US President Donald Trump’s bank regulators will unveil this month a new draft of sweeping capital rules that would overhaul how big banks gauge their risks and in turn the funds they must put aside to absorb potential losses. The “Basel Endgame” rule has been mired in controversy since it was first unveiled in 2023 under the Democratic Biden administration, sparking a massive pushback from Wall Street banks who said it would hurt lending and the economy. Critics, meanwhile, say banks are flush with cash and that the changes will weaken critical rules introduced as a result of the 2007-09 crisis at a time when geopolitical shocks sparked by the Iran conflict and deteriorating private credit conditions are rattling markets. The new draft, combined with changes to other capital rules, will modestly reduce capital requirements for many lenders, Federal Reserve Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman said earlier this week. The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision is a panel convened by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Basel, Switzerland, which aims to ensure regulators globally apply similar minimum capital standards so that banks can survive loan losses during tough times. The committee’s “Basel III” standard was agreed after the 2007-09 global financial crisis. It includes numerous capital, leverage and liquidity requirements for banks. Regulators across the world have worked for years to implement many of those standards, and the so-called “endgame,” agreed in 2017, is the final iteration. The Fed is leading the project in the United States, along with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. The original 2023 Basel draft led by Bowman’s Democratic predecessor Michael Barr proposed raising capital by 16%. Big banks said it could hike their levels by as much as 20%. That came as a shock to the industry, which had expected the rule would shift capital around but keep overall levels mostly flat. In response, banks launched an unprecedented lobbying effort and public campaign – which included running attack adverts during football games – arguing the rules were unnecessary because banks were already well-capitalized, and that they would hurt lending, small businesses and the economy. Banks also threatened to sue. Barr pledged to rewrite the rule, but the three regulators could not agree a path forward, and the effort slipped into the Trump administration, which has generally sided with the industry. The US proposal would overhaul how large banks gauge their risk, and in turn, how much capital they should set aside as a cushion against potential losses. The main areas of focus are credit risk, market risk and operational risk. On Thursday, Bowman said the new proposal would “right-size” requirements to better capture risks, while minimizing overlaps. The changes would also give banks relief for activities regulators see as less risky and which they want to promote, such as mortgage lending. For smaller banks, the plan would create a new standardized measurement of risk which would “moderately reduce” their requirements and incentivize lending. Overall, Basel is still expected to raise capital slightly for the largest, riskiest banks. But when combined with changes to a surcharge levied on risky global or “GSIB” US banks, capital at the biggest Wall Street banks would shrink “a small amount,” she said. …
Switzerland will vote on capping its population at 10mn until 2050, a proposal that speaks to widespread concerns about high immigration but risks depriving the country of much-needed workers and shattering relations with the European Union. A popular vote is set for June 14, the government said this week. The initiative, launched by the right-wing Swiss People’s Party (SVP), wants to write into Switzerland’s constitution that the permanent resident population of the country shall not exceed 10mn people before 2050. In subsequent years, the limit would be adjusted annually by the Swiss government to account for any birth surplus. Under the slogan “preserving what we love,” backers of the initiative want to limit options for asylum-seekers and their families to permanently reside in Switzerland if the population exceeds 9.5mn people before 2050. In that event, the Swiss government “shall also seek to renegotiate international agreements that drive population growth,” according to the proposal. If the 10mn threshold is permanently crossed, authorities would be required to take all available measures to comply with the limit. That explicitly includes terminating a key agreement with the EU on the free movement of people. Switzerland’s population has risen rapidly this century, stirring concern that infrastructure is being stretched, rents are too high, and wages under pressure. While the population only passed 7mn in the mid-1990s, it is now over 9mn, growing faster than in most neighbouring countries and putting Switzerland on track to hit the SVP threshold before mid-century. …