Billions of euros of public funds were invested in systemically important institutions in order to sustain them at the height of the crisis. This was deemed an absolute one-off bail-out and the Financial Stability Board (FSB) introduced a proposal to end ‘too-big-to-fail’. Does this proposal effectively protect the tax payer or are we simply paying the burden in advance?
A lot has been written with regard to the introduction of Basel III, both in this magazine and in other media. The world is a different place, that’s a fact. We’ve learned that a more comprehensive insight into the implications of the Capital Requirements Directive is needed.
A lot has been said and written with regard to the introduction of Basel III. However, from discussions with our clients we learn that often a more comprehensive insight into the effects of Basel III on their banking relationships is desirable.
The Bank for International Settlements’ (BIS) capital requirements for banks, also known as Basel III, impact on a wide variety of stakeholders. It's not only the banks that are keen to take note of the additions to the Basel II Accord, but their corporate clients also want to understand the implications. This article examines the various effects on corporates and their treasury departments, and also provides some suggestions on how to cope with the consequences of the Basel III capital adequacy regime.
As personal adviser to Wim Duisenberg, the first president of the European Central Bank (ECB), Dr. Lex Hoogduin played a key role in the introduction of the euro. He is professor of monetary economics and financial institutions at Robeco and since 1980 has worked in different roles at the Dutch Central Bank, including executive director to the governing board from 2009 till 2011. In this interview Dr. Hoogduin gives his views on the origins of the financial crisis, Basel III and the tension between micro- and macro-economics.