【正文】 jurisdictions and the implications these might have for the calculation of regulatory capital. This review of banks’ riskweighting practices includes the use of test portfolio exercises, horizontal reviews of practices across banks and jurisdictions, and joint onsite visits to large, internationallyactive banks. The Basel Committee firmly believes that full, timely and consistent implementation of Basel III among its members is essential for restoring confidence in the regulatory framework for banks and to help ensure a safe and stable global banking system. The Committee will provide an updated progress report to G20 Finance Ministers and central bank governors at their meeting in November 2012. That report will provide (i) an update on Basel Committee members’ domestic rulemaking, (ii) the final oute of the regulatory consistency assessment of the European Union, Japan and the United States, and (iii) preliminary findings from the Committee’s deeper analysis on banks’ risk measurement approaches and regulatory capital calculations. 2 Report to G20 Leaders on Basel III implementation8 With the exception of the most advanced approaches which were expected to be made available from the end of 2007. This interim report is based on the information that was available to the Basel Committee on 31 May 2012. Subsequent to this date, further information has bee available in both the EU and US but there has been insufficient time to assess whether these latest developments are pliant with the Basel text for this interim report. Basel standards In June 2004, a package of reforms known as Basel II introduced more risksensitive minimum capital requirements for banks, including an enhanced measurement of credit risk, and capture of operational risk. Basel II also reinforced the requirements by setting out principles for banks to assess the adequacy of their capital and for supervisors to review such assessments to ensure banks have the necessary capital to support their risks. It also strengthened market discipline by enhancing transparency in banks’ financial reporting. The deadline for implementation of the Basel II framework by member jurisdictions was the end of In July 2009, enhancements to the measurement of risks related to securitisation and trading book exposures were agreed in response to early lessons from the 2007/08 crisis. An implementation deadline of the end of 2011 was set for these reforms, referred to as Basel . In December 2010, the Basel Committee published Basel III, a prehensive set of reforms to raise the resilience of banks. Basel III addresses both firmspecific and broader, systemic risks by: Raising the quality of capital, with a focus on mon equity, and the quantity to ensure banks are better able to absorb losses。 Enhancing the coverage of risk, in particular for capital market activities。 Introducing additional capital buffers for the most systemically important institutions to address the issue of “too big to fail”。 Introducing an internationally harmonised leverage ratio to serve as a backstop to the riskbased capital measure and to contain the buildup of excessive leverage in the system。 Stronger standards for supervision (Pillar 2), public disclosures (Pillar 3), and risk management。 Introducing minimum global liquidity standards to improve banks’ resilience to acute short term stress and to improve longer term funding。 and Introducing capital buffers which should be built up in good times so that they can be drawn down during periods of stress. The implementation period starts from 1 January 2013 and includes transitional arrangements until 1 January 2019. The transitional arrangements are available to give banks time to meet the higher standards, while still supporting lending to the economy. Report to G20 Leaders on Basel III implementation 39 To be included after the Committee concludes its review on any revisions or final adjustments 10 Progress report on Basel III implementation, October 2011 and April 2012, , The liquidity requirements, leverage ratio and systemic surcharges e into force on a phased approach starting from 2015 and will, therefore, be assessed later9 and are not covered in this report. Design of the Committee’s Basel III Implementation Review Programme In January 2012, the Group of Central Bank Governors and Heads of Supervision (GHOS), the Basel Committee’s oversight body, endorsed the prehensive process proposed by the Committee to monitor members’ implementation of Basel III. The process consists of the following three levels of review: Level 1: ensuring the timely adoption of Basel III。 Level 2: ensuring regulatory consistency with Basel III。 and Level 3: ensuring consistency of outes (initially focusing on riskweighted assets). The Basel Committee has published two “Level 1” progress It has agreed on a detailed “Level 2” assessment process and started reviews of the European Union, Japan and the United States. Its “Level 3” reviews analyse existing data on risk measured by banks’ models and are designing processes for deeper analysis. The Basel Committee has worked in close collaboration with the Financial Stability Board (FSB) given the FSB’s role in coordinating the monitoring of implementation of regulatory reforms. The Committee designed its programme to be consistent with the FSB’s Coordination Framework for Monitoring the Implementation of Financial Reforms (CFIM) agreed by the G20. The objectives and the process of each of the three levels of review are as follows. Level 1: Timely adoption of Basel III The objective of the “Level 1” assessment is to ensure that Basel III is transformed into domestic regulations according to the agreed international timelines. It does not include the review of the content or substance of the domestic rules. Each Basel Committee member jurisdiction’s status is reported in a simple table. Separately, the Fi