The Basel Committee’s consultative document on Pillar 3 disclosures for climate-related financial risks has evoked strong responses. Some feel that the proposed disclosures are not consistent with the objectives of Pillar 3. Some others support the proposals and suggest additional disclosures, including for nature-related financial risks. But what should be the way forward for climate-related disclosures? The author explains.
Author Archives: Amarendra Mohan
Supervision
Compliance with Basel Disclosure Requirements on climate-related financial risks: a desktop survey of select Asian and European banks[1]
25
Oct
Oct
This desktop survey assesses the extent to which 14 Asian and 6 European Banks are complying with the Basel Committee’s consultative document on disclosure requirements for climate-related financial risks. The survey shows that Asian banks are 25% compliant (63% for the European banks), highlighting that more work is needed to ensure full compliance.
10
Nov
Nov
The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS or the Basel Committee) has undertaken a lot of work on climate-related financial risks. This blog covers three themes from BCBS’ work on this topic: The focus on climate-related financial risks (and not the broader environment-, nature-, or ESG-related financial risks). Addressing climate-related financial risks within the […]
Financial Stability, Supervision
Loss Absorbency of Additional Tier 1 Capital Instruments under Basel III: The Credit Suisse Case
30
Oct
Oct
Background: Additional Tier 1 (AT1) Capital Instruments under Basel III During the global financial crisis (2007-2009), several banks had to be rescued through capital injections by their governments which led to supporting not only the depositors but also the investors in Additional Tier 1 (AT1) and Tier 2 regulatory capital instruments. Inadequate loss-absorption by regulatory […]