Rigorous Capital Requirements Under Basel Iii Possible Impact On Turkey's Financial Sector

Journal of WEI Business and Economics-April 2013 Volume 2 Number 1
RIGOROUS CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS UNDER BASEL III

POSSIBLE IMPACT ON TURKEY’S FINANCIAL SECTOR
John Taskinsoy
Department of Finance, Faculty of Economics and Business
Universiti Malaysia - Malaysia
[email protected]
ABSTRACT
Turkey has experienced the biggest financial and economic shock in 2001 resulting a massive overhauling
of its entire banking system that eventually cost the government over $50 billion. The IMF was involved in
the recovery process from the beginning providing Turkey nearly $24 billion of financial assistance
between the fragile years of 1999 and 2002. After 19 Stand-By arrangements, the Turkish government
recently announced that it had decided to put an end to its partnership with the IMF since 1947 and it also
said that it would not commit to another arrangement after the last payment of the existing loan is made on
April 2013. The resilient Turkish banking system capable of absorbing shocks during financial stress,
thanks to the extraordinary work by the BRSA, a decade long political stability (one-party government since
2002) along with improved global investor confidence enabled Turkey becoming the 16th largest economy in
the world with over $1 trillion in GDP.1 On the contrary of common arguments, a large number of Turkish
government officials and the top banking executives believe that Basel III’s new rigorous capital
requirements will have little or no impact on the Turkish banking sector which currently has a capital
adequacy ratio (CAR) of little over 16%, that is significantly higher than Basel III’s 10.5% in effect by
January 2019.
Keywords: Basel III, liquidity management, financial crises, and Turkey
JEL Classification Code: G01, G21, G28, G30, F30, E52
INTRODUCTION
In order to understand and make any sense of the planned future events in the context of global banking sector, one
really needs to understand what had occurred in the past that brought us to the present. Everything began nearly four
decades ago when two critical events gave birth to the creation of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision
(BCBS), headquartered in Basel, Switzerland; first, oil crisis suddenly erupted in 1973 due to the Arab-Israeli Yom
Kippur War of that year; then the following year, the case of Germany's Bankhaus Herstatt took place in 1974 when
the German regulators misused their regulatory power to liquidate the bank, which later led to dissolution of the
bank. The first of Basel Accords, known as Basel I, was introduced in 1988 to address credit risk. Then, series of
macro and microeconomic events such as Mexican peso crisis in 1994; Turkish economic crisis in 1994 and 1999;
Asian currency crisis in late 1997 and early 1998; Russian financial crisis in 1998; the dot-com bubble crash of the
United States in 2000–2001, another Turkish economic crisis in 2001 paved the way for the Committee to introduce
Basel II in 2004. Basel II, differently than Basel I, included operational risk, supervisory review process and
disclosure requirements. Furthermore, Basel II allowed banks to develop their own internal rating mechanism to
assess the risk of credit, operation, and management of capital. What we have now as of 2010 is, Basel III; with the
help and support of its current 27 member nations, Basel III promises to create a strong and resilient banking system
capable of absorbing financial and economic shocks during crises or at times of global financial stress.
The Committee’s number one focus with Basel III is to strengthen the quality and quantity of capital, which the
BCBS strongly believes as the underlining reason behind the 2008 global financial crisis. One of Basel II flaws was
1 See CIA – The World Factbook states that Turkey’s GDP (purchasing power parity) is $1.087 trillion (2011 est.), and GDP
(official exchange rate) is $778.1 billion (2011 est.)
The West East Institute 1

that the definition of capital was unclear presenting a higher risk exposure for banks. Also, there were too many
confusing tiers and sublevels in each tier with own limits and requirements. The worst of all was that under Basel II,
it was nearly impossible for the market participants or regulators to assess the strength or weakness of the banking
system due to some banks reporting stronger Tier 1 than the actual figures; in addition, no international
harmonization, weak transparency, inefficient regulatory process, and lack of governance made things get terribly
out of control resulting a global scale financial crisis.
Looking at Basel II under the Microscope
Banks in many countries throughout the world were able to build up excessive on-and-off-balance sheet leverage
under Basel II, which in turn led to erosion of capital quality. More importantly, banks were not ready to absorb
substantial amounts of systemic trading and credit related losses because as mentioned earlier banks were not in a
position to handle large off-balance sheet exposure. When all this was going on, what made things uncontrollable
was that investors (market) lost confidence in the whole banking system as well as its questionable ability to take the
crisis under control. This alone, created a panic situation resulting further deterioration in the global financial system.
Chain reactions of investors worldwide got intensified and caused illiquidity in the marketplace. This is when
governments felt the need to step in by injecting additional liquidity and giving promises of further capital support
for failed financial institutions.2
Banks were naturally at the epicenter of the crisis. The committee felt that one of Basel II’s flaws had to be corrected
right away. The solution was to raise the quality and quantity of capital and to make sure that all banking systems in
member countries and worldwide are consistent and transparent. Next, the BCBS promised to strengthen the area of
risk coverage and its management, which was also believed to be one of the underlining Basel II deficiencies. A
leverage ratio is introduced to help contain the excessive leverage in the banking system. Because lack of appropriate
liquidity was a fundamental problem before and during the crisis; to take care of this issue, the Committee is
introducing a capital buffer called ‘conservation buffer’ to let banks buildup of capital buffers to be available for use
during a financial or economic stress. Moreover, another buffer called countercyclical will be introduced under Basel
III to ensure a more stable banking system. The BCBS wanted to take care of another flaw in Basel II by introducing
a 30-day liquidity coverage ratio for all internationally active banks.3
Because banks are critical intermediaries of financial transactions, it would be almost impossible to handle complex
economic activities of modern living; thus, as the Committee defined “a strong and resilient banking system is the
foundation for sustainable economic growth, as banks are at the center of the credit intermediation process between
savers and investors. Moreover, banks provide critical services to consumers, small and medium-sized enterprises,
large corporate firms and governments who rely on them to conduct their daily business, both at a domestic and
international level.”4 The Committee is set out to create a resilient banking system, but first, it is fully committed to
correct Basel II flaws through following measures:
a. Raising the quality, consistency and transparency of the capital base. The capital quality and quantity under Basel
II were not sufficient which resulted in a higher risk exposure for banks. Also, there was a question of
inconsistency in the definition of capital across banks. Under Basel III, Tier 1 capital will predominantly consist
of common shares and retained earnings from which credit losses and writedowns cannot be deducted as
observed during the 2008 crisis. Under Basel III, innovative hybrid capital instruments (15% of Tier 1 capital)
will be phased out; and sublevels (Tier 3) will be eliminated. Finally, minimum Tier 1 capital will be increased
from 2% to 4.5%.5
b. Enhancing risk coverage. Limited risk coverage under Basel II was apparent and this needed to be enhanced. Off-
balance sheet risks and derivative related exposure are seen as the key destabilizing factors. VaR, value-at-risk, is
introduced as part of Basel III to strengthen supervisory review process and disclosures. The BCBS said that the
Pillar 2 risk management standards became effective immediately. Interconnectedness between different financial
2 See Basel III: Strengthening the resilience of the banking sector, p.10

institutions and marketplaces still remains to be a major problem. Addressing this, the Committee is supporting
establishing of a Payment and Settlement System.6
c. Supplementing the risk-based capital requirement with a leverage ratio. Leverage build-ups were a major
problem during the 2008 crisis and have also been problematic in previous crises as well (i.e. 1998 Asian crisis).
Leverage build-up, as the crisis intensifies, becomes a downward force on banks to reduce prices of assets. The
Committee eliminates the banking sector’s destabilizing and deleveraging effects by setting a limit for how much
leverage banks can build up.7
d. Reducing procyclicality and promoting countercyclical buffers. The Committee claims that market participants
have the tendency to behave in a procyclical manner which may have been the most destabilizing element of the
crisis. Therefore, the BCBS is introducing a number of critical measures to transform the banking system from
being a shock transmitter to a major shock absorber. Some of the key objectives include: reducing excess
cyclicality, building capital buffers at individual banks, and preventing excess credit growth by adopting the
broader macroprudential goal of protecting the banking system.8
e. Addressing systemic risk and interconnectedness. The Committee saw a flaw under Basel II that prior to the
crisis, the policy options were not developed in such a way to ensure systematically important banks being
subject to same regulatory requirements.9
According to the BCBS, the current definition of capital under Basel II suffers three fundamental flaws: (1)
regulatory adjustments currently applied to either Tier 1 or both Tier 1 and Tier 2 when they are supposed to be
applied to the common equity component of Tier 1 because common equity not only can best absorb the losses but it
can also work as the best barometer to show financial stress related concerns; (2) lack of a harmonized list showing
all regulatory adjustments, which noticeably differ from country to country resulting major inconsistency; (3) capital
disclosures of banks seriously lack necessary detailed information about their regulatory capital bases, which in turn
makes it very difficult for the banking industry participants and regulatory bodies to come up with an accurate
assessment of the banking system’s actual status.11
Key Elements of Proposal under Basel III
• Banks that are set up as joint stock companies, Tier 1 capital must only consist of common shares and retained
earnings of the firm; in addition, regulatory adjustments must be applied to this component. It is also absolutely
necessary to harmonize regulatory adjustments and their application internationally.
• Tier 1 capital’s other instruments beside common equity will be strengthened. Quality eroding ‘step-ups’ feature
of Tier 1 will be phased out. The idea is that all Tier 1 instruments must be loss absorbent on a going-concern
basis. Payments on Tier 1 instruments will be considered a distribution of earnings under the capital conservation
buffer proposal.
• Tier 2 will be simplified by removing any sub categories. Under Tier 2 capital, instruments subordinated to
depositors and creditors must have an original maturity of 5 years which will be amortized using the straight line
approach.
• The Tier 3 was redundant, so it was abolished. The capital used to meet market risk requirements will be of the
same quality of composition as capital used to meet credit and operational risk requirements.
• To improve transparency and address disclosure issues, the Committee will make sure that banks will be required
to disclose the following items in their reporting: the balance sheet will contain a full reconciliation of regulatory
capital elements; separate disclosure of all regulatory adjustments; a description of all positive and negative limits
6 See Basel III: Strengthening the resilience of the banking sector, pp.13-14

