MANAGEMENT OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

FIN405 | SECTION 1 | SUMMER 2020

ASSIGNMENT NO. 2

Submitted to,
Md. Rayatul Islam
Adjunct Faculty,
Department of Finance
School of Business and Entrepreneurship
Independent University, Bangladesh

Submitted by,
Group No. 7
Ehsanul Rakib 1730888
Shihab Zulfiker 1731004
Sumaiya Akter Tonni 1722244
Fahim Ahmed 1721572
Munabbir Ahmmed Ayan 1721860

Date of Submission: 4th October 2020, Sunday

 Letter of Transmittal
Date: 4th October 2020. Sunday
Mr. Md. Rayatul Islam
Adjunct Faculty,
Department of Finance
School of Business and Entrepreneurship
Independent University, Bangladesh.

Subject: Submission of assignment on Challenges of Basel III Accord for Bangladesh Banking
System.

Sir,
With due respect, the assignment on Challenges of Basel III Accord for Bangladesh Banking
has been submitted to you. The assignment has been made as per your guidelines and we would
be thankful if you please give your insightful and altruistic judgment on our effort.

Sincerely,
Ehsanul Rakib,
Shihab Zulfiker,
Sumaiya Akter Tonni,
Fahim Ahmed,
Munabbir Ahmmed Ayan.
 Acknowledgement
We owe a gratitude towards those people who supported us in many ways. Without great support
of our respected faculty, Mr. Md. Rayatul Islam, it would not be possible to conduct this
assignment. He has always been very responsive in providing necessary information. Without his
generous support the assignment would lack in accurate information and it could have been an
incomplete one.
 Table of Contents
Introduction.................................................................................................................................................. 1
Literature Review ......................................................................................................................................... 2
Overview of Basel III ................................................................................................................................... 3
Challenges for Bangladesh Banking System .............................................................................................. 6
Improving the Risk Architecture ............................................................................................................... 12
Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................. 13
Reference .................................................................................................................................................... 14
Introduction
Banks and the regulators all over the world have been concerned about the risks of implementing
more stringent rules of Basel III. Bangladesh Bank (BB) issued Guidelines on Risk Based Capital
Adequacy (a revised regulatory capital framework for banks in line with Basel III) in December
2014, in accordance with Basel III, a global regulatory framework for more resilient banks and
banking systems, issued by Basel Committee for Banking Supervision (BCBS) in 2010.
The Basel III accelerating the strengths of the stability of the banking system through engaging
stringent standards and policies designed for improving the capacity to absorb shocks from
economic factors and reducing the risk of contagion from the financial factors toward economy
(Walter, 2010). The new set standards and policies has been established to take into the
consideration towards the improvement of risk management, increase in the transparency with the
requirements of disclosure of credit institution.
Basel III came out with a comprehensive set of reform measures by correcting flaws perceived in
Basel II, emphasizing the improvement of quantity and quality of capital base of the banks coupled
with stricter liquidity rules with stronger supervision, better governance & risk management as
well as strengthens bank’s transparency & disclosure standards. Basel III reform package also
addresses the lessons of the financial crisis. Bangladesh has adopted new rules phased in under
Basel III in 2015 to strengthen the regulations of the banking sector for creating a sounder and
safer financial system of the country. But Basel III is not flawless. There are challenges the banking
sector of Bangladesh is being faced while implementing Basel III framework in Bangladesh.

