late-2000s financial crisis[edit]

"This, the third of the Basel Accords (see Basel I, Basel II) was developed in response to the deficiencies in financial regulation revealed by the late-2000s financial crisis."

Is it just me who thinks that "late-2000s" suggests something other than 2007-2012 (as per the linked wikipedia article)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.141.128.62 (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non factual tone[edit]

"Basel III is an opportunity as well as a challenge for banks. It can provide a solid foundation for the next developments in the banking sector, and it can ensure that past excesses are avoided. Basel III is changing the way that banks address the management of risk and finance. The new regime seeks much greater integration of the finance and risk management functions. This will probably drive the convergence of the responsibilities of CFOs and CROs in delivering the strategic objectives of the business. However, the adoption of a more rigorous regulatory stance might be hampered by a reliance on multiple data silos and by a separation of powers between those who are responsible for finance and those who manage risk. The new emphasis on risk management that is inherent in Basel III requires the introduction or evolution of a risk management framework that is as robust as the existing finance management infrastructures. As well as being a regulatory regime, Basel III in many ways provides a framework for true enterprise risk management, which involves covering all risks to the business"

This kind of statements is clearly non factual and expresses (biased) opinions, while adding no relevant information to the article. It should therefore be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.109.18.2 (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: I do agree with you completely, you could have removed it, but at least now we have two votes for the removal of that passage and I am getting rid of it. There is much more to be done with the article also in that section, but I have to same view as you that statements like "Something is an opportunity and challenges" are true for anything and add nothing factual.--Wikijasmin (talk) 22:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Basel III. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Offline 03:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Basel III: Finalising post-crisis reforms into Basel III[edit]

Integral part of the same topic, i.e. per the BIS, it is part of the Basel III regulatory framework for banks (see https://www.bis.org/bcbs/basel3.htm) Whizz40 (talk) 07:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Better to keep a separate article until after B3.1 is implemented in (most of) the Basel jurisdictions, US/EU/UK, etc. Removing the tags from the top of the articles for now. Whizz40 (talk) 09:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 200 - Thu[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jessssy (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jessssy (talk) 02:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Basel_III&oldid=1205786757"