that the capital has been subject to; when banks disclose any ratios used, they also need to provide explanation
how these ratios have been calculated.
• Finally, the Committee requires that all banks on their websites have to provide full terms and conditions of all
instruments used as part of the regulatory capital.12
Table 1. Basel III Capital Reforms Implementation Timetable10
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Countercyclical buffer 0.625% 1.25% 1.825% 2.5%
Capital conservation buffer 0.625% 1.25% 1.875% 2.5%
Future Possibility 9.25% 10.50% 11.75% 13.0%
8.625% 9.25% 9.875% 10.50%
8% 8% 8% 8% 8%
Total 8% 8%
8% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6%
Capital
5.5%
4.5%
Tier 1 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5%
4%
Capital 4%
CET 1 3.5%
2%
Capital
The financial markets worldwide is faced with yet another crisis; born as a sub-prime mortgage crisis of the U.S.,
and then turned into a full blown 2008 (began late 2007) global financial crisis adversely affecting securities (stock)
markets all over the world like a massive tsunami. IMF called it as “the largest financial shock since Great
Depression” and just prior to the crisis, a TV personality in US even called it an economic “Armageddon” on the air
on August 1, 2007 and accused the Fed (especially the former Fed Chairman Allen Greenspan) not taking enough
actions. By September 2007, the financial crisis made its way to Europe where Britain’s Northern Rock bank got
emergency support from the bank of England showing signs of weakening deposits. Finally, former Fed Chairman
Alan Greenspan warned of ‘’large, double-digit declines’’ in home values (Kuhnhenn, 2010). In the first 12 months
of the 2008 crisis, Wall Street’s many high flying financial companies’ stocks got pounded very hard by already
nervous investors resulting in staggering losses in shareholders’ value that amounted to insane $4 trillion dollars. The
stock market’s total value at its peak on October 2007 prior to the crisis was $19.1 trillion, and less than a year later
on September 12, 2008, the value quickly plummeted to $15.1 trillion. As the table 2 data shows, on October 9,
2007, the market capitalization of America’s 25 biggest financial firms was $1.75 trillion dollars; about 11 months
later by September 12, 2008, the market capitalization of the same 25 financial firms plunged to mind blowing $874
billion dollars, a colossal loss of 50.03% ($872.9 billion) in shareholder value.14 Several banks largely exposed to
sub-prime lending (i.e. Countrywide) unfortunately could not continue operations and eventually they went bankrupt.
10 Slightly modified from Ernst & Young approach on Basel III, the table prepared by the author
14 See New York Times “A Year of Heavy Losses” September 15, 2008

Table 2. Market Capitalization of 25 USA Financial Firms Before & After Crisis (in USD $ Billion)13
No Financial Firm October 9, 2007 (before) September 12, 2008 (after) Change %
1. Citigroup $236.7 $97.8 -57.8
2. Bank of America 236.5 152.2 -36.5
3. American Int. Group 179.8 33.2 -82.0
4. JP Morgan Chase 161.0 142.2 -11.7
5. Wells Fargo 124.1 113.2 -8.8
6. Wachovia 98.3 30.8 -68.6
7. Goldman Sacs 97.7 61.3 -37.2
8. American Express 74.8 45.0 -39.8
9. Morgan Stanly 73.1 41.1 -43.8
10. Fannie Mae 64.8 0.7 -98.9
11. Merrill Lynch 63.9 24.2 -62.1
12. Bank of New York Mellon 51.8 45.5 -12.3
13. Freddie Mac 41.5 0.3 -99.3
14. Lehman Brothers 34.4 2.5 -92.6
15. Washington Mutual 31.1 2.9 -90.7
16. Capital One Financial 29.9 17.1 -42.7
17. Suntrust Banks 27.0 16.5 -38.8
18. BB&T 23.2 18.8 -19.0
19. Fifth Third Bancorp 18.8 8.2 -56.3
20. National Citi Corp 16.4 3.7 -77.5
21. Bear Sterns 14.8 0.0 -100
22. Keycorp 13.2 6.5 -51.0
23. Marshall Ilsley 11.6 4.7 -59.4
24. Leg Mason 11.4 5.6 -51.0
25. Countrywide Financial 11.1 0.0 -100
In order to clean up the enormous financial mess left behind by the 2008 crisis, the Federal Reserve (Fed) of the U.S.
came up with three critical and urgent action plans; (1) lending funds to troubled companies and investors ($345
billion); (2) buying up treasury bonds ($770 billion, the balance was 300 billion before the crisis); and (3) purchasing
toxic assets that nobody wanted (over $1 trillion in troubled assets). At the end, when the dust settled, the Fed was
left with a ballooned balance sheet standing at $2.3 trillion including the highly criticized $700 billion dollar Wall
Street bailout.15 Average US citizens were more worried about keeping their jobs than thinking about how the stock
market was doing. Unemployment became a devastating issue because just over a 12-month period, nearly 2.6
million jobs were casualties of the crisis in 2008 alone, and this unbelievable unemployment data easily made the
headlines as the worst level in 70 years since the WW-II (1945).16 After the United States’ bail-out actions, Europe
broke its silence and the leading finance ministers were forced to take similar actions as the U.S., approving a €750
billion ($940 billion) rescue package; plus, an agreement was reached by private creditors to erase nearly 54% of
Greece’s public debt.17
13 See Wilshire Associates (reported by New York Times on September 15, 2008), the table and calculations done by the
author. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/09/15/business/20080916-treemap-graphic.html
15 See CNNMoney.com (October 9, 2009), “The Fed's $2.2 trillion fire hose”
16 See CNNMoney.com (January 9, 2009), “Worst year for jobs since '45”
17 See Wikipedia, European sovereign-debt crisis, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_sovereign-debt_crisis

The 2008 global financial crisis started showing some serious side effects for the few troubled countries in the
Eurozone and the situation quickly turned into a sovereign-debt crisis for these nations where public debt well
exceeded their GDPs. For instance, Greece carries the highest risk of potential insolvency with 161.7% public debt
($482 billion) to GDP ($298.1 billion) ratio. Portugal ($284.5 billion public debt/$252.2 billion GDP) and Ireland
($193.8 billion public debt/$183.9 billion GDP) are the next two high-risk countries with debt to GDP ratios of
112.8% and 105.4% respectively.18 As of July 2012, Spain joined these three financially high-risk countries with its
own recently appeared risk of sovereign debt crisis due to rising long-term interest rates in the country; and
according to Wearden (2011), any country with a yield of 6% or more (see figure 1.1) indicates that financial
markets have serious doubts about credit-worthiness; as a result, Spain is having tougher time lately to raise new
capital to re-finance or re-structure its sovereign debt.
Chart 1. Long-Term Interest Rates in Euro Area as of July 2012 (%)19
The UK 1.47
Critical 6% mark
Poland 4.99
Portugal 10.49
Italy 6.00 Greece, Portugal, Ireland, and Spain
are posing risk for sovereign debt
France 2.28 issue in EU and Italy maybe the next.
Spain 6.79
Greece 25.82
Ireland 6.12
Risk of insolvency
Germany 1.24
Belgium 2.69
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 24.00 26.00
The 2008 crisis certainly qualify as the costliest wake-up call for governments of the developed nations and for the
BCBS to seriously consider developing a new regulatory framework under Basel III, which is highly promoted
having the capability of strengthening the resilience of the current global banking system to absorb financial and
economic shocks during times of financial stress.20 The invaluable lessons learned from the 2008 crisis (certain Tier
1 capital instruments under Basel II were unable to absorb losses) prompted the Committee to tighten up its
definition of regulatory capital, lack of which was believed to be one of the main contributors to the crisis. The
BCBS firmly believes that full, timely and consistent implementation of Basel III by its members is more essential
for restoring confidence in the regulatory framework for banks and to help ensure a safe and stable global banking
system.21Under Basel III, the minimum capital requirement will be increased to 7% (4.5% Tier 1 plus 2.5%
conservation buffer which will be in full effect by January 1, 2013). When Tier 1 is raised from 4% to 6% on January
1, 2015, then the new minimum capital requirement will be 8.5% including the 2.5% conservation buffer. However,
the total capital ratio will still remain as 8% of the weighted assets under Basel III. The main difference will be that
the 8% of weighted assets must consist of 6% Tier 1 and 2% Tier 2. In addition, Basel III simplifies Tier 2 (no sub-
tiers as before) and eliminates Tier 3 category (see table 1). By 2019, the minimum capital requirement will be
10.5% (8% + 2.5%).22
Tougher global banking capital rules will barely hinder economic growth, said a study on Wednesday, casting doubt
on claims from the banking sector that the new capital requirements under Basel III would result in a credit squeeze
18 Source of GDP and public debt figures: CIA-The World Factbook, https://www.cia.gov/
19 Source: European Central Bank, http://www.ecb.int/stats/money/long/html/index.en.html (percentages per annum;
period averages; secondary market yields of government bonds with maturities of close to ten years
20 See Basel III: Seoul G20 Summit document
21 See Basel III: Report to G20 Leaders on Basel III implementation
22 See Basel III: Strengthening the resilience of the banking sector

