【正文】
s stated aim of maintaining current total capital levels (and with QIS3),and provides an overall incentive to improve risk management. The effective RWAs(bining both credit and operational risk applied to different product types in Europe are likely to change by different amounts as shown in Figure3. Changes in corporate RWAs are heavily size is a key driver of the probability of default(PD) for corporations,RWAs are likely to rise for nonretail SMEs,while aggregate capital held against large corporations will biggest reductions are in retail products are also “l(fā)arge gainers” on average,though this includes potentially significant differences between personalloans,where capital requirements decrease,and credit cards,where increases may occur under the IRB ,which are mostly zeroweighted at the moment,are likely to see the biggest relative increases in minimum required capital. Similarly the effective RWAs applied to Western European countries are likely to vary based on differences in their aggregate portfolio splits and risk Nordic region,with a high concentration in retail lending and relatively low risk,will experience a substantial drop in overall RWAs under the IRB cont rast Italyand assuming current trends,Germanyare likely to see the biggest increases. In summary,changes to regulatory capital requirements will be a function of existing business mix,geography and sophistication of risk management and while most banks are likely to see a reduction in regulatory capital under IRB approaches,some banks will see these requirements ,together with the fact that a far greater proportion of bank portfolios will be rated as banks migrate to IRB approaches,is likely to provide further impetus to the use of credit risk transfer methods such as credit derivatives,securitization and trading in the secondary debt capital markets. Using Basel II to improve business performance The banking industry overall has so far evolved only slowly toward economicallybased shareholder value II should accelerate this trend because of its widespread contrast with the gradual diffusion of“bestpractice”,the Basel requirements will affect all banks in Europe(and a significant proportion of the banking assets held in North America),speeding up the“slowest ship in the convoy”. Moreover,the key stumbling block to effective implementation of economic capital and risk adjusted return on capital techniques has often been the lack of acredible quantitativebased internal rating with the new IRB approaches will provide most of the parameters needed to deliver these measures at a granular level in credit addition,the new capital requirement for operational risk will provide a basis(albeit currently imperfect) for attributing economic capital to noncredit or marketrisk intensive activities,such as asset management,custody or securities processing. As the new Basel II metrics are implemented in banks that have not yet integrated riskadjusted measures into their business systems,their experience is likely to mirror that of leading banks which have already made this of the key tactical improvements that can be expected include: Pricing for risk:Credit markets are not oriously ineffective in pricing for this is partly due to banks using credit as a loss leader to sell noncredit services,it also reflects the inability of many banks to quantify credit risk accurately at a sufficiently granular pliant rating tools will provide a strong basis for quantifying risk,and should go a long way toward instilling more effective riskpricing discipline. Credit process redesign for corporate and SME portfolios:IRBpliant rating tools can also serve as an excellent guide for aligning resources with risk in credit approval,limit setting,loan servicing and monitoring leveraging the information content of the new rating tools,banks can redesign expensive credit processes,making them“faster,better,and cheaper”. Operational risk improvement:The new focus on operational risk identification,loss reporting,monitoring,and con