The most important result of international efforts aiming at sound financial markets was the approval of modern risk management techniques as a part of regular financial intermediation process. In this context the Basel II, the new capital adequacy framework, is a very important outcome of the action taken in the international arena. Although, the main aim of the original Basel Accord, which was applying institutionalized and international standards to the global financial system, has not changed in the Basel II Accord, the Basel II puts more emphasis on the risk management aspect of the financial intermediation process. It is expected that a sound and resilient risk management in the banking sector would also lead to more efficient risk management in the real sector. Therefore, in this way, as the financial system becomes more stable, less pro-cyclical and reinforced against shocks, more sources will be available for the real sector. However, it should also be considered that healthy and efficient risk management requires more than the three main pillars of the Basel II Accord. A good understanding of the risks that a financial institution might encounter, a clear definition of risk taking procedures, compliance of risk taking decisions with the strategic goals of the institution, ensuring the risks are within the limits that were set by the management and adequate capital for given risk structure are other essential elements for a more significant advance in risk management in financial institutions.
Interest rates were more and more determined in the markets, and some measures were taken regarding the supervision of the banking sector. However, before taking the necessary actions for strengthening the domestic financial markets, such as measures for more transparent balance sheets and more careful risk management in the intermediation process, the capital account was liberalized at the end of the 1980s. The Turkish economy with an inefficient banking sector became open to intensive capital movements. In my view, the Turkish economy turned into an open one before it became strong enough to cope with capital movements that would occur in the 90s. The sequencing of reforms for the Turkish economy in general and its financial system in particular should have been set differently. What went wrong in the Turkish economy in the 90s? Policies did not concentrate on ensuring and maintaining macroeconomic stability; different priorities, delayed reforms, loose fiscal policy and accommodative monetary policy led to dynamic instability throughout these years. As a result, inflation climbed to 79 percent on average, budget deficit widened so much that the public sector borrowing requirement reached 15.5 percent of the GNP by 1999, the output growth was very low on average and volatile compared to other emerging markets. So, poor macroeconomic fundamentals and a fully liberalized capital account brought about vulnerability of the economy to external shocks and the Turkish economy faced severe financial crises and turbulences in the 90s. Such an environment had also important implications on the financial system.