1
Literature Review
The desirability of the Basel III regulations is hotly debated. One strand of literature argues that
there are significant macroeconomic benefits from raising bank equity. Higher capital
requirements lower leverage and the risk of bank bankruptcies (see e.g. Admati et al., 2010).
Another strand of literature points out that there could be significant costs of implementing regime
with higher capital requirements (Angelini et al., 2011).
Blundell Wignall and Atkinson (2010) point out a number of shortcomings with the Basel III
framework, part of which are rooted in Basel II. They criticize that promises in the financial system
are not treated equally, regardless of where they are located. The authors further argue that the risk
weighting approach might not work well together with the leverage ratio.
In addition, Cosimano and Hakura (2011) confirm those banks’ responses to higher capital
requirements will vary considerably from one economy to another, reflecting crosscountry
variations in the tightness of capital constraints, banks’ net cost of raising equity, and elasticity of
loan demand with respect to changes in loan rates.
Several studies have examined the impact of higher capital requirements on bank lending rates and
the volume of lending. Kashyap et al., (2010) calibrate key parameters of the United States’
banking system to identify the impact of an increase in the equity to asset ratio.
In its interim report Macroeconomic Assessment Group of the Bank for International Settlements,
(MAG 2010a) assumed that Basel III requirements will be achieved primarily through a
combination of increases in lending spreads and a tightening of lending standards, particularly in
riskier parts of loan portfolios. These will have an impact on the economy by reducing debt
financed investment and consumption.
Higher capital requirements will increase banks’ marginal cost of loans if, contrary to the
Modigliani-Miller (1958) Theorem, the marginal cost of capital is greater than the marginal cost
of deposits, i.e. if there is a net cost of raising capital. In that case, a higher cost of equity financing
relative to debt financing, would lead banks to raise the price of their lending and could slow loan
growth and hold back the economic recovery.
Rajan (2008) states that the recent turmoil in global money markets has revealed that some banks
had set aside an inadequate amount of capital to meet a cash squeeze.
Ernst and Young (2008) revealed that Basel II has changed the competitive landscape for banking.
Those organizations with better risk systems are expected to benefit at the expense of those which
have been slower to absorb change due to increased use of risk transfer instruments. It also
concluded that portfolio risk management would become more active, driven by the availability of
better and more timely risk information as well as the differential capital requirements resulting
from Basel II.

2
Overview of Basel III
The Basel III accord is a set of monetary reforms that was developed by the Basel Committee on
Banking Supervision (BCBS), with the aim of strengthening regulation, supervision, and risk
management within the banking system. thanks to the impact of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis
on banks, Basel III was introduced to enhance the banks’ ability to handle shocks from financial
stress and to strengthen their transparency and disclosure. Basel III is an extension of the prevailing
Basel II Framework, and introduces new capital and liquidity standards to strengthen the
regulation, supervision and decreasing bank leverage and risk management of the entire of the
banking and finance sector.
It was prescribed by the members of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision in 2010–2011,
and was scheduled to be introduced from 2013 until 2015. However, changes made up of April
2013 extended implementation until March 31, 2018. The Basel III requirements were in response
to the deficiencies in financial regulation that's revealed by the 2000’s financial crisis.

Figure: Basel II and Basel III pillars

3
The figure shows how Basel III strengthens the three Basel II pillars, especially Pillar 1 with
enhanced minimum capital and liquidity requirements.

Basel III in Bangladesh

Basel I was introduced in Bangladesh in the year 1996, and Basel II was introduced in the year
2010 (Parallel run with Basel I started in the year 2009). In line with Basel III, Bangladesh Bank
(BB) revealed ‘Guidelines on Risk-Based Capital Adequacy’ vide BRPD circular no. 18 on 21
December 2014, and the gradual implementation of Basel III had started from 1 January 2015 in
Bangladesh. The full implementation of Basel III in Bangladesh was started in January 2019.

Key Principles of Basel III

There are some key principles changes in to the Basel III framework. The global capital framework
and new capital buffers require financial institutions to hold more capital and higher quality of
capital than under current Basel II rules. The new leverage ratio introduces a no risk-based measure
to supplement the risk-based minimum capital requirements. The new liquidity ratios ensure that
adequate funding is maintained in case there are other severe banking crises.

a. Minimum Capital Requirements:

The Basel III rule introduced the subsequent measures to strengthen the capital requirement and
introduced more capital buffers:
➢ Capital Conservation Buffer is meant to soak up losses during times of monetary and
economic stress. Financial institutions are going to be required to carry a capital
conservation buffer of two .5% to face up to future periods of stress, bringing the entire
common equity requirement to 7% (4.5% common equity requirement and therefore the
2.5% capital conservation buffer). The capital conservation buffer must be met merely with
common equity. Financial institutions that don't maintain the capital conservation buffer
faces restrictions on payouts of dividends, share buybacks, and bonuses.

➢ Countercyclical Capital Buffer may be a countercyclical buffer within a variety of 0%

and a couple of .5% of common equity or other fully loss-absorbing capital is implemented
consistent with national circumstances. This buffer is an extension of the capital
conservation buffer.

