Bank of England to ease rules for smaller and mid-sized banks
The Bank said its Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) has pushed back the start of a new internal model approach for considering risk in the market by a year to January 1 2028.
It said the latest proposals will allow time 'for greater clarity to emerge in other jurisdictions' amid uncertainty how President Trump will implement the global Basel rules in the US.
The Basel 3 regime was first drawn up in the aftermath of the financial crisis to increase the amount of equity available to absorb stress from banks in an effort to avoid future state bailouts.
The Bank of England said it will continue with plans to launch the majority of its modified Basel 3.1 rules at the start of 2027.
It had previously delayed the start by a year in the face of uncertainty in the global financial markets.
Basel 3.1 is set to promote 'banking resilience', according to the PRA, but comes as the Chancellor seeks reduce regulation in a bid to drive growth.
On Tuesday, the Bank said it would also change restrictions it claims will drive growth opportunities among smaller and mid-sized banks.
It will push forward with its 'strong and simple framework', which will reduce capital rules for smaller non-systemic banks and building societies, providing them with simpler restrictions than the largest UK banks.
The PRA said it is also putting forward prospective plans to make it easier for mid-sized banks to compete in the mortgage market.
It will publish a paper this summer with options to help-mid-sized banks grow by adjusting some barriers to securing permissions in providing residential mortgages.
Sam Woods, chief executive of the PRA and deputy governor for prudential regulation at the Bank, said: 'Today's announcements will give certainty to firms of all sizes about the future capital framework, bring in a simpler regime for smaller banks, make it easier for mid-sized banks to scale up in the mortgage market, and allow an extra year for part of the implementation of new investment banking rules.'
Dave Ramsden, deputy governor for markets and banking at the Bank, said: 'We have considered and reflected industry feedback in today's announcements.
'These changes are designed to foster growth and competition, recognising that smaller firms present lower risks to financial stability, whilst also maintaining size-appropriate resolvability capabilities.'
The rule changes come ahead of the Chancellor's Mansion House speech to financial industry bosses, where she is expected to launch further cuts of industry red tape.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
9 minutes ago
- NBC News
Coca-Cola dodges after Trump says soda will switch back to cane sugar
President Donald Trump on Wednesday said Coca-Cola in the U.S. will begin to be made with cane sugar, but the company did not explicitly say that was the case when asked later about the president's claim. In a Truth Social post Wednesday afternoon, Trump said he had been speaking to Coca-Cola about using cane sugar in the sodas sold in the U.S., and that the company agreed to his idea. "This will be a very good move by them — You'll see. It's just better!" Trump wrote in the post. But Coca-Cola did not commit to the change when asked later by NBC News about Trump's social media post. "We appreciate President Trump's enthusiasm for our iconic Coca-Cola brand," a company spokesperson said in a statement. "More details on new innovative offerings within our Coca-Cola product range will be shared soon." It remains unclear whether Coca-Cola agreed to Trump's cane sugar proposal, or if the beloved soda will still be made with corn syrup going forward. The Trump administration's Make America Healthy Again initiative, named for the social movement aligned with Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has pushed food companies to alter their formulations to remove ingredients like artificial dyes. Coca-Cola produced for the U.S. market is typically sweetened with corn syrup, while the company uses cane sugar in some other countries, including Mexico and various European nations. The company in 1984 announced it was going to 'significantly increase' the amount of corn syrup it was using in its U.S. products, the New York Times reported at the time. Coca-Cola said it would use corn syrup to sweeten bottled and canned Coke, as well as caffeine Coke, but left itself 'flexibility' to use other sweeteners like sugar or high-fructose corn syrup, the Times reported. Kennedy has been critical of the amount of sugar consumed in the American diet and has said that updated dietary guidelines released this summer will advise Americans to eat "whole food." Trump has been known to enjoy Coca-Cola products. Diet Coke button, which allows the president to order the soda on demand, has joined him in the Oval Office for both of his terms.
