Banking supervision and regulation : 2nd report of session 2008-09
Author(s)
Bibliographic Information
Banking supervision and regulation : 2nd report of session 2008-09
(HL paper, 101-1)
Stationery Office, [c2009]
- v. 1
- Other Title
-
Banking supervision and regulation : Economic Affairs Committee 2nd report 2008-09
Available at 1 libraries
  Aomori
  Iwate
  Miyagi
  Akita
  Yamagata
  Fukushima
  Ibaraki
  Tochigi
  Gunma
  Saitama
  Chiba
  Tokyo
  Kanagawa
  Niigata
  Toyama
  Ishikawa
  Fukui
  Yamanashi
  Nagano
  Gifu
  Shizuoka
  Aichi
  Mie
  Shiga
  Kyoto
  Osaka
  Hyogo
  Nara
  Wakayama
  Tottori
  Shimane
  Okayama
  Hiroshima
  Yamaguchi
  Tokushima
  Kagawa
  Ehime
  Kochi
  Fukuoka
  Saga
  Nagasaki
  Kumamoto
  Oita
  Miyazaki
  Kagoshima
  Okinawa
  Korea
  China
  Thailand
  United Kingdom
  Germany
  Switzerland
  France
  Belgium
  Netherlands
  Sweden
  Norway
  United States of America
Note
v. 1. Report
"Ordered to be printed 19 May 2009 and published 2 June 2009"
Description and Table of Contents
Description
2007 and 2008 saw the biggest financial crisis since the 1930s. Banks looking for better yields from plentiful, cheap money made much more use of complex financial instruments, without fully understanding the risks to which they were exposing themselves and the financial system. Defaults on subprime mortgages underlying some of the instruments shattered confidence and financial markets seized up. The framework of regulation and supervision in Britain failed to avoid or mitigate the crisis. The tripartite authorities in the United Kingdom - Bank of England, Financial Services Authority (FSA) and HM Treasury - failed to maintain financial stability and were found wanting, in part because the roles of the three parties were not well enough defined and it was not clear who was in charge. Too little attention was paid to macro-prudential supervision (oversight of the aggregate impact on financial stability of individual banks' actions). Only the Bank of England and the FSA were in a position to assess it.
The FSA concentrated on its responsibility for conduct-of-business supervision (concerned mainly with consumer protection) and did not pay full attention to the solvency and sustainability of individual banks. It also had an inadequate understanding of the complexity and limitations of the risk assessment models used by the banks it was supervising. The Banking Act 2009 showed the Government had learnt the lesson that special resolution provisions are needed for banks, since their failure can threaten the whole financial system. The Committee calls on the Government urgently to revisit the tripartite supervisory system in the United Kingdom and it should return responsibility for macro-prudential supervision to the Bank of England. Other recommendations cover bank capital regulation, ratings agencies, and bank governance.
by "Nielsen BookData"