Download (PDF,6 MB) - Antidiskriminierungsstelle

page 115 chapter II
the supervisory bodies, too, failed to detect and cor-
rect unacceptable developments in time – occasion-
ally despite unequivocal signs. Finally, the law-makers
left regulatory gaps open too long in some instances,
one example being the hesitant implementation of
the new capital requirements and supervision standards
for banks (“Basel II”) in the USA.
However, it‘s not now a question of assigning blame,
but of assuming responsibility and drawing the necessary
conclusions for the future. I therefore think it
quite right that intensive thought is now being given
to the stability of the global financial markets. That
certainly also includes appropriate and better rules.
For me, the following are key aspects:
I The strengthening of capitalisation in the internainternational bank system is to be welcomed. New requirements
regarding capital must, however, also give
consideration to the current market situation. The
timing is important in order not to stimulate procyclical
effects.
I Global markets additionally need global supervisupervision without regulatory and competence gaps. So,
coordination between the national supervisory authorities
needs to be improved.
I The mechanisms for early detection of crises should
also be expanded. The International Monetary Fund
(IMF) can play a central role in this context.
I Fourth, rating agencies must be supervised better –
or for the first time, to be more precise. The integrity
and impartiality of the external rating process
must be guaranteed by means of corresponding
specifications.