4
 ➢ Higher Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) constitutes a rise from 2% to 4.5%. The ratio is
about at:
❖ 3.5% from 1 January 2013
❖ 4% from 1 January 2014
❖ 4.5% from 1 January 2015

➢ Minimum Total Capital Ratio remains at 8%. The addition of the capital conservation
buffer increases the total amount of capital a financial institution must hold to 10.5% of
risk-weighted assets, of which 8.5% must be tier 1 capital. Tier 2 capital instruments are
harmonized and tier 3 capital is abolished.
b. Leverage Ratio:
Basel III introduced a non-risk-based leverage ratio to serve as a backstop to the risk-based capital
requirements. Banks are required to contain a leverage ratio in excess of 3%. The non-risk-based
leverage ratio is calculated by dividing Tier 1 capital by the average total consolidated assets of a
bank. In July 2013, the US Federal Reserve Bank announced that the minimum Basel III leverage
ratio would be 6% for Systematically Important Financial Institutions (SIFI) and 5% for their bank
holding companies.

c. Liquidity Requirements:
Basel III introduced two required liquidity ratios:
➢ Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR): It ensures that sufficient levels of high-quality liquid
assets are available for 30 days of survival in a severe stress scenario. The Liquidity
Coverage Ratio command was introduced in 2015 at only 60% of its stated requirements
and is expected to increase by 10% each year till 2019 when it takes full effect.

➢ Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR): it promotes resilience over long-term time horizons
by creating more incentives for financial institutions to fund their activities with more
stable sources of funding on an ongoing structural basis. The NSFR was designed to
address liquidity mismatches and will start becoming operational in 2018.

Impact of Basel III

The requirement that banks must maintain a minimum capital amount of 7% in reserve will make
banks less profitable. Most banks will attempt to maintain a better capital reserve to cushion
themselves from financial distress, until lower the amount of loans issued to borrowers. They're
going to be required to carry more capital against assets, which can reduce the dimensions of their
balance sheets.

5
A study and research revealed that, in 2011 the medium-term effect of Basel III on GDP would be
-0.05% to -0.15% annually. to remain afloat, banks are going to be forced to extend their lending
spreads as they pass the additional cost on to their customers.
The introduction of latest liquidity requirements, mainly the Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) and
Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR), will affect the operations of the bond market. To satisfy LCR
liquid-asset criteria, banks will recoil from holding high run-off assets like Special Purpose
Vehicles (SPVs) and Structured Investment Vehicles (SIVs).
The implementation of Basel III will affect the derivatives markets, as more clearing brokers exit
the market thanks to higher costs. Basel III capital requirements specialize in reducing
counterparty risk, which depends on whether the bank trades through a dealer or a central clearing
counterparty (CCP). When a bank enters into a derivative trade with a dealer, Basel III creates a
liability and requires a high capital charge for that trade. On the contrary, derivative trade through
a CCP leads to only a 2% charge, making it more attractive to banks. The exit of dealers would
consolidate risks among fewer members, thereby making it difficult to transfer trades from one
bank to a different and increase systemic risk.

Challenges for Bangladesh Banking System

Execution of Basel III in the Bangladesh banking system would limit the leverage impact as an
additional risk-based capital requirement measure at the micro-prudential level. On the other hand,
the acceptance of international liquidity requirements is another blinker of the same nature, which
provides short-term (30 days) resistance to liquidity shock / crisis and a strong long-term (one
year) structural liquidity profile. The steps are anti-cyclical at the macro-prudential level and
consist of the carrying out of a counter-cyclical capital buffer to protect the financial system from
structural risks affiliated with inordinate credit growth (representing a 2.5 percent rise over the
required Tier 1 capital dwelling of common stock, retained earnings and reserves).
In the case of a capital preservation buffer to cover losses when the bank face-offs financial
difficulties (it varies throughout an interval that, depending on the process of the economic cycle,
reaches a maximum value of 2.5%). Directly relative to systemic risk, the countercyclical capital
buffer is measured according to the credit / GDP measure. In the event of a leverage effect being
measured, the goal is to restrict the amount of debt in the banking system in boom times.
Systemically significant banks are concerned with the reduction of the risk and effect of their
collapse, the reduction of the involvement of the public sector and the infliction of a level playing
field by reducing the competitive advantage of funding for these banks.

