Market risk charge of the trading book: a comparison of the Basel II and Basel III

This paper aims to investigate if the market capital charge of the trading book increased in Basel III compared to Basel II. I showed that the capital charge rises by 232% and 182% under the standardized and internal model, respectively. The varying liquidity horizons, the calibration to a stress period, the introduction of credit spread risk, the restrictions on correlations across risk categories and the incremental default charge boost Basel III requirements. Nevertheless, the impact of Expected shortfall at 97.5% is low and long term shocks decrease the charge. The standardized approach presents advantages and disadvantages relative to internal models.

Systemic risk for financial institutions in UK

Marginal Expected Shortfall (MES) is an approach used to measure the systemic risk financial institutions face. It estimates how significantly systemic events (poor market performance, out of 1.6 times Standard Deviation borders) are expected to affect market capitalization of a particular firm. The concept was developed in the late 2000s and is widely used for cross-country comparisons of financial firms. For the purposes of generalization of this technique it is often used with market data containing non-domestic currencies for some financial firms. That may lead to results having currency noise in them as it is shown for 77 UK financial firms in our analysis between 2001 and 2014.