that would derail economic recovery (Huw, 2010). Two major studies have been conducted in 2009 in order to assess
the liquidity levels of banks (financial institutions) in relation to capital requirements under both Basel II and Basel
III. Quignon (2011) asserts that the study done by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) has found that the 74
group 1 banks23 would have had an average common equity Tier 1 ratio of 5.7% under Basel III on December 31,
2009, assuming full application of the new rules. Their common equity ratio was 11.1% under Basel II at the same
date. 133 mid-sized banks would have seen these same ratios ease from 10.7% to 7.8%, suggesting a much greater
impact for larger financial institutions.
The Committee of European Banking Supervisors (CEBS) study of the 33 major European banks had a slightly
lower common equity Tier 1 ratio under Basel III definitions (4.9%) and a common equity ratio of 10.7% under
Basel II. Echoing the BIS impact study, 157 mid-sized banks suffer a less pronounced decline in their ratio under the
new rules, from 11.1% to 7.1%. At the end of 2009, according to the Basel Committee’s study, the additional capital
needed to be raised by banks with a common equity ratio of below 7% in order to reach that level (7%) amounted to
€602 billion, of which €577 billion for group 1 banks and €25 billion for group 2 banks. In the CEBS study, the
capital needed to be raised was €291 billion, of which €263 billion by group 1 banks and €28 billion by group 2
banks (Quignon, 2011). When the two studies are compared, the additional capital that group 2 banks need to raise in
both studies come relatively close to each other; however, the results for group 1banks are significantly different
where the Basel Committee’s study figure of new capital to raise is twice more than what CEBS study shows.
Table 3. Macroeconomic Impact of a 100 Basis Point Increase in Bank Lending Rates27
GDP growth
Country (region) GDP level (%)
(%)
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Annual
United States -0.08 -0.31 -0.54 -0.77 -0.93 -0.18
Euro area 0.00 -0.23 -0.93 -1.40 -2.10 -0.42
Japan 0.00 -0.33 -0.50 -1.17 -1.33 -0.27
Turkey -0.65
Average (simple) -0.03 -0.29 -0.66 -1.11 -1.45 -0.29
Average (GDP weighted) -0.03 -0.28 -0.69 -1.08 -1.45 -0.29
The OECD working paper24 on “Macroeconomic Impact of Basel III” estimated the medium-term impact of Basel III
implementation on GDP growth is in the range of negative −0.05 to −0.15 percentage point per annum. Economic
output is mainly affected by an increase in bank lending spreads as banks pass a rise in bank funding costs, due to
higher capital requirements, to their customers. To meet the capital requirements effective in 2015 (4.5% for the
common equity ratio, 6% for the Tier 1 capital ratio), banks are estimated to increase their lending spreads on
average by about 15 basis points. The capital requirements effective as of 2019 (7% for the common equity ratio,
8.5% for the Tier 1 capital ratio) could increase bank lending spreads by about 50 basis points (Slovik & Cournède,
2011, p.3). The OECD study also points out that banks will need to increase their common equity ratio on average
1.2% and Tier 1 capital ratio by 0.5% in order to meet total capital requirement by 2015. However, with the capital
conservation buffer of 2.5% in full effect by January 1, 2019 by which, minimum total capital requirement becomes
10.5%, and this will mean that banks will have to increase common equity ratio on average by about 3.7% and Tier 1
capital ratio by 3.0% (Slovik & Cournède, 2011, p.7).
The 2008 global financial crisis did not disappoint expectations in the sense that rigorous new capital requirements
were going to force banks worldwide to become more conservative to achieve increased levels of quality and
quantity of liquid capital to enable them to absorb shocks arising from financial and economic stress. Between the
years of 2006-2009, the United States has improved both its Tier 1 and common equity capitals; 9.8% to 11.4%
(+1.6%) and 8.6% to 10.5% (+1.9%) respectively. During the same period, the Euro area has achieved 1.4% increase
in its Tier 1 ratio (from 8.0% to 9.4%) and 1.2% increase in its common equity ratio (from 6.8% to 8.0%). Tier 1 and
common equity capital levels were much lower in Japan prior to the crisis (2006) and after the crisis (2009); Tier 1
23 The 94 group 1 banks, of which 91 supplied information, have excess Tier 1 capital of over €3 billion are diversified and
active internationally. All other banks are in group 2.
27 Source: OECD Economics Department Working Papers No. 844 “Macroeconomic Impact of Basel III”
24 See “Macroeconomic Impact of Basel III”, OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 844, p. 3, OECD Publishing

increased from 5.4% to 6.9% (+1.5%) and common equity improved to 4.1% from 3.3% (+0.8%).25 In the three
main OECD economies (the US, the EU, and Japan), a one percentage point (100 basis points) increase in the ratio of
bank capital to risk weighted assets would result in an average negative impact on GDP level of −0.20% five years
after the implementation, which translates into a negative −0.04 percentage point impact on annual GDP growth.26
LITERATURE REVIEW
Quignon (2011) argues that alterations have been made (i.e. Basel 2.5) to the original Basel III; therefore, it does not
represent all the changes in banks’ prudential rules since the first version of Basel II. Quantitative impact studies
suggest that the new standards will make such a big difference to bank balance sheets that they will significantly
affect the structure and volumes of financial savings and funding. Findings of a study by Otcker-Robe and
Pazarbaşıoğlu (2010) indicated that most banks worldwide would have no problem meeting the new minimum
capital requirements under Basel III in 2013 (7%) and 2014 (8%), but more banks close to 2019 would start failing
one after another as the Tier 1 capital will be increased bringing the minimum requirement to 10.5%. Slovik and
Cournède (2011) argue that the estimated medium-term impact of Basel III implementation on GDP growth is in the
range of −0.05 to −0.15 percentage point per annum. According to the World Pensions Council (WPC), European
legislators have pushed dogmatically and naively for the adoption of the Basel II recommendations forcing private
banks, central banks, and bank regulators to rely more on assessments of credit risk by private rating agencies
(Nicolas & Firzli, 2011). The findings of a comprehensive study by Angelini et al. (2011) suggests that each
percentage point increase in the capital ratio causes a median 0.09 percent decline in the level of steady state output,
relative to the baseline. The impact of the new liquidity regulation is of a similar order of magnitude, at 0.08 percent.
The U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Chair Sheila Bair explained in June 2007 that “…without proper
capital regulation, banks can operate in the marketplace with little or no capital. And governments and deposit
insurers end up holding the bag, bearing much of the risk and cost of failure” (Blair, 2007).
The data presented in the paper of Cosimano and Hakura (2011) suggests that large banks would on average need to
increase their equity-to-asset ratio by 1.3 percentage points under the Basel III framework. GMM (generalized
method of moments) estimations indicate that this would lead large banks to increase their lending rates by 16 basis
points, causing loan growth to decline by 1.3 percent in the long run. Elliott (2010) asserts that the banking industry
argues that Basel III will seriously harm the economy. For example, the Institute of International Finance (IIF)
calculated that the economies of the US and Europe would be 3% smaller after five years than if Basel III were not
adopted. For example, the French banking association offered calculations that suggested a 6% hit to the French
economy which is double the size of impact suggested by the IIF. Therefore, Gordy (2003) says: “A single factor
model cannot capture any clustering of firm defaults due to common sensitivity to these smaller scale components of
the global business cycle.” Gordy (2003) also points out that calibrating a single factor model to a broadly diversified
international credit index may significantly understate the capital needed to support a regional or specialized lender.
Jackson (1999) argues that the Committee released Basel II despite many issues with Basel I, most notably of all that
regulatory arbitrage was rampant.
25 Source: IIF - Institute of International Finance (2010), “Interim Report on the Cumulative Impact on the Global Economy
of Proposed Changes in the Banking Regulatory Framework”, Calculations done by (Slovik & Cournède, 2011)
26 See “Macroeconomic Impact of Basel III”, OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 844, p. 10

