Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Benli, Vahit Ferhan
Year of Publication: 
[Journal:] e-Finanse: Financial Internet Quarterly [ISSN:] 1734-039X [Volume:] 11 [Year:] 2015 [Issue:] 3 [Pages:] 70-91
Although Basel II fortified the first two pillars with market transparency enhancing Pillar III disclosures and encouraged the usage of major Credit Rating Agencies (CRAs) such as Moody's, Standard and Poor's, and Fitch as quasi governmental authorities to overcome asymmetric informational problems on risk and capital adequacy fronts of the global financial system, the recent global financial crisis has proven just the opposite. The banks and regulators were not in a position to truly assess the risk and capital adequacy frameworks of the global and domestic financial institutions based on the assessments of the rating agencies. To overcome the problem of informational asymmetry for the market participants, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision set out new proposals for enhanced Pillar III disclosures in the areas of credit risks and capital reporting standards on the forefront of Basel III that would come into effect on April 1, 2016. This paper is a critical evaluation of the new reporting proposals of BCBS within the critical role of the credit rating agencies.
Market Transparency
Basel II Pillar III
Bank Risk and Capital Reporting
Credit Rating Agencies
Expected Default Frequency (EDF)
Moody’s Analytics
Persistent Identifier of the first edition: 
Document Type: 

Files in This Item:

Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.