Comments on: Do banks really need more capital? http://blogs.reuters.com/christopher-whalen/2011/09/28/do-banks-really-need-more-capital/ Wed, 16 Jul 2014 00:47:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: DMillar http://blogs.reuters.com/christopher-whalen/2011/09/28/do-banks-really-need-more-capital/comment-page-1/#comment-1289 Mon, 03 Oct 2011 10:20:56 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/christopher-whalen/?p=707#comment-1289 Surely the (only) purpose of Basel is to protect deposits in the case of bank failure. Everything else is a superfluous add on. Basel’s failure (if one accepts the premise that capital is the right safeguard) is every time it is shown to be not fit for purpose, the Committee tack something else on so we now have a cumbersome and complex regulation that probably will still fail.

Go back to first principles:

1. Do we need to protect depositors? Why?

2. If yes, then what is the best way to do this?

3. Accept that what has been done is failing and build a new accord (the word itself means concurrence of opinion – which we don’t have) which limits itself to the agreed principles of purpose and does not stray into other areas.

]]>