Sorry!! The article you are trying to read is not available now.
Thank you very much;
you're only a step away from
downloading your reports.

Preparing for the Changes in Bank Regulation

By

A future that has firms with safeguards?

PrintPRINT

Yesterday, Federal Reserve Governor Elizabeth Duke gave a speech at the AICPA on banks. She started with the standard reflection of what's happened, but the crux of her speech was focused on bank accounting and more importantly the new upcoming rules and regulatory changes.

She also spent a considerable amount of time on the collaboration between Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), and alluded to the impact of credit stemming from the upcoming implementation of FASB 166 and 167.

One thing I did find particularly interesting was her comments regarding reclassification.

It's my understanding that the new FASB/IASB rules will no longer allow banks to reclassify paper. Essentially, they'll include provisions prohibiting re-categorization of assets from level one, two, and three after they've been assigned to such. I believe the words used in the August 13 FASB board meeting discussions were something along the lines of "when they're put there…they stay there."

Her comments below allude to the same…

"To this end, safeguards should be implemented to eliminate a firm's ability to overstate gains or understate losses by switching back and forth between business models or by reclassifying assets from one business segment to another."


Her thoughts regarding the impact and capital restraint facing banks relating to G20, FASB/IASB combo, and FASB 166 and 167:

"The recent G20 agreement calls for a retention of risk, or "skin-in-the-game" approach for asset securitizations. It also calls for higher capital standards and a leverage ratio for all banks. If the risk retention requirements, combined with accounting standards governing the treatment of off-balance-sheet entities, make it impossible for firms to reduce the balance sheet through securitization and if, at the same time, leverage ratios limit balance sheet growth, we could be faced with substantially less credit availability. I'm not arguing with the accounting standards or the regulatory direction. I am just saying they must be coordinated to avoid potentially limiting the free flow of credit."


Less available credit... hmmm sounds kind of familiar.

< Previous
  • 1
Next >
No positions in stocks mentioned.
The information on this website solely reflects the analysis of or opinion about the performance of securities and financial markets by the writers whose articles appear on the site. The views expressed by the writers are not necessarily the views of Minyanville Media, Inc. or members of its management. Nothing contained on the website is intended to constitute a recommendation or advice addressed to an individual investor or category of investors to purchase, sell or hold any security, or to take any action with respect to the prospective movement of the securities markets or to solicit the purchase or sale of any security. Any investment decisions must be made by the reader either individually or in consultation with his or her investment professional. Minyanville writers and staff may trade or hold positions in securities that are discussed in articles appearing on the website. Writers of articles are required to disclose whether they have a position in any stock or fund discussed in an article, but are not permitted to disclose the size or direction of the position. Nothing on this website is intended to solicit business of any kind for a writer's business or fund. Minyanville management and staff as well as contributing writers will not respond to emails or other communications requesting investment advice.

Copyright 2011 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
PrintPRINT
 
Featured Videos

WHAT'S POPULAR IN THE VILLE