【正文】 counting Standard(IAS) Board to ensure consistency between overlapping reporting ,we expect these new requirements to set the standard for future reporting by financial service institutions globally. Winners and losers Moving to a more risksensitive framework means that capital requirements will change across business lines,banks and ,in turn,means that there will be winners and losers in terms of capital requirement sunder Basel identify the winners and the losers,we have analyzed Basel II39。s impact on the various factors that make up the minimum capital requirements for credit and operational risk[1].Our analysis plements the results of the final quantitative impact study(QIS3),which was published by the Basel Committee on 5 May key difference between our results and QIS3 is that we aim to assess the ultimate impact of Basel II,whereas QIS3 refects the current status quo where,for example,only the relatively sophisticated banks are capable of estimating the credit capital requirements using the IRB approaches. Our estimates indicate that total minimum capital requirements for the banking industry as a whole will be roughly unchanged under the IRB foundation approach,increase under the standardized approach and decrease under IRB is consistent with Basel II39。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 non