Finance and Economics Discussion Series (FEDS)
November 2001
Capital Requirements, Business Loans, and Business Cycles: An Empirical Analysis of the Standardized Approach in the New Basel Capital Accord
Seth B. Carpenter, William Whitesell, and Egon Zakrajsek
Abstract:
In the current regulatory framework, capital requirements are based on risk-weighted assets, but all business loans carry a uniform risk weight, irrespective of variations in credit risk. The proposed new Capital Accord of the Bank for International Settlements provides for a greater sensitivity of capital requirements to credit risk, raising the question of whether, and to what extent, the new capital standards will intensify business cycles. In this paper, we evaluate the potential cyclical effects of the "standardized approach" to risk evaluation in the new Accord, which involves the ratings of external agencies. We combine Moody's data on changes in U.S. borrowers' credit ratings since 1970 with estimates of the risk profile of business loans at commercial banks from the Survey of Terms of Business Lending, and also a risk profile estimated by Treacy and Carey (1998). We find that the level of required capital against business loans would be noticeably lower under the new Accord compared with the current regime. We do not find evidence of any substantial additional cyclicality in required capital levels under the standardized approach of the new Accord relative to the current regime.
Keywords: New Basel Capital Accord, standardized approach, C&I loans, business cycles
PDF: Full Paper
Disclaimer: The economic research that is linked from this page represents the views of the authors and does not indicate concurrence either by other members of the Board's staff or by the Board of Governors. The economic research and their conclusions are often preliminary and are circulated to stimulate discussion and critical comment. The Board values having a staff that conducts research on a wide range of economic topics and that explores a diverse array of perspectives on those topics. The resulting conversations in academia, the economic policy community, and the broader public are important to sharpening our collective thinking.