6
Capital sufficiency norms: Bears on Banks
Capital Sufficiency Ratio = Total Regulatory Capital (Tier I + Tier II + Tier III)/ Risk weighted
Assets (Credit risk + Market risk+ Operational risk)
Improving Quality, Consistency and Quality of the Capital

Figure 2: Ratio of capital to risk-weighted assets by bank form (Percent)

Capital Sufficiency focuses on the overall circumstance of the capital of banks and protects the
depositors and other creditors against the possible loss shocks that a bank could suffer.
It helps to engage all potential financial risks, such as credit risk and other main risks:
market risk,operational risks,residual risks,credit concentration risk, interest rate risk, liquidityris
k, credibility risk, risk of arbitration, strategic risk, risk of environmental and climate change, etc.
Under Basel-II, Bangladeshi banks are expected to maintain a minimum capital requirement
(MCR) of 10.0% of risk-weighted assets (RWA) or Taka 4.0 billion as capital, whichever is
greater, with effect from the quarter of July-September 2011. As for 2012, CAR was sustained by
the SCBs, DFIs, PCBs and FCBs at 8.1, -7.7, 11.4 and 20.6 percent respectively. The minimum
required CAR could not be sustained by 2 SCBs, 2 DFIs and 4 PCBs. The banking sector CAR
was 10.5 percent in 2012 and 9.1 percent in 2013 until the end of June. All foreign banks have
retained the minimum capital required. Notice that the CAR sector stood at 9.1 percent. In terms
of the capital adequacy ratio, the financial health of the Bangladesh banking system has improved
substantially if we compare the composite ratios from 2008 to 2013. As per BASEL III criteria,
due to higher credit and operational risk, it will be difficult for state-owned commercial banks to
raise their Tier I and Tier II resources. For DFIs, on the other hand, the criterion for their negative

7
capital adequacy ratio is very hard to mitigate. Through issuing common equity, the bank will raise
its equity portion according to BASEL III requirements. Bangladesh's capital market is not at all
robust at present and is not fully tolerant of banks raising funds by issuing common equity.
The retained earnings would not have adequate resources to meet even their regulatory
requirements, according to statistics from the Bangladesh Bank for State-owned Commercial
Banks and Development Financial Institutions; banks will need to turn to the market to resolve
this resources scarcity. Over the past few years, many commercial banks have found funds through
the capital markets regardless of their public confidences, thus growing stock volatility. Such
market shifts make it difficult for bankers to feel the dual stresses of regulatory bodies and
investors, making it much difficult for banks to grow capital rapidly and smoothly in the event of
a capital deficit.

Liquidity Force
In addition to improving the capital sufficiency ratios, the Basel Committee included in the new
capital agreement applicable liquidity provision. For Bangladeshi banks, this update has major
executions; it issued as a result of the liquidity problems faced by major financial institutions.
Table 3: Advance to Deposit Ratio in 2013

January February March April May June July August

Asset-
t
o-
76.95 76.28 75.28 75.26 74.90 74.01 73.35 73.34
deposit
Ratio
(%)

Source: Bangladesh Bank (2013)

In September 2013, the advance-to-deposit ratio in the banking sector declined to below 72%, as
credit demand in the private sector continued to fall since the second half of the last fiscal year due
to the country's dull business situation in the midst of political unrest.
According to the latest BB statistics , the total ADR in the banking sector decreased to 71.65 per
cent as of September 26 from 73.34 percent as of August 1, 2013.BB data showed that ADR in
the banking sector was 76.95% as of 10 January, 76.28% as of 7 February, 75.28% as of 14 March,
75.26% as of 25 April, 74.90% as of 2 May, 74.01% as of 13 June, 73.35% as of 11 July, 73.34%
as of 1 August and 71.65% as of 26 September this year. According to the BB rules, more than
85% of their deposits are not allowed to be invested by conventional commercial banks, while
Islamic banks and Islamic wings of conventional commercial banks may invest up to 90% of their