Reuters
41 minutes ago
- Reuters
Most Japan firms want extra budget as Trump tariffs loom, Reuters poll shows
TOKYO, July 17 (Reuters) - More than two-thirds of Japanese firms believe the government should compile an extra budget later this year to mitigate the impact of U.S. President Donald Trump's new tariffs and rising prices, a Reuters survey showed on Thursday. Trump informed Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba last week of a 25% tariff on Japanese imports from August 1, though he hinted there was room for negotiations. On car imports, the Trump administration has already imposed a new 25% tariff, making the total auto tariff rate 27.5%, a matter of particular concern for Japan, which counts the auto industry as the main pillar of its economy. About 71% of respondents to Reuters' survey said a supplementary budget should be drafted following this weekend's national elections, where Ishiba will be fighting to keep his coalition's upper house majority. "Given Trump tariffs, full-blown economic measures are necessary," a manager at a wholesaler wrote in the survey. Japan has compiled a supplementary budget every year in recent years to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, to help the public cope with rising prices and to fund other government initiatives, with last year's totalling about 14 trillion yen ($94.05 billion). But this year, any extra government expenses are bound to come under heightened scrutiny, with long-term bond yields rising sharply on concerns about the nation's fiscal health. Corporate Japan favours stimulus measures such as deregulation, sales tax reductions, and subsidies for companies and households, the survey showed. Ishiba has proposed cash handouts to help households cope with rising prices, while opposition parties are campaigning to cut or abolish the sales tax. Regarding financing for stimulus, only 14% supported issuing government bonds, while 38% advocated for cuts elsewhere and 36% proposed using surplus tax revenue. The survey was conducted by Nikkei Research for Reuters between July 2 and July 11. Nikkei Research reached out to 497 companies and 241 responded on condition of anonymity. Opinions were sought on the merits of a stock market listing. While 54% of respondents said the upside of being publicly traded outweighed the downside, 25% found the pros and cons balanced, and 20% said the disadvantages exceeded the benefits. The Tokyo Stock Exchange in 2023 urged listed firms to focus on their share prices and engage actively with investors, prompting a wave of share buybacks that bolstered the market but raised administrative costs. "Levels of requirements for listed firms, including disclosure, are getting higher each of staying listed are getting bigger and cost-effectiveness (of being listed) is becoming less palpable," an official at a machinery maker said. Among specific benefits of being listed, 80% of respondents highlighted the establishment of public trust, 70% cited competitive advantage in recruitment, and 45% pointed to easier capital raising. On executive remuneration, 60% of respondents said compensation should be raised, while 34% said current levels were sufficient. "There is a gap between the global standard (and Japanese levels), and that is making acquiring talent difficult," a manager at an electronics manufacturer said. The median annual compensation for presidents or CEOs at top Japanese companies is 190 million yen, just 6% of the earnings of U.S. counterparts, according to data compiled last month by Deloitte Tohmatsu Group. ($1 = 148.8600 yen)
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Broke Britain: how the Bank of England wrecked the economy
In February 2020, a few weeks before Britain was thrown into lockdown, Sajid Javid resigned as chancellor of the exchequer over a bust-up with the prime minister's chief adviser, Dominic Cummings. The fight was thought to be over Cummings's attempts to dictate who could and could not work in No. 11. In fact, it was just one skirmish in a long-running and bitter power struggle between the two men. Two months before his resignation, Javid had claimed victory in a different battle against Cummings – one over who would occupy the governor's office at the Bank of England. Cummings wanted Andy Haldane, then the Bank's chief economist, who he believed was intellectually curious, allergic to groupthink and might give the Bank the shake-up it needed. Javid put his foot down: it had to be Andrew Bailey, then chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority. Five years on, the British economy is teetering on the brink. Beneath it lies a deep fiscal hole, created by billions of pounds of unfunded spending – never-ending health promises, a spiralling welfare bill and a triple lock on the state pension which will cost three times as much as originally estimated. Then there is the crushing burden of debt interest, which costs twice the defence budget, pulling the nation closer to financial collapse. The Bank and its Governor have one job that matters above all: keeping inflation under control. Bailey and the other eight members of the Bank's Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) are legally required to keep inflation at 2 per cent. For 46 of the 64 months that Bailey has been Governor, inflation has been above that target. At worst, it was in double digits. Politicians deserve much of the blame for the country's economic state. But behind four prime ministers over the past five years has been Bailey – the banker who has enabled their recklessness and whose decisions will determine the extent to which we can recover. Britain is addicted to cheap money and Bailey has been happy to deal it out. In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, central banks across the world slashed interest rates and flooded markets with cash. Bailey was chief cashier of the Bank during this period. His signature appeared on the notes being printed. He was a symbol of this new age of cheap money, as well as an architect. Later, to finance pandemic spending during the Covid lockdowns, including the £70 billion furlough scheme, he let the money printers go into overdrive. Initially, the Bank created £200 billion. This was followed by another £100 billion and then a further £150 billion, just in time for Christmas. At the peak of his quantitative easing (QE) programme, nearly half a trillion pounds of new money had been pumped into the economy – suspiciously close to the amount the government ended up borrowing. During the 2008 crash, QE at least stayed largely confined within the banking system. In the Covid era, with the government's furlough scheme as the conduit, billions of pounds entered households and businesses directly. Inflation shot up. 'It's QE that's really put us up the shitter,' says one bank staffer. Every developed country printed money during the pandemic. But as prices started rising, Bailey appeared unconcerned. Even as inflation was reaching double the Bank's 2 per cent limit, he kept describing it as 'transitory'. Haldane, by comparison, spent the summer of 2021 warning that an inflation spiral was coming and the only way to counter it was to raise interest rates urgently. Bailey shrugged off the suggestion. 