Assessing consistency of implementation of Basel standards
Updated 15 March 2016
The Basel Committee's jurisdictional assessments review the extent to which domestic Basel regulations in each member jurisdiction are aligned with the minimum regulatory standards agreed on by the Committee.
The assessments examine the consistency and completeness of a jurisdiction's adopted standards including the prudential significance of any deviations in the regulatory framework. To ensure that the internationally active segment of the domestic banking system is in line with the letter and spirit of the relevant Basel standards, the assessments highlight the current and potential impact of deviations on the overall regulatory environment. This provides transparency to member jurisdictions of cross-jurisdictional differences and allows jurisdictions to initiate corrective measures, as appropriate, to strengthen their regulatory regimes and improve their functioning.
The RCAP assessments of capital regulations cover the full scope of Basel standards, ie Basel II, 2.5 and III.
Presently, the assessment methodology is based on the following broad elements:
- A review of completeness (ie all relevant Basel provisions have been adopted within the context of each member jurisdiction).
- A detailed examination of consistency (ie differences in substance) of domestic regulations (ie binding documents that effectively implement the intent of relevant Basel standards).
- Significance of an identified gap or divergence from the Basel standard based on its current and potential prudential impact.
- Local specificities are not viewed as mitigants for exceeding the scope of national discretion specified within the Basel framework.
- Domestic measures that go beyond Basel's minimum requirements do not compensate for inconsistencies or deviations identified elsewhere.
- The scope is limited to regulatory issues and does not consider risks to overall financial system stability or bank practices, or systemic spill overs.
- The comparability of results delivered by local rules is assessed as part of specific thematic assessments.
- The supervisory effectiveness of enforcing a regulatory regime is left for other assessment programs such as the assessments of Basel Core Principles conducted under the World Bank-IMF Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP), or those carried out by the Committee as part of its other "peer reviews" on supervision issues, or the broader reviews conducted by the FSB.
The published jurisdiction level assessments are available below, together with post RCAP follow-up actions:1
|Member jurisdiction||Risk-based capital standards||Liquidity (LCR)||G-SIB / D-SIB requirements||Post RCAP follow-up (self-reporting)|
|Australia||March 2014||March 2016|
|Brazil||December 2013||March 2015, March 2016|
|Canada||June 2014||March 2016|
|China||September 2013||March 2015, March 2016|
|European Union||December 2014
(preliminary version, October 2012)
|Hong Kong SAR||March 2015||March 2015|
|India||June 2015||June 2015|
|Japan||October 2012||March 2015, March 2016|
|Mexico||March 2015||March 2015|
|Russia||March 2016||March 2016|
|Saudi Arabia||September 2015||September 2015|
|Singapore||March 2013||March 2015, March 2016|
|South Africa||June 2015||June 2015|
|Switzerland||June 2013||March 2015, March 2016|
|Turkey||March 2016||March 2016|
|United States||December 2014
(preliminary version, October 2012)
1 The actions are based on self-reporting from each jurisdiction and have not been subject to assessment by the Basel Committee.