Chart 2. Phase in Arrangements of Basel III Capital Requirements28
14.00%
0. 625 %
12.00% 0. 625 % 2.50%
1.875%
10.00% 1.25%
1.875% 2.50%
1.25%
8.00%
2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%
6.00% 4.0% 3.5%
1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5%
4.00% 1.0%
2.0%
2.00% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5%
3.5%
2.0%
0.00%
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
CET 1 Additional Tier 1 Tier 2 Conservation Buffer Countercyclical Buffer
On the contrary to what many in the banking industry fear, Allen et al. (2012) feel that the long-term effect of Basel
III will be much less; however, they agree with critics of Basel III that risk management and governance will be the
key to avoiding severe shortages of liquidity. Caruana (2010), unlike everybody else, does not point to Basel II as the
architect behind the 2008 crisis for two reasons: first, he argues that the crisis manifested itself in 2007 on the basis
of imbalances that had built up prior to the implementation of Basel II; second, he says that majority of Basel II
adopting countries did so in 2008 or later. So, this means that Basel II was aftermath of the crisis which hit the
surface in late 2007 and early 2008 and it would be sort of irrational to hold something or somebody responsible for
the part that was not taken.
A comprehensive research by McKinsey & Company claims that Basel III’s new capital requirements, increased
quality and quantity of capital, will create a severe shortage of funds in the European banking sector that by 2019 the
industry will need about €1.1 trillion of additional Tier 1 capital, €1.3 trillion of short-term liquidity, and about €2.3
trillion of long-term funding, absent any mitigating actions. Although the story for the U.S. banking sector is not
much different, the impact seems to be slightly smaller according to the McKinsey & Company estimates that Tier 1
capital shortfall at $870 billion (€600 billion), the gap in short-term liquidity at $800 billion (€570 billion), and the
gap in long-term funding at $3.2 trillion (€2.2 trillion). After full implementation by 2019, McKinsey’s research also
highlighted that European banks’ pretax return on equity (ROE) would decrease by between 3.7 and 4.3 percentage
points from the pre-crisis level of 15 percent (between 11.3% and 10.7%).29 It is understood from the McKinsey
report that all segments of banking operations to a varying degree will be affected by higher capital and liquidity
requirements. For instance, retail banking business will be probably more affected than that of wholesale banking.
Retail banks have been already operating under lower capital ratios for some time compared to wholesale banks.
Increased capital requirement at the retail banking end will push some of the cost to consumers in the way of either
higher fees or higher interests on loans (70 basis points).30 Corporate banking may see its fair share of adverse impact
as in rising cost for the following product and services; uncommitted credit lines, long-term corporate loans, and
long-term asset based finance businesses. Of the three different segments, investment banking will probably face
more changes in product and service offerings because they are more complex in nature than those offered by retail
or corporate banking.31
A recent OECD study shows minor macroeconomic impact of a one percentage point increase in bank capital ratios.
Based on this study, one percentage point increase in the ratio of bank capital to risk weighted assets (i.e. increase
from 7% to 8%) in the three main OECD economies, would result in an average impact on GDP level of −0.20% five
28 http://www.accenture.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/PDF/FinancialServices/Accenture-Basel-III-Handbook.pdf
29 See McKinsey & Company, Basel III and European banking: Its impact, how banks might respond, and the challenges of
implementation, http://riepis.org/European%20banking_McKinseyCo.pdf, p.3
30 See McKinsey & Company, http://riepis.org/European%20banking_McKinseyCo.pdf, p.10
31 See McKinsey & Company, http://riepis.org/European%20banking_McKinseyCo.pdf, pp.11-12

years after the implementation, which translates into a −0.04 percentage point impact on annual GDP growth. As a
result, the annual GDP growth in the United States would be negative -0.04% per annum. The largest impact on GDP
growth is in the Euro area with -0.06%, and Japan seems to be the least affected (-0.02%). The same study shows
that Basel III’s capital requirements (4.5% for the common equity ratio, 6% for the Tier 1 capital ratio) fully
effective as of 2015 further reduces GDP growth on average by -0.23% five years after implementation. Although
Basel III’s increased level of capital requirements by 2015 produces bigger impact on annual GDP growth for the
Euro area (-0.08%) and Japan (-0.04), however in the case of U.S., the impact on GDP growth slows down
considerably (half of what it was before prior to 2015). The highest level of Basel III capital requirements (10.5% -
8% plus 2.5% conservation buffer) will be in full effect as of January 1, 2019, and by this time, the negative impact
of Basel III on annual GDP growth will be at its peak; -0.12% in U.S., -0.23 in the Euro area, and -0.09% in Japan.32
Slovik and Cournède (2011) argue that the estimated medium-term impact of Basel III implementation on GDP
growth is in the range of −0.05 to −0.15 percentage point per annum. They also claim that the impact on GDP is
further scaled by the share of banks in total credit intermediation because the Basel III capital requirements affect the
banking sector. The analysis of Slovik and Cournède (2011) shows that the banks in the United States account for
23.6% of the total credit intermediation compared to 73.8% in the Euro area and 52.6% in Japan.33 Shearman &
Sterling said in a report that the U.S. has pledged to implement Basel III into U.S. law through agency rulemakings.
Nonetheless, the U.S. may determine not to apply the standards to all U.S. banks or may otherwise determine to
apply the standards selectively.34 The estimated medium-term impact of Basel III implementation on GDP growth in
Turkey could be more than a half of a percentage point (-0.65%)35 or higher per annum due to Turkey’s developing-
country status and close business ties to the Euro area. In addition to that, Turkey will have the domino effect of
negative impact once the banks in Europe go under major banking structural changes to meet the new Basel III’s
minimum capital requirements (7% - 4.5% Tier 1 plus 2.5% conservation buffer) in full effect by January 1, 2013.
Banks in Turkey probably account for a larger percentage (close to 60-70%) of the total credit intermediation than
the Euro area because banks there are pretty much the only sources for obtaining credit unlike the situation in U.S.
where consumers, businesses, or investors have more financial intermediaries to choose from for their credit needs.
Enhanced Risk Coverage under Basel III
The priority aside from increasing the quality and quantity of capital, the Committee’s other top focus area is to
strengthen the risk coverage of Basel II and the BCBS is already taking a number of steps just to do that. Under
Basel II, the counterparty credit risk36 (CCR) was not properly covered and according to the Committee’s
assessment, the capital related to CCR was inadequate in several areas. The Committee’s findings show that roughly
two-thirds of CCR losses were due to CVA losses and only about one-third were due to actual defaults.37 The BCBS
also introduced internationally harmonized leverage ratios (LCR-short-term liquidity = Stock of high-quality liquid
assets/Total net cash outflows over the next 30 days = ≥ 100%; and NSFR-long-term liquidity = Available amount of
stable funding/Required amount of stable funding = >100).38 Ernst & Young approach on Basel III claims that banks
are required to back 100% of the liquid assets by stable funding; however, qualifying residential mortgages need to
be only backed up by 65% NSFR.39
Tier 1 (T1) + Tier 2 (T2)

Capital Adequacy Ratio (CAR) = ≥ 10.5% by 2019 (1)
Credit Risk RWA + Market Risk
RWA + Operational Risk RWA
32 See OECD Economics Department Working Papers No. 844 “Macroeconomic Impact of Basel III”
33 See Institute of International Finance (2010), “Interim Report on the Cumulative Impact on the Global Economy of
Proposed Changes in the Banking Regulatory Framework”, Washington, DC
34 Shearman & Sterling report “The New Basel III Framework: Implications for Banking Organizations” 3/30/ 2011
35 The impact of Basel III on GDP growth in Turkey is assumed to be at least 50% greater than the Euro area (-0.42x1.5)
36 Counterparty credit risk means, risk associated with credit that goes into default leaving behind a positive balance; in
other words, a positive balance is remaining on the loan (credit) that still needs to be paid.
38 See Basel III: Report to G20 Leaders on Basel III implementation, p.9
39 Ernst & Young approach on Basel III

Stock of high-quality liquid assets

Short-term Liquidity Ratio (LCR) = ≥ 100 (2)
Total net cash outflows
over the next 30 days
Available amount of stable funding > 100

Long-term Liquidity Ratio (NSFR) =
(3)
Required amount of stable funding
Basel III Impact on Asian Countries
Prior to the 1998 Asian crisis, Asian-5 countries (Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, and South Korea)
attracted nearly half of the foreign capital inflows (FDIs and FPIs) to developing countries – almost $100 billion in
1996 (Fisher, 1998). Consequently, during the 1998 Asian crisis, investors had lost close to a trillion dollars which
prompted the BCBS to work on new banking reforms under Basel II. Baig and Goldfajn (1998) called the 1998 crisis
as “Asian Flu” and claimed that the crisis was a case of contagion where one country’s ill fate quickly transmits to
other neighboring countries. Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States, called the Asian crisis as a “glitch.”
As Nanto (1998) pointed out, in January 1998, the U. S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan indicated that
because of the financial crisis, foreign investors in Asian equities (excluding those in Japan) had lost an estimated
$700 billion-including $30 billion by the Americans. Nanto (1998) also claims that the crisis caused liquidation of
nearly half of the banks in Thailand (56 of 91), South Korea (16 of 30), and permanent closure of 16 banks in
Indonesia. Calvo and Mendoza (1997) argue that investors in financial markets of developing countries and/or
emerging markets make buy/sell decisions concerning financial securities based on what everybody else is doing
(herd mentality), which can be considered as an irrational approach where rumors or incidents are not checked or
confirmed. Masson (1998) also asserts that already once jittery investors will have a minimum threshold for the next
bit of bad news which may be just enough to trigger a collective sell-off and ultimately lead to loss of investor
confidence.
Fitch, one of the "big three credit rating agencies" (Standard & Poor's, Moody's Investor Service and Fitch Ratings),
does not foresee any major obstacles for banks in Malaysia to meet new Basel III capital requirements. Although, a
recent report by Fitch showed that Tier1 (CET1) ratio of a small group of banks in Malaysia ranged from 8% to 11%;
however, the banking sector average in the country was around 8.7% under Basel III, which was slightly lower than
9.3% under Basel II. Fitch also mentioned in its report that several banks with CET1 less than 8% in Malaysia may
come short of meeting CET1 capital requirement under Basel III.41 Citi Research indicated in a report that banking
sectors in Taiwan and Malaysia have relatively low equity Tier1 capital and relatively high leverage ratios (LCR).42
Anita Menon, executive director for financial risk management services at KPMG in Malaysia, said that she sees
capital requirement for most Asian countries as non-problematic, but implementation of Basel III poses challenges in
the area of liquidity in many Asian countries including Malaysia due to a shortage of high-quality liquid assets for
banks to hold as liquidity.43 Anandakumar Jegarasasingam, Malaysian Rating Corp Bhd vice-president and head of
financial institution ratings, sees the biggest challenge in Malaysian banking sector as the investor expectation of
high dividends because almost all banks in Malaysia are traded on Bursa Malaysia (stock exchange).44
41 See news: “Fitch: Malaysian banks able to meet Basel III capital rules”
http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2012/8/10/business/20120810112749&sec=business
42 See news: “Basel 3 poser for banks”
43 See news: “Malaysian banks need to adjust to comply with Basel III”
44 See news: “Basel 3 poser for banks”

