Given the considerable attention on the Basel III reforms, it is easy to forget that a core mandate of the Basel Committee is with respect to its work on supervisory practices. 4 So this morning, allow me to share some thoughts on three areas with respect to banking supervision: i. The Next Phase – beyond the review on Capital and Liquidity rules; ii. Banking Supervision as a Craft; and iii. Supervisory Challenges and Opportunities. The next phase 5 As many of us will be familiar, the Basel III framework has a second Pillar that pertains to risk management and supervision including accounting for risks not captured under Pillar 1. Indeed, the Basel Committee devotes considerable attention to various pieces of work under this Pillar, such as on stress testing, accounting standards, corporate governance and supervisory colleges. Disclosure requirements are further reviewed under Pillar 3 to foster market discipline. 6 Following the recent finalisation of Basel III, the next phase will be centred on a “full, timely and consistent” implementation globally. This is important to reduce risk of regulatory arbitrage. Every jurisdiction or region will of course be different in the degree of openness, internationalisation, and the maturity and sophistication of their banking systems. The Basel Committee has been 1/5  BIS central bankers' speeches  mindful that its standards are calibrated as minimum requirements, and in limited situations, some supervisory discretions have been provided including the use of Pillar 2. 7 Risk proportionality is not a new concept in international banking rules.
The Basel Committee has sought to further embed risk proportionality within its framework. One such example is the simplified alternative to the Standardised Approach to Market Risk, or SA-MR in short. This simplified alternative will make it easier for supervisory authorities to implement the market risk rules for less complex banks. For such simplified approaches to be fit-for-purpose, it has to take into account the differing conditions across a broad range of jurisdictions. This is especially so for emerging market economies with less complex banking systems. In this respect, forums such as the Basel’s Regional Consultative Group (RCG) and the Executives’ Meeting of East Asia-Pacific Central Banks (EMEAP) can be important platforms for regional regulators to continue to provide feedback or regional concerns. Where the outcomes from impact studies are less certain, the Basel Committee has been careful not to rush into a particular rule. One example is the treatment of sovereign risk exposures. In this case, the Basel Committee has decided to put out a discussion paper to solicit further views. 8 The Financial Stability Institute (FSI) has also recently published an insightful report on proportionality in banking regulation. The report provides a very useful overview of the proportionality approaches in different jurisdictions. 9 Another example is the Financial Stability Board’s (FSB) evaluation of effects of reforms. The initial focus is on infrastructure financing, which will be relevant to Asia given the immense infrastructure demands.