'Raising interest rates won't produce more gas,' he said in the autumn of that year. 'It won't produce more semiconductor chips.' Bailey's allies also treated warnings of a lasting inflationary risk with derision. One close confidant was seen rolling their eyes during a lecture on Friedrich Hayek – the free-market economist who warned that once inflation starts to spiral, it's nearly impossible to stop it. Now, after runaway inflation and a cost-of-living crisis, the Bank is desperately trying to play catch-up through quantitative tightening (QT) – essentially shredding the money it printed. But the cost of its mistakes is evident. According to the Financial Times, the process of buying and selling gilts to fund money-printing has led to a spectacular loss: four times what the US Federal Reserve lost. There is perhaps no one angrier at Bailey than Liz Truss. The former prime minister and her allies believe the Bank destroyed her premiership – and there are those in the world of finance who agree. 'Bailey is an absolute weapon and completely out of his depth,' says one investment banker. 'He's largely responsible for the fall of Truss.' Truss's defenders argue that the pension crisis, which came about in the days after her September 2022 mini-Budget and threatened to crash the entire bond market, is evidence of the Bank's fatal complacency, rather than her recklessness. Liability Driven Investments (LDIs), used by pension funds, were far more vulnerable to changes in interest rates then the Bank ever predicted. And it was Bailey's interest rate policy – ultra-low borrowing costs followed by sharp hikes – that made the system so volatile. The Bank announced gilt-selling just days before the mini-Budget, further pushing yields up. When the sell-off began, Bailey intervened – but gave pension funds only three days to 'get this done', which insiders say worsened the panic. The Bank later admitted the system was unstable before Truss's Budget. Regulators – overseen by Bailey – overlooked the risks. The Bank's own figures suggest nearly two-thirds of the spike in yields was not because of the mini-Budget but the LDI sell-off. The bomb had been armed long before 2022; Truss just happened to strike the match. One of the Bank's big problems is its failure to produce accurate forecasting. A review led by Ben Bernanke, former chairman of the US Federal Reserve, found that its forecasting process was riddled with outdated models – its main one, 'Compass', was deemed unfit for purpose. Bernanke concluded that the Bank's performance was merely 'middle of the pack' – a blow to the credibility of the world's sixth-largest economy. In November 2021, after more than £500 billion was printed in just under two years, the Bank forecast inflation would peak at 4.8 per cent. In fact, it hit 11 per cent. During the pandemic, Threadneedle Street's GDP projections were the worst among major central banks. Britain was flying blind, refusing to acknowledge the disastrous state it was in. The result of all this, according to one former City chief executive, has been a generational delusion. 'If you think you can borrow close to zero, you are out of your mind,' he says. 'A large part of the population [suffered] when cheap debt suddenly became expensive debt. Bailey was asleep at the wheel.' The willingness of Bailey and his MPC to indulge the fantasy of 'free money' has had consequences beyond persistent inflation. It has created a drag on growth which is likely to continue for years. It has distorted the mortgage market even further, as a third of mortgage-holders still haven't had to grapple with refinancing since interest rates spiked. Perhaps most importantly, it has rewired how a generation of politicians and the public think about government spending and emergency support. Even as inflation rises again – the current rate is 3.6 per cent, almost double the Bank's supposed limit – Bailey talks about the prospect of interest rate cuts. Experts can't believe what they're hearing: the job of driving down inflation is not yet done, and yet the MPC has become, in the words of one former member, 'gung-ho'. Bailey's term as Governor isn't over until 2028. The only way governors leave office is by resigning or by going personally bankrupt. Mostly, it's a job you keep as long as you want it. But some in the City say it shouldn't be. 'If you were out by five times in normal businesses, you'd be sacked,' one former CEO tells me, referring to the Bank's missed inflation target. Still, Bailey has his defenders. They shift the blame for the concept of 'free money' on his predecessor Mark Carney, who normalised money printing after the financial crash. Others point out that Bailey is just one vote of nine on the MPC. The Governor can have great influence on the direction of monetary policy, but he is not an all-ruling king. Where Bailey's critics and friends agree is that he's 'steady and dull'. Perhaps, though, these times demand someone braver. One of Bailey's greatest sins has been to let groupthink take over the Bank. 'We need an operator, not a technocrat,' one senior industry figure says. Mervyn King, the former governor, has privately questioned Bailey's management and communication ability. Reform UK, who are at around 30 per cent in the polls, want to overhaul the Bank's independence and take particular issue with the interest paid on printed money given to banks and the losses experienced under QT. But one senior trader warns that any change to Bank independence risks a 'Reform premium' of two to four points on the cost of borrowing – tens of billions of pounds. Either way, many economists believe we're hurtling towards a crisis. Last year Britain's fiscal watchdog, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), warned debt could pass 600 per cent of GDP in 50 years. Yet it's hard to get a definitive idea from anyone of what that future crisis looks like. That's because it may not take the form of a sudden collapse, but more a constant state of anxiety. It's why the Treasury now operates like a liquidity manager, with departments scrambling just to keep up with inflation. It's why the government lives in fear of how the bond market will react to its announcements. It's why Peter Mandelson spent the run-up to last year's general election warning Keir Starmer that he could not afford to govern like a new Tony Blair. It's why one MP recently asked why 'just a few billion' from the government's welfare U-turn requires tax rises. It's why, as the OBR puts it, public expectations of the state 'seem to be rising' and yet many voters seem to believe that their expectations can be met without higher taxes. They can't be. But this is what monetary complacency looks like. This is what Bailey has enabled. Perhaps no one can say what a crisis will look like because we're not hurtling towards one – we're already living through it.