Chart 3. Basel III Impact on Asian Countries40
10.5% by 2019
12.00%
10.00%
8.00%
10.60%
6.00%
9.20%
11.20%
9.50%
8.40% 7 % by 2013
9.70%
7.30%
7.10%
4.00%
2.00%
0.00%
China HK India Indonesia Korea Malaysia Pakistan Singapore Taiwan Thailand
Basel II T1 Capital Ratio Basel III T1 Capital Ratio
Tier 1 capital under Basel III must ensure a bank’s solvency; in other words, Tier 1 capital must help banks continue
their operation during periods of financial or economic stress. Therefore, common equity (common stock) under
Basel III is recognized as the highest quality component of capital which is the primary form of funding to help
banks remain solvent. It is important that Tier 1 should consist of non-common equity elements but banks
nevertheless must not overly rely on these elements. The Committee also says that in the past some non-common
equity elements have been included in Tier 1 to reduce cost; however, these elements negatively affecting the quality
of capital will have to be phased out. Regulatory adjustments must be applied at the level of common equity along
with retained earnings. The logic behind this is that banks will not be able to show strong Tier 1 ratios while having
low levels of tangible common equity. The BCBS argues that there should not be too many tiers and sub-tiers of
capital which makes it very difficult to form an internationally harmonized definition of capital. That’s why Basel III
introduces only Tier 1 and simplifies Tier 2 (no sub-tiers as before) and eliminates Tier 3 category. Basel III will
ensure a full disclosure of various components of the regulatory capital so that appropriate analyses or comparisons
can be made.45
In its report to G20 Leaders on Basel III implementation, the Committee said that as of end of May 2012, 21 of the
27 Basel member countries have implemented Basel II and Indonesia and Russia have implemented only Basel II’s
Pillar 1 (minimum capital requirements). In addition, Argentina, China, Turkey and the United States are still in the
process of implementing Basel II. Furthermore, Argentina, Hong Kong SAR, Indonesia, Korea, Russia, Turkey and
the United States have not yet issued draft Basel III regulations. Although these seven countries above believe that
they could meet the January 1, 2013 deadline, nevertheless time consuming bureaucratic domestic rule-making
processes will make it considerably challenging.
A Quick Overview of the History of Turkish Economy
The 2008 financial crisis and its huge impact on nations worldwide earned the crisis the title of ‘global financial
crisis,’ some economists even called it ‘financial meltdown;’ however, Turkey seemed to be the least affected by it,
even though the crisis’ high magnitude impact, according to Haidar (2012), contributed to the European sovereign-
debt crisis. Turkey would have been the last country that was prone to crises before 2001 during which time political
instability, high inflation and frequent economic crises were just usual scenes in daily life; but today, thanks to
brilliant work of the Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency (BRSA or BDDK in Turkish), Turkey now has an
envied banking system that is both resilient and capable of absorbing financial and economic shocks during a global
scale crisis. In order to understand the nature of Turkey’s banking system today, one really needs to look at its
unique evolution throughout four specific periods in its history: (1) rise & fall of the Ottoman Empire; (2) rebuilding
40 Source: Citigroup Global Markets 22 January 2010 (as cited in KPMG report “BankTech Asia 2011.”)
45 See Basel III: Strengthening the resilience of the banking sector, pp.22-23

the young Republic under Atatürk’s reforms; (3) political instability amid privatization; and (4) economic progress
through political stability.
Rise & Fall of the Ottoman Empire
Unlike its counterparts in the Western world (monetary policy was mainly used), the Ottoman Empire, for its fiscal
policy (Fiscalism), predominantly relied on military expansionism and aggressive collection of numerous taxes from
the agrarian society primarily found in Anatolia, plus various fees were collected from those merchants in Istanbul
who had trade related business dealings with administrative branches of the Empire. So called the “Enlargement” or
‘Rise of the Empire’ period began with Mehmet II (1451 to 1481) or popularly known as ‘Sultan Mehmet the
Conqueror’ who, at the age of 21, conquered Constantinople and brought an abrupt end to the Byzantine Empire
(Greek). However, the Ottoman Empire experienced its apex years of power by every imaginable measure under the
reign of Kanuni Sultan Süleyman (1520 to 1566) or as the West liked to call him ‘Suleiman the Magnificent.’
Thereafter, the Empire soon went into stagnation period (1680 to 1825) which gave the West the opportunity to gain
strength and later to reclaim its previously lost territories knowing that the ailing Ottoman Empire was not in any
position to fight back especially with its diminishing military power and slumping treasury. The decline (1825 to just
before WWI) and soon after the fall of the Ottoman Empire happened rather quickly with weak and incompetent
Sultans who were more interested in entertainment through a lavish palace lifestyle than safeguarding the interests of
the Empire.
Despite all the efforts by France and Russia to keep the Ottoman Empire out of World War I; nonetheless, Enver
Pasha, as being the Major General of the Ottoman army then, was the main actor who secretively orchestrated an
Ottoman-German alliance to enter the WWI because he thought that this would greatly benefit him personally as
well as the Empire. On the contrary to his thoughts, already financially drained and militarily weakened Ottoman
Empire ended up losing more of its critical territories in the Balkans and Mediterranean. However, the worst was yet
to come; although the Ottoman army was victorious in some hard-fought battles; but nevertheless, the Empire’s
bleak future after WWI was unfortunately decided on the negotiation table where it was forced to sign the ‘Treaty of
Sèvres in 1920’ containing harsh terms and giving the Western powers (Great Britain, Italy and France) the right to
territorially carve up the Ottoman land.
Rebuilding the Newly Formed Turkish Republic under Atatürk’s Reforms
The financial burden of the Crimean war of 1853-1856 forced the Ottoman Empire for the first time to borrow
money from the Europe. Although there were some small banking operations in Istanbul (i.e. Galata bankers and
Bank of Constantinople), according to Raccagni (1980), they were not even near the financial capacity to undertake
such borrowing. However, the Ottoman’s increasing foreign debt had to be administered somehow in the absence of
its own banks. With the involvement of France and England, the Imperial Ottoman Bank was founded in 1856 as a
joint venture; England owning 59%, France 37% and the Ottoman Empire having mere 4% of ownership.
Turkey’s modern history started in 1922 with one brilliant man, soldier, politician, strategist, genius; Mustafa Kemal
(Atatürk), who abolished the Ottoman Empire in 1922 by overthrowing Sultan Mehmet VI Vahdettin and a year later
forming the Turkish Republic in 1923. To make things right, Atatürk first rejected the ‘Treaty of Sèvres’ and all its
erroneous harsh terms, and then he rightly claimed that Turkish people were not going to be held responsible for the
Ottoman Empire’s ill-fated actions and their consequences. With the ‘Treaty of Lausanne’ in 1923, Turkey started
negotiations afresh to correct some of Sèvres’ crippling outcomes. Atatürk, as the first elected president (one-party
system, 1923-1946), immediately went to work and introduced many critical reforms in every facet of life with a
promise of modernization. Atatürk realized that any type of factory to produce goods had to build by the government
due to lack of skilled labor, resources, and potential investors. This was the start of an era in which any sort of
production was done by state-owned enterprises.
Next, Atatürk focused on establishing Turkey’s banking system because he knew it perfectly even then that Turkey’s
forward progress was only going to be possible with creation of a strong national banking system that would be
capable of serving the young country’s extensive and challenging financial needs as well as enabling and fostering
other industries through financial assistant. Therefore, Atatürk wanted to create a truly national bank that was going

