Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Why Governor Barr opposed the capital‑rule package
Loading...
Summary
Governor Barr dissented to the Board's decision to publish three capital‑rule proposals, saying they contain multiple downward deviations from Basel III, weaken market‑risk and GSIB measures, and could materially lower capital for the largest banks, increasing systemic vulnerability.
Governor Barr delivered a detailed dissent after the Board approved issuing three capital‑rule proposals for notice and comment.
Barr said the package includes many ‘‘material downward deviations’’ from the international Basel III standards that, in the aggregate, would weaken the U.S. capital framework. He cited specific objections: a proposed reduction in the GSIB short‑term wholesale funding component from about 30% to 20% (which he argued understates the growing reliance on such funding when measured relative to risk‑weighted assets), a one‑time downward adjustment to method‑2 coefficients that he said substitutes coordination for principled calibration, and multiple changes to market‑risk and securitization treatments that he said relax intended Basel protections (for example, removing an output floor and using the standardized approach as a cap rather than a floor).
Barr recited several quantitative points: staff tables show some market‑risk CET1 decreases (e.g., a 6% reduction in one market‑risk table) and the package combined with stress‑test and other recent changes would lead to a 4.8% decline in CET1 for the largest banks; he warned the aggregate effect could be larger when combined with recent changes to the enhanced supplementary leverage ratio.
He framed his opposition around financial stability: banks’ reliance on short‑term wholesale funding can leave them vulnerable to runs, and reducing the measured impact of that funding in the GSIB surcharge calculation weakens a safeguard intended to guard against such vulnerabilities. He also warned that making many downward deviations could spur a ‘‘race to the bottom’’ internationally if other jurisdictions follow.
Barr concluded by saying he could not support the proposals as presented and recorded his formal dissent on the record. The Board nevertheless approved issuance of the notices with Barr as the lone no vote.