8
deposits. In imposing liquidity criteria, the major challenge for banks is to establish the ability to
accurately collect the relevant data and formulate it to accurately describe the stress assumption.
However, the positive side for Bangladeshi banks is that they have a huge quantity of liquid asset
s that will allow them to fulfill the requirements of Basel III.
Basel III introduces new liquidity rules intended to ensure that banks have enough liquidity in the
short and longer term. The global economic crisis has highlighted the issue of banks not retaining
sufficient liquid asset levels. Some banks were unable to meet their promises when the recession
hit and governments had to step in to provide liquidity support. Northern Rock in the UK was one
striking example of this. Banks will now have to comply with two new ratios to decrease the risk
of this happening again.
The purpose of the Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR) is to facilitate more medium and long-term
financing of the activities of banks. In summary, a minimum amount of stable financing, based on
the liquidity characteristics of an organization's assets and activities, is defined over a span of one
year. In this context, stable funding means cash, preferred stock and debt with maturities of more
than one year and the portion of deposits with maturities of less than one year that would be
expected to remain in a stress scenario with the institution. From 2019, it is likely that the net stable
funding ratio (NSFR) will be implemented. Implementation of the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR)
may enable the bank to preserve additional liquidity, as the LCR requirement is tighter.
Impact of leverage ratio
From the point of view of Bangladesh Banks, the Statuary Liquidity Ratio (SLR) is already a
regulatory mandate for Bangladesh Banks. The banks' statutory liquidity portfolio is for moderate
risk only, i.e. the market risk and the leverage ratio are excluded. Many banks' Tier I capital is
comfortable (more than 8%) and their derivatives activities are not very large. Thus, for banks in
Bangladesh, the leverage ratio cannot be a binding constraint.
Cost effective model development
It is essential for any bank to work out the most cost-effective model for Basel III implementation.
Banks will have to issue new resources, particularly in the later years of implementation. While
PCB and FCB banks have the advantages of a strong starting base in the form of a higher ratio of
capital to risk-weighted assets with a larger component of core equity capital, the large equity
needs could bring downward pressure on the Return on Equity (ROE) of the banks over an
extended time frame. In the long run, higher capital requirements will reduce the risk of inducing
investors to accept a lower ROE in the banking sector. The only solution in the short term,
however, is to boost productivity. The only solution in the short term, however, is to increase
quality. At 8.20 percent at the end of December 2012 and 8.21 percent at the end of June 2013, the
banking industry's return on equity remained unchanged. In this process, the government of
Bangladesh, which owns public sector banks, will have to take a greater role.

9
Implementing the buffer for countercyclical resources
The introduction of a countercyclical capital buffer allowing banks to build up a higher level of
capital in good times (which could be run down in times of economic contraction) is a critical
component of the Basel III package, consistent with security and sound considerations. Here,
defining the turning point in an economic cycle that should cause the release of the buffers is the
key challenge for the BB. It is important to base the identification of the turning point on objective
and observable criteria; long series of economic cycle data are also required. The type of
macroeconomic data and the choice of options will be a significant consideration in Bangladesh.
Additional costs for banks in Bangladesh will be levied by the proposed capital buffer provision.
There is, however, a variable used to calibrate the credit to GDP ratio of the countercyclical capital
buffer. Here is some insight into the Credit-to - GDP ratio scenario:

Figure 3: Credit to GDP Ratio

The credit to GDP ratio of banks is continually shifting because of structural reforms. In an
economy where new sectors such as power and energy, micro finance, etc. are just emerging,
banks, by lending, are encouraging the growth of these sectors. Banks have to improve their
analytical capabilities for countercyclical steps and need to improve their capabilities to predict
the market cycle at aggregate and important parts.
Risk Management
Many banks have strengthened their risk management processes in recent years, which are
sufficient to align with Basel II's structured approaches. Some banks are making efforts to move
towards applying innovative approaches. Foreign banks and large private commercial banks,
especially as they expand their overseas presence, need to move to advanced approaches.
Embracing advanced risk management strategies would allow banks to more successfully manage
their capital and improve their profitability. There are three things required to upgrade to advanced
approaches. First and foremost, a shift in perception from looking at the capital structure as a
compliance mechanism to seeing it as a critical prerequisite for sustaining a sound, safe, and