to do all that; Đş Bank (ranked 102 of ‘Top 1000 World Bank’46) was founded in 1924 assuming this enormous
responsibility. Ziraat Bank (Agricultural Bank) was primarily focused on meeting the financial needs of farmers who
were a significant part of the Turkish economy at the time. Later, Atatürk ordered the name of ‘the Imperial Ottoman
Bank’ to be changed back to ‘the Ottoman Bank’ and he allowed it to remain as a state-owned bank with limited
central bank functions until 1931 when the Turkish Republic’s own central bank was finally established in the same
year. Furthermore, Atatürk initiated introduction of a couple more new banks into the country’s growing financial
system; Sümerbank in 1932 and Etibank in 1935.47 Before the start of World War II, Atatürk’s reforms helped
Turkey create a financial sector of its own which in turn provided necessary financial means to develop other vital
industries.
Political Instability Amid Privatization Attempts
Although state-owned enterprises were first initiated by Atatürk as a way of rebuilding the young Turkish Republic
aftermath abolishment of the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish war of independence; however, by 1980s, still nearly
half of all production in Turkey was done by the inefficient state companies with excessive staffs on payroll. These
state enterprises were incurring huge financial losses and becoming a real burden on the government budget leading
to further borrowing from foreign sources. A Rawdanowicz (2010) claims that the Turkish financial crises in 1994
and 2001 (biggest financial and economic shock in Turkish history) are a direct result of Turkey’s long standing
record of high current account imbalances.
Mody and Schindler (2005) feel that growth during Özal administration responded strongly to the liberalization and
opening up of the economy, but the impact of the reforms was ultimately undermined by poor financial discipline.
Turgut Özal, as the Prime Minister in 1983 after the military coup ended48 (1982), was the main architect behind the
challenging transformation work of the Turkish economy from import-focused to export-focused through
privatization of major state-owned companies, which meant a much reduced government role in the general
economy. Özal’s roadmap of re-structuring the economy included other key factors such as developing sound
monetary policies, encouraging foreign direct investments (FDIs), reducing subsidies, and putting a stop on price
controls. However, the success of Özal’s economic programs was later overshadowed by the rising current account
deficit bubble due to massive foreign debt amounting to more than $65 billion at the end of 1993. According to
Rijckeghem and Üçer (2005), high level of political instability, growing concerns about bank soundness, and
political uncertainties, created a ‘perfect storm’ that subverted market confidence. Furthermore, adverse effects of the
first Persian Gulf War (1990-1991) and its embargo on Iraq by the United States (negatively affecting Turkish trade)
along with chronic inflation (constant fluctuation in consumer prices) caused current account deficit to swell.49
Until 1991, all of the banks in Turkey were government banks and establishing a private bank was almost impossible
due to stringent government control and excessive bureaucratic steps. The situation suddenly changed by the end of
1991 just before the general election that year; Mesut Yılmaz, who was the Prime Minister at the time, made a
politically motivated move and granted a special permission to five businessmen with strong ties to the government
to open private banks in Turkey. In just five years from 1994 to 1999, 14 new banks started operations bringing the
number of banks to 81 before 2001 crisis. Some of these banks were used by owner companies as a channel to
siphon money.50 Things got so out of control by 1999 that a second financial crisis in less than a decade (the first was
in 1994) was about to surface the markets, which further intensified by 2001 resulting the biggest financial shock that
Turkey experienced in its short history of private banks. The financial meltdown slashed the number of banks in
Turkey and resulted in massive layoffs, predominantly in the banking sector (about 15,000 bank employees lost
jobs).
Turkish Banking Sector before the 2001 Domestic Financial & Economic Crisis
46 See Financial Times Survey: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Times

47 See Wikipedia: Economic History of the Ottoman Empire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_Ottoman_Empire
48 In less than a century old modern history, Turkey has witnessed 4 military interventions; the military coups of 1960,
1971, and 1980; and the 1997 military memorandum (also known as the "coup by memorandum").
49 See http://www.mongabay.com/reference/country_studies/turkey/ECONOMY.html
50 See Wikipedia: Economy of Turkey, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_economy

Bredenkamp et al. (2009) argue that the Turkish economy, like many of its peers in the developing world, was
characterized by heavy regulation, protection from foreign competition, and extensive state involvement in
commercial activity. Following the series of boom and busts between the late 1980s and the early 2000s, Turkey
enjoyed strong and uninterrupted expansion until 2007 (Rawdanowicz, 2010). Turkey witnessed a high degree of
political instability during 1980s and 90s (15 governments, 10 of which were coalitions or minority governments),
which was also accompanied by skyrocketing inflation (over 70% by 1990s) and chronic budget deficit fueled by
regular money printing. When the massive earthquake (7.6 of magnitude) on August 17, 1999 (epicenter Kocaeli)
was added into the equation, things became uncontrollable. By December of 1999, the government, headed by the
Prime Minister Bülent Ecevit (DSP: Democratic Left Party), was forced to sign a ‘Stand by Arrangement’ with IMF
for in excess of $10 billion (original agreement was about $4 billion). The final bill of Turkey’s worst financial
disaster ever was nearly $50 billion. Bredenkamp et al. (2009) point out that by the end of 2000, the state banks’ duty
losses had grown to some $19 billion, their short-term liabilities to some $22 billion and their foreign exchange
exposure to $18 billion. When the crisis hit in February 2001, the value of Turkish lira depreciated almost half of its
value overnight.
Table 4. Overview of the Turkish Banking Sector in 200051
Bank Type Total Assets Total Loans Total Deposits

In $ billion % In $ billion % In $ billion %
State Banks 53.15 34.2 13.73 27.0 41.09 40.3
Private Banks 73.59 47.4 27.75 54.5 44.35 43.5
5 Largest Private Banks 50.53 32.6 20.49 40.2 30.10 29.5
Other Private Banks 23.06 14.8 7.26 14.3 14.25 14.0
Foreign Banks 8.40 5.4 1.44 2.8 3.30 3.3
TMSF Banks 13.19 8.8 3.31 6.5 13.14 12.9
Total 148.34 95.6 46.23 90.8 101.88 100.0
Development & Investment 6.90 4.4 4.70 9.2 0 0
Banking Sector Total 155.24 100.0 50.93 100.0 101.88 100.0
Banks in Turkey during the 1990s enjoyed a very loosely monitored financial sector; plus, the banking rules were so
easily manipulated in order to show better financial results than actual numbers. In addition, all the major banks were
family owned (i.e. Akbank by Sabancı family and Yapı Kredi by Koç family both of which are the two richest
families in Turkey) which allowed them to be used as a way of funneling money to other family-owned businesses
for either paying less or no tax to the government. The Savings Deposit Insurance Fund-SDIF (TMSF in Turkish)
managed banks (2 in 1998) increased to 8 by 2000 and 13 by 2001. By 2003, a total of 11 banks with combined
assets of $11.4 billion failed and they were transferred to the TMSF.52 Before the 2001 crisis, the Turkish banking
sector had $117.7 billion in total assets; all together 61 banks had 6,885 branches with 138,962 employees. Private
banks’ risk exposure to FX (foreign exchange) positions on balance sheets was at an alarming level by November,
2000 ($10.67 billion); however, the FX risk improved a bit (16.03%) by February, 2001 ($8.96 billion), then
diminished and became no issue in few years later.53
After the 1994 economic crisis in Turkey and the negative effects of the late 1997 and early 1998 Asian crisis and
1998 Russian devaluation of its ruble along with its debt default; establishment of the Banking Regulation and
Supervision Agency of Turkey (BRSA or BDDK in Turkish) became absolutely necessary in 1999. Amid
macroeconomic uncertainties, Turkey still witnessed rather a quick expansion of its banking sector during most part
of the 1990s; the number of banks increased from 43 in 1980 to 66 in 1990 and to 79 by the end of 2000. However, 5
banks (Egebank, Bank Kapital, Yurtbank, Yaşarbank and Ulusal Bank) were merged under Sümerbank when they
were transferred to the Savings Deposit Insurance Fund (TMSF), reducing the number of banks to 74 by mid-2001.
Of these 74 banks, 56 banks were deposit money banks and 18 were investment & development banks. Of the 56
51 Source: BDDK and The Banks Association of Turkey

52 See BDDK, http://www.bddk.org.tr/WebSitesi/English.aspx
53 See BRSA presentation in London by Ercan Türkan (2003) “Vulnerability Assessment of the Turkish Banking Sector”

