IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rsk/journ4/2440762.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Basel II versus III: a comparative assessment of minimum capital requirements for internal model approaches

Author

Listed:
  • Harald Kinateder

Abstract

ABSTRACT In this paper, we provide a comparative assessment of the minimum capital requirement (MCR) in three prominent versions of the Basel regulatory framework: Basel II, the 2010 version of Basel III and the current 2013 version of Basel III. For this purpose, we use Cantelli's inequality to compute theoretical MCR violation levels for different unconditional distributional specifications, accounting for skewness and kurtosis. Cantelli's inequality allows us to perform a quantitative comparison of various Basel accords without exact knowledge of the future return process. Therefore, our results are not biased, due to the specific choice of the sample data and/or uncertainty about the underlying return process as well as the "true" risk model. We find that under weak distributional specifications (ie, normal tails), the MCR under the 2013 version of Basel III is only marginally higher than under Basel II. However, this difference increases (decreases) for risk models equipped with heavy-tailed (normal) innovations. In contrast to this, we document that under the 2010 version of Basel III the MCR violation levels during a stress period are adequate, even when using a risk model with weak distributional specifications. However, we also show that the MCR under the 2010 version of Basel III is too conservative in calm periods. ;

Suggested Citation

Handle: RePEc:rsk:journ4:2440762
as

Download full text from publisher

File URL: https://www.risk.net/system/files/import/protected/digital_assets/9469/Basel_II_versus_III.pdf
Download Restriction: no
---><---

More about this item

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rsk:journ4:2440762. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Thomas Paine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.risk.net/journal-of-risk .

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.