While the IRB approaches promise greater capital savings in the longer term, the adoption of the standardized approach in the transition is considered a more pragmatic option even for some internationally active banking groups. Under the IRB approaches, banks would need to reach an agreement with the regulator in the countries they operate on the robustness of group internal estimates and validation. The standardized approach is therefore seen to provide the breathing space for a smooth transition to IRB approaches while at the same time allowing banking institutions to avail themselves of the benefits of capital savings. BIS Review 21/2004  3  Different approaches are adopted by regulators Ladies and Gentlemen, While there has been global acceptance of the broad principles of the new accord, differing implementation approaches are being adopted by different countries. In some countries, regulators have opted for the accord to be applied to all institutions while in others selected banks are being mandated specific approaches. Some other regulators have given greater flexibility for banks or have extended the timeline for the implementation of the new accord. These reflect the different considerations and priorities accorded by the various regulators in their policy agenda. In essence, the decision by national regulators are based on a number of common factors, namely, the stage of industry development and market infrastructure, the size and types of institutions involved, the regulatory philosophy and priorities, as well as the economic environment.
2 All three of these reasons – evidence that U.S. monetary policy is currently only moderately accommodative, the fact that U.S. financial conditions have been influenced by economic and financial market developments abroad, and risk management considerations – argue, at the moment, for caution in raising U.S. short-term interest rates. So, directionally, the movement in investor expectations towards a flatter path for U.S. short-term interest rates seems broadly appropriate. That said, to my eye, market expectations derived from futures prices – which price in about one 25 basis point rate hike through the end of 2017 – appear to be too complacent. If the incoming information validates my view of the outlook, then I believe that U.S. monetary policy will likely need to move at a faster pace than implied by futures prices towards a more neutral posture as the labor market tightens further and U.S. inflation rises. Moreover, market expectations may be putting insufficient weight on the possibility that the economy could outperform our expectations, that financial conditions could ease, or that the risks to growth from Brexit and other international developments could fade away. If such events were to occur, this might necessitate a faster pace of adjustment. For these reasons, I think it is premature to rule out further monetary policy tightening this year. As I said before, it depends on the data, broadly defined, and, as we all know, that is not something one can predict with any accuracy.