deposit money banks, 4 were state banks, 26 were private domestic banks, l8 were private foreign banks and 8 were
still under the management of the TMSF.54
Table 5. Overview of the Turkish Banking Sector: Financial Indicators55
in Billion $USD 1990 1994 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Total Assets 58.2 52.6 133.5 155.2 117.7 130.1 151.4
Total Loans 27.3 20.6 40.2 50.9 23.4 30.1 37.0
Securities Portfolio 6.0 5.9 22.9 17.8 41.2 52.7 69.2
Total Deposits 32.6 33.2 89.4 101.9 76.6 84.4 95.4
Number of Banks 66 67 81 79 61 54 51
Number of Branches 6,560 6,087 7,691 7,837 6,885 6,216 6,169
Number of Personnel 154,089 139,046 173,988 170,401 138,962 124,009 123,770
A series of events, both macro and microeconomic, had major adverse impacts on Turkey’s financial sector prior to
the 2001 crisis, which was the biggest financial shock in Turkish history since its establishment as a young Republic
in 1923. Turkey experienced two major financial crises in less than a decade (1994 & 2001). Inadequate capital base;
significant risk exposure to FX positions; lack of internal control, poor risk management and corporate governance at
each bank; and a weak regulatory system can be shown as the key microeconomic reasons behind the crisis of 1994
when the Turkish lira lost 50% of its value. Moreover, political instability also contributed to the financial system’s
further deterioration (parliamentary elections of 1990s produced two-party or three-party coalition governments; and
finally the military coup of 1980 when coalition parties created an unstable situation negatively affecting life in
general). The following global events were sort of indicating that another major economic crisis after 1994 in Turkey
may be the case in the new millennium; Mexican peso crisis in 1994; the late 1997 and early 1998 Asian currency
crisis, which Baig and Goldfajn (1998) called it as “Asian Flu” and claimed that the crisis was a case of contagion
where one country’s ill fate quickly transmits to other neighboring countries; the 1998 Russian currency crisis and
Russia’s default on its debt; and the sudden crash of the dot-com bubble of the United States in 2000–2001. As
predicted and anticipated by many, Turkey experienced the inevitable; the biggest economic crisis in 2001.
Turkish Banking Sector after the 2001 Domestic Financial & Economic Crisis
Öniş (2009) offers four key inter-related elements for the expansion of the Turkish economy fueled by a resillient
banking system post 2001 financial crisis; the crucial role of the IMF and the World Bank; transformation of the
relationship between the state and Turkey’s financial sector through regulatory reforms; significant inflow of foreign
direct investment; and introduction of numerous reforms aiding Turkey’s bid to join into the European Union (EU).
Bredenkamp, Josefsson, and Lindgren (2009) argued that Turkey’s immediate challenge in the aftermath of 2001
crisis was to decide what steps to take to restore investors’ confidence. Therefore, it became absolutely apparent that
the government’s first critical step was to form a new, strong economic team that would be capable of taking extreme
measures to tackle government’s urgent financing issues. Kemal Derviş, a senior World Bank executive (vice
president), was overwelhmingly considered for the job to head this new economic team whose challenging task was
to design a new economic program to repair the wreckage in the banking system, stabilize the swelling budget due to
huge repair costs (over $50 billion), and keep the inflation under control.
The Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency (BRSA), as the independent authority by law to regulate and
supervise the banking sector, identified four fundemental areas to work on to strengthen the banking system; (1)
improve the position of the devalued Turkish lira-TL against other currencies (macroeconomic instability and
ongoing chronic inflation volitility along with unstable political environment reduced the investors’ confidence in TL
and forced them to take significant positions in foreign currencies); (2) resolve inadequete capital base in public
sector (insufficient liquidity enabled private banks to barrow from overseas banks at low interest rates and supply the
funds to the public sector with very high interest rates, this in turn led to a substantial risk increase of private banks’
54 See BDDK: “Towards a Sound Turkish Banking Sector” May 15, 2001
55 Source: The Banks Association of Turkey, BRSA & Ercan Türkan BRSA London presentation, October 20, 2003

in FX position); (3) develop a state bank reform (inefficient, illiquid, and ineffectively operated state banks caused
further deterioration in the whole financial system due to their frequent borrowing activity at high interest rates and
short maturities to cover their losses); (4) create a sound, well working regulatory and supervisory framework
(Existence of deposit insurance along with ineffective supervision and an absence of a strong regulatory process
made banks pay less or no attention to both risk assesment and risk management). All of thsese defeciencies or
banking flaws have been sufficiently addressed by the BRSA in a decade-long process, these issues are also covered
under Basel III.56
The political insatiability and its negative effects in Turkey’s economic growth could be understood better when the
next lines are analyzed. There had been six parliamentary election periods between 1983 and 2002 (1983, 1987,
1991, 1995, 1999, and 2002) and 9 different parties took part in the government. The election years of 1991, 1995,
and 1999 saw two-party or three-party coalition governments. Moreover, Turkey’s political process has been
intervened by the country’s military at four different times causing further instability (the coups of 1960, 1971, and
1980; and the 1997 military memorandum (also known as the "coup by memorandum"). The study by Feridun
(2004) points out that the political considerations were an important factor behind the 2001 financial crisis. In
particular, his study suggests that political insatiability in the 1990s in Turkey was primarily the direct result of
divided coalitions which were mainly interested in political gain of power than the good of the country. Furthermore,
frequent elections seriously affected the Turkish government’s judgment to correct some of the macroeconomic
misalignments and fiscal severity, which resulted in frequent devaluation of Turkish lira.
When Turkey’s recent economic history is viewed, it is full of shockingly surprising events of forward progress,
which is not really accustomed or likelihood view of Turkey’s past history. For instance, to outsiders, Turkey is more
known for its frequent economic crises where chronic case of inflation is a usual scene; unstable political atmosphere
is always present (parliamentary elections leading to two-party or three-party coalition governments); poor financial
regulation, constant corruption, worrisome budget and trade deficits, and weak governance. But not anymore, the
financial and social achievements of Turkey in less than a decade are envied by many people; moreover, even some
countries have been considering adopting what Turkey has done with its banking system through the resilient work
of the TMSF. When the recent economic numbers are analyzed (see table 6), it is better understood what enormous
success Turkey was able to accomplish especially aftermath of the biggest financial and economic shock in its
modern history since 1923.
Table 6. Turkish Banking Sector Before and After 2001 Crisis 57
in $ billion USD 2001 2010 in $ billion USD 2000 2001 2010

Loans ($) 21.7 300.6 GDP ($) 173.6 166.8 753.2
Deposits ($) 57.4 352.6 Growth (%) 6.8 -5.7 8.9
Employees 140,879 191,180 PPI (%) 32.7 88.6 8.8
Branches 6,983 10,066 CPI (%) 39 68.5 6.4
Total Assets ($) 117.7 576.0 Export ($) 41.3 21.8 114.0
Profit/Loss ($) -6.0 12.5 Budget Deficit ($) 19.5 19.8 30.4
Banks 67 49 Unemployment (%) 6.5 8.4 11.0
11 failed banks were trasfered to the TMSF; Demirbank (2000), Ulusal Bank (2001), Iktisat Bank (2001),
Kentbank (2001), Ege Bank (2001), Bayındır Bank (2001), Sitebank (2001), Milli Aydın Bank (2001),
Toprak Bank (2001), Pamukbank (2002), and Imar Bank (2003). Exchange rate $1 = 1.75 TL is used.
Turkey is a natural energy resources poor country; thus, it heavily depends on foreign resources in order to grow.
The IEA data shows that Turkey’s lower energy import dependence and higher energy efficiency would help redress
current account imbalances. Energy self–sufficiency in Turkey was around 30% in 2008, implying a heavy reliance
on energy imports. Consequently, trade deficits in energy were high (Rawdanowicz, 2010). On top of that, Turkey is
always in desperate need of healthy foreign direct and portfolio investment inflows (FDIs & FPIs) to make up for the
56 Source: Sunday’s Zaman & BDDK, http://www.bddk.org.tr/WebSitesi/English.aspx

57 Source: BDDK: “Structural Changes in Banking” Volume 6, December 2011, ISSN-1307-5691, prepared by the author

usual gaps in its deficits. Rawdanowicz (2010) believes that a successful energy strategy would also support stronger
economic growth. Although Turkey has done a spectacularly fine job in most parts of the economy, but it has not
been able to successfully tackle urban unemployment, budget, current account, and trade deficits. Reuters reported
on October 6, 2012 that Turkey's budget deficit was set to widen sharply to 33.5 billion lira ($18.5 billion) this year,
and Finance Minister Mehmet Simsek said on Tuesday that this was exceeding the official forecast by more than
half.58 Last October (2011), the current account deficit ballooned to a record $78.3 billion, or 10% of GDP, spooking
investors and prompting a lira selloff that by December led to double-digit inflation for the first time in three years.
However, officials say that the current account deficit is expected to narrow until October 2012 and the year-end
target remains to be $59.1 billion. Unemployment rate in urban cities is still above 11%.59
Globalization of finance made Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs) and Foreign Portfolio Investments (FPIs) become
crucial components of further development for emerging and developing countries; however, excessive FPI inflows
can have potentially adverse effects because as easily they inflow, they can also outflow the same way. This
characteristic alone makes FPI one of the hottest and most volatile types of foreign investments. As Razin (2002) put
it, FDIs’ long-term contributions to the general economy can be more lasting and therefore less volatile than those of
FPIs. It is true that any investment, whether physical (FDI) or non-physical (FPI), can be irreversible once made,
however in the case of a FDI, funds associated with that particular investment may not be irreversible (Sarno and
Taylor, 1999). There are two camps of thoughts; on one hand, Broner and Rigobon (2004) argue the case of more
volatility of FPI inflows to emerging markets than those to mature markets; Bekaert and Harvey (2003), on the other
hand, believe the reverse being true meaning FPI inflows to emerging markets are less volatile than developed
countries.
Chart 4. Foreign Direct Investment, Net Inflows (in billions USD)60
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0 22.1
19.5
20.0 15.9
8.4 9.0
10.0
0.0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Turkey Poland Brazil India Spain Mexico
Turkey’s unprecedented economic progress in recent years has been contributed in part due to foreign capital inflows
as in FDIs or FPIs. However, Turkey still has a long way to catch up with the FDI levels of countries such as the
United States which is still by far the number one FDI recipient (nearly $200 billion in 2010); China comes as
second with little less than half of the US (almost $90 billion). As of 2010, Turkey received $61.5 billion worth of
FPI inflows invested in the equity market and received another $32.7 billion of FPI inflows invested in the bond
market. The top five European countries with high FDI inflows ($46.2 billion which was 53.2% of all FDI inflows in
2006) to Turkey in 2006 were; Netherlands ($18.5 billion), United Kingdom ($7.3 billion), France ($7.3 billion),
Germany ($7.2 billion), and Belgium ($5.8 billion). Out of the three main FDI receiving sectors from all countries,
services sector ($58.8 billion) was the top recipient, industrial sector came as second with $27.9 billion, and as
expected agriculture came last ($141 million). As far as FPI inflows were concerned, Turkey received a total of
$117.3 billion foreign portfolio investments in equities ($59 billion), $33.2 billion in government domestic debt
securities (GDDS), and $25 billion for bonds issued abroad.61
58 See Reuter: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/16/turkey-budget-idUSL5E8LG63L20121016