10
therefore profitable bank. Second, graduation to advanced approaches requires deeper and broader
risk management capacity; and finally, adequate and high quality data is needed. In order to
effectively allocate risk capital and boost profitability and shareholder returns, other banks will
need to improve their risk management and control systems. The main questions here are: what
aspects of risk management should banks focus on? How are they developing the architecture of
risk? How can banks strengthen their capacity for risk management in order to produce satisfactory
and qualitative data?
Systemic Risk
Although it is relatively easy to analyze bank-specific risk, systemic risk is far more difficult. In
this regard, to identify trigger points of boom and slack in an economy, there is a need to develop
objective criteria. The inclusion conditions for market research need to be considered for this
reason. These include credit / GDP ratio pattern, market volatility, sectoral (industry / borrower)
concentration, NPA / GDP ratio, inflation, exposure of banks to sensitive sectors. It must be noted
that there is a need to build a large historical macroeconomic database for the above parameters to
identify systemic risk.
Growing recognition of the importance of data quality
Ultimately, it must be clearly defined how much risk the bank wants to take on and at what rate of
return. Conceptually, in articulating the risk appetite of the bank, the following metrics and
accompanying indicators will help: earnings volatility; profitability metrics such as ROE, RAROC,
RORAC, EVA; target capital ratios; target risk profile; and zero risk tolerance. The risk appetite
should not surpass the risk potential of an individual and, therefore, the appetite should be far
below range.
Examination of portfolio risks in relation to risk appetite: Banks must review their portfolio's
vulnerabilities at regular intervals to determine if the portfolio is in line with risk appetite.
Assessing material risks and related responses: Because threats are constantly evolving, the
purpose of risk management is to provide timely information on the risks that occur in the
company.
Model risk management: The governance of models used must be enhanced by banks. It is not
possible to base decisions on quantitative models alone. A main parameter for mitigating model
risk is qualitative / expert judgment.
Stress testing: Under Basel III, stress testing takes on a great importance. VAR does not report
disastrous losses. Stressed VAR is therefore the main parameter in the calculation of capital
adequacy for Basel III.
Enterprise Risk Management Enhancement for Competitive Benefit Enterprise Risk
Management (ERM): Implementation provides the opportunity to provide an integrated view of
risk and cross-risk interactions.

11
A Modern Culture of Risk and Financial Management: Basel III reflects the way banks
sensitive and resistant and finance. Basel III needs greater integration of the roles of finance and
risk management. The fusion of the roles of Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and Chief Risk Officer
(CRO) would likely be driven by this.

Improving the Risk Architecture

Data management
Banks have to ensure that risk and finance teams have easy access to structured, safe and reliable
data in order to reach Basel III regulation. Basel III's data analysis requirements are substantial.
Compared to those with a more centralized approach to gathering, consolidating, and sending
reports under Basel I, II, and III, when the data is dispersed through various silos, more overhead
costs are involved. Data must be monitored regularly to achieve that calculations are performed
accurately for capital adequacy, leverage, and liquidity.

Transparency / Audit-ability-data lineage

After a regulatory report has been submitted, it is very likely that a regulator will follow up with
the bank to answer critical questions regarding how the results have been estimated and how the
rules have been applied. This will require the bank to rapidly and accurately classify, verify,
approve, and submit the data. When the data is distributed across multiple silos and frameworks,
this audit process can be especially difficult for banks, as it will take longer to search for the correct
information. Banks with a unified data model would be able to respond to these enquiries faster
and more productive.

12
Conclusion
The requirements of additional capital will impose challenge for the banks but the overall capital
level of the banks will be increased. The DFIs are also likely to be hurt by the rise of inter-bank
loans that will effectively price them out of the market. In that case, banks will have to re-structure
policies to survive in the new environment through improved risk management and measurement
by banks. Most of these models require minimum historical bank data that is a tedious and high
cost process, as most state-owned commercial banks and development financial institutions do not
have such a database. The technology infrastructure in terms of computerization is still in a nascent
stage in most SCBs and DFIs. Computerization of branches, especially for those banks, which
have their network spread out in far-flung areas, will be a daunting task. Penetration of information
technology in banking has been successful in the urban areas, unlike in the rural areas where it is
insignificant. Therefore, while banks have no choice in complying with Basel III, how they choose
to implement it can offer scope for competitive advantage.

13
Reference
Bangladesh Bank Guidelines on Risk Based Capital Adequacy, 2014 (Revised Regulatory Capital
Framework for banks in Line with Basel III)
Basel III: Challenges for Bangladesh Banking System (Sharmin, S., Sultana, J., 2015) Journal of
Business Studies, Vol. XXXVI, No. 3
Implementation of Basel III and Role of Credit Risk Management in Maintaining Capital
Standards of Commercial Banks of Bangladesh: An Analytical Overview (Alam, J., Rashid, M.,
Islam, S. 2016) BIBM Annual Banking Conference 2016.
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSN364_8.8.0/com.ibm.ima.tut/tut/bas_imp/
bas3_sum.html
http://iknowledgebank.com/sm/Risk-Management/1_sms

14