Tier 2 capital

topic is Trends in Australian Bank Capital. The content is as following: 1. The explanation of why "Regulators usually want more equity capital whereas shareholders usually favour less equity capital" 2. The differences between bank equity capital and bank regulatory capital 3. A discussion of the functions of bank capital and the role of the risk-return trade-off 4. The differences between tier 1 and tier 2 capital 5. The components of tier 1 and tier 2 capital and the cost and risk implications

FIN3FIM Financial Institutions Management Sample Examination Solutions FIN3FIM Financial Institutions Management 1 Sample Examination 3 The following information, and Questions 1, 2 and 3 below, relate to Chartwell Banking Corporation for the year ending 31 December 2007. Profit and Loss Statement for the period 1 January to 31 December 2007 $m 48.0 12.0 60.0 31.0 17.0 48.0 12.0 4.2 7.8 Interest Revenue Non-interest Revenue Total Operating Revenue Interest Expense Non-interest

bank’s circumstances. Through the internal models the banks could achieve lower capital requirement than the standard models, but the internal models was expensive to set up and maintain, so in praxis only the large banks used them (BCBS, 2009 and Moosa 2010). Figure xx bellows shows an overview of Basel I, in terms of the risks that are incorporated and how banks must calculate them. The framework rests solely on capital requirements for determining the two risk groups as a measure of a bank’s

Newbridge in 2002 and assess whether the P/B ratio of 1.6 for Newbridge to pay for its 18% stake in SDB is appropriate. The analysis of Newbridge’s acquisition of SDB’s stocks is based on several aspects of SDB’s asset quality, earnings capability and capital adequacy. According to price-to-book ratio of SDB’s industry peers and some acquisition precedents by foreign investors, Newbridge made a correct decision that it paid 1.6 times book value of SDB’s stake on a basis of SDB’s performance. This is because

its name from there. The committee comprises representative from central banks of different countries and their regulatory authorities 2. Basel 1 The Basel committee on banking supervision (BCBS) in 1998 published a set of minimum capital requirement for banks. It focused entirely on credit risk or default risk, these were known as Basel 1. Basel 1 defined capital requirement and structure of risk weights for banks. Under Basel1 assets of banks were classified in five categories according to credit

of 2007 – 2009, the Basel Committee of Banking Supervision launched a program that substantially revised the existing capital adequacy guidelines. As a result, the Committee released a new version of bank capital and liquidity standards, referred to as “Basel III”, in December 2010. Subsequent guidance was issued in January 2011 regarding minimum requirements for regulatory capital instruments. The G20 , including United States and the European Union, publicly endorsed the Basel III standards at their

total assets held by global systematic important banks while only a seven fold increase in the capital funding of these assets. Global systematic banks are banks whose distress or failure could lead to severe repercussions to the overall financial market due to their size, complexity and the systemic interconnectedness. Coupled with the increase in leverage there was also an erosion of the quality of the capital, throughout this period. The market lost confidence in the banking institution, leading to

(KPMG 2011). Figure. 4 has shown the structures of Basel III. It aims to increase the capital and liquidity of banks and therefore maintaining the stability in banking sector with full effect in 2019 (Banks For International Settlements 2011). EUROPE - Preparedness On 26 June of 2013, Capital requirement regulation (CRR) and directive(CRD) has been adopted for Basel III in Europe. Basel III permits the capital buffer increase gradually to 2.5% in 2019 (Banks For International Settlements 2011).

interests that arise when financial institutions simultaneously undertake financial activities of varied nature. In addition to the above the internal incentive to bank should be reduced by requiring greater capital requirements as well as improving upon the definition of what qualifies to be capital. Further in line with the answer to question 3, risk management systems in financial institutions need to be redefined and strengthened to more comprehensively identify, evaluate, manage and monitor risks

Two Calculating Capital Adequacy Standards a. Define Capital Adequacy Standards Percentage ratio of a financial institution’s primary capital to its assets (loans and investments, used as a measure of its financial strength and stability. According to the Capital Adequacy Standard set by Bank for International Settlements (BIS), banks must have a primary capital base equal at least to eight percent of their assets: a bank that lends 12 dollars for every dollar of its capital is within the prescribed