59 See WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444017504577645031874268416.html
60 Source: The World Bank, “Foreign direct investment, net inflows, current US$” chart is prepared by the author
61 See The Central Bank of Turkey, “International Investment Position Report”

Chart 5. Foreign Portfolio Investment, Inflows (in billions USD)62
120.00
EQUITIES GDDS BONDS
25.1
100.00
24.4
80.00 $19.0 $17.9 24.5
$18.3 $1.5 23.9 33.2
$3.2
60.00
$0.7 $3.5 19.1 32.8
$9.0
$5.6 29.7
20.1 26.7
40.00 17.3
59.0
12.3 44.5
20.00 37.6
33.4 33.8
16.1
0.00
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007-Q1 2007-Q2 2007-Q3
A nonperforming loan (credit) is either delinquent (past due) for 90 days or more, or it is a loan that is close to being
in default. One of the most obvious outcomes of a crisis is a natural tendency for payment delinquencies and loan
defaults to increase. Thus, Turkey is no different, which saw the largest non-performing loans during the first couple
of years after the 2001 crisis (12.7% in 2002 and 11.5% in 2003). However by 2004, non-performing loan figures
sharply declined to a more manageable level, and then continued descending all the way to 3.1% in 2011 except a
little spike in 2009 (jumped from 3.8% in 2008 to 5.6%) which may be contributed to the global effects of the 2008
crisis. The rate of non-performing commercial and consumer loans and credit cards, which totaled 4.7 billion lira
($2.69 billion) in September 2011, rose by 65 percent to 7.9 billion lira ($4.51 billion) in April 2012. In 2011,
447,000 people were not able to pay their consumer loans to the banks (an increase of 183%); furthermore, in the
first two months of 2012, 154,000 people could not pay their card debts. As of January 2012, there was a significant
rise in all nonperforming loans; 13.96% increase in consumer loans, 13.51% in commercial loans, and 10.43% in
credit cards.63 Ergün Özen, the CEO of Garanti Bank, said that rising non-performing loans in 2012 will hit profits.
He also mentioned that nonperforming loans are increasing both for Garanti and Turkish banks in general, Garanti’s
nonperforming loan ratio was 1.9 percent in the first quarter and the industry’s was 2.7%.64 Even with increasing
nonperforming loan numbers in recent months, the percentage (ratio) to the total gross loans still remains to be fairly
small, which were 3.1% in 2011 and 2.7% in 2012 up to the date. The World Bank nonperforming loans data of 2012
shows that the Turkish banking industry figure (2.7%) is closely compatible with the figures of other banking
industries in developed nations. For instance, Turkey’s nonperformance figure is better than those of Italy (7.8%),
the United States (4.9%), Spain (4.6%), France (4.2), the United Kingdom (4.0%), Malaysia (3.4%), and Germany
(3.3%). However, Canada (1.2%) and China (1.1%) had better nonperforming figures than Turkey.65
Chart 6. Bank Nonperforming Loans to Total Gross Loans (%)66
62 Source: The World Bank, “Foreign direct investment, net inflows, current US$” chart is prepared by the author
63 See Hürriyet Daily News, http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/finance/11507810.asp?gid=236
64 See http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-25/rising-non-performing-loans-will-hit-profit-garanti-says-1-.html
65 Source: The World Bank, “Bank nonperforming loans to total gross loans (%)”
66 Source: The World Bank, “Bank nonperforming loans to total gross loans (%)” chart is prepared by the author

14.0% 12.7%
11.5%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
5.0% 5.6%
6.0%
3.9% 3.6% 3.8% 3.8%
4.0% 3.1%
2.0%
0.0%
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Turkey: Bank Non Performing Loans/Total Loans
The Turkish Banking Sector Today: A Decade Long Transformation aftermath the 2001 Crisis
A considerable consolidation and structural changes took place in Turkish banking sector after the biggest financial
shock of the Turkish modern history resulting from the 2001 crisis. The number of banks in operation came down
from 81 in 1999 to 48 as of 2012. The Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency (BRSA and BDDK in Turkish)
is now well established with a strong commanding regulatory authority over all banking operations in Turkey. By
December 2012, the Turkish banking sector consisted of three main segments by asset size; money deposit banks
(92%), profit/loss sharing (interest free) banks (4.6%), and development & investment banks (3.4%). Foreign banks’
presence in the banking sector has also grown very strong in recent years; moreover, the foreign companies’ share in
the sector’s total profit from 2010 to 2011 has more than tripled, 2.1% and 7.5% respectively. Bank loans continue to
dominate all banking activities, especially consumer loans and mortgage loans (after 2007) are two major growth
areas in all bank loans.
After 19 IMF Standby arrangements and a total borrowing of over $50 billion (remaining $1.7 billion IMF debt will
be paid in April 2013), Turkey finally decided to end its long-running relationship with IMF since 1960s and said
that it would not sign another standby arrangement after the conclusion of the 19th arrangement which ended in May
2008. The last three standby arrangements were particularly important for Turkey to manage the 2001 crisis
adequately; Turkey received $34.5 billion from IMF, $15.0 billion at the 17th (1999-2002), $12.8 billion at the 18th
(2002-2005), and $6.7 billion at the 19th arrangements (2005-2008). Turkey’s recent pledge of $5 billion to help
boost IMF account, which is first ever in Turkey’s 90-year history and its unique transformation as a strong economy
from being a borrower to now being a contributor, shows clearly how far the Turkish economy has developed in just
a decade since the 2001 crisis.67
Table 7. Turkish Banks by Deposit, Loans and Assets68
all numbers in % 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Large Banks (4) 74.0 75.2 74.0 74.3 75.5 74.8 73.2
Assets
Medium Banks (9) 16.0 14.9 16.5 16.4 16.3 16.8 18.5
Small Banks (14) 10.1 9.8 9.5 9.3 8.2 8.5 8.2
Money Deposit Banks 90.4 92.5 91.9 92.0 90.5 91.1 91.0
Loans
Development & Investment 3.7 3.3 3.1 3.2 3.5 3.0 3.4
67 See The Central Bank of Turkey, “International Investment Position Report”


Profit/Loss Sharing Banks 5.9 4.3 4.9 4.8 6.0 5.9 5.6
Deposit
First 5 Banks 63.9 63.2 62.2 62.3 62.6 63.1 59.8
First 10 Banks 86.9 87.3 86.3 86.1 86.1 86.9 86.5
As of December 2011, the top five banks (1. Đş Bank, 2. Ziraat Bank (public), 3. Garanti Bank, and 4. Akbank) in
Turkey enjoyed 63.47% ($405.14 billion) of the sector’s (31 banks) total money deposit accounts amounting to $1.12
trillion lira ($639.95 billion). Same way, three of the 13 development & investment banks also controlled 73.3% of
the segment’s (13 banks) $41.64 billion of assets. High concentration of assets by few banks in both money deposit
bank and development & investment bank segments may be viewed as posing possible risks because limited
diversification. There was no major dominance by any banks in four of the profit/loss sharing banks, interest free
banking ($56.15 billion), as observed in other two segments. The banking sector is divided into four areas by bank
asset size69: 7 large money deposit banks comfortably enjoy 73.2% of the industry; 9 medium-size money deposit
banks’ share is 18.5%; 14 small-size banks have 6.8%; and 18 micro-size banks have an insignificant 1.4% share of
the banking sector. Out of the 18 micro-size banks, the share of the 13 banks is below 0.1% (less than $12 billion).70
A great deal of competition between banks exists; for instance, 4 of the 18 micro-size banks in 2010 (2 money
deposit banks and 2 development & investment banks) moved into small-size bank segment in 2011; and one of the
small development & investment bank was promoted to the medium-size bank segment. The ownership of the
Turkish banking sector consists of 26.5% (public), 35.4% (global investors), 27.3% is publicly traded in the Istanbul
stock exchange. Out of the 48 banks in Turkey, 35 banks currently have foreign investment in their ownership
composition. Also, 22 of 48 banks have operations outside of Turkey. Furthermore, the Turkish banking sector could
be seen by potential foreign investors as less risky due to the fact that 71% of all the banks in Turkey is structured as
main partnership by several owners.71
As of December 2011, banks’ activities by asset size are comprised 84.9% domestic and 15.1% international.
Especially due to the 2008 crisis, Turkish banks’ international positions have been descending since then; banks’
overseas assets dropped from 19.5% in 2008 to 15.1% as of December 2011. In 2011, banks in the sector through
their bank branches provided $393.27 billion worth of loans; of these loans, $361.7 billion was provided by the
domestic branches and $28.6 billion was given by the branches in overseas markets. Part of the $361.7 domestically
generated loans, 23.6% of the loans were in foreign currencies ($85.36 billion); and out of the $28.6 billion of the
internationally generated loans, and 2.3% was in Turkish lira ($657.8 million). Although deposit generation by the
banks’ overseas branches has been declining for the past few years, however the share of the foreign residents’
deposits in the Turkish banking sector has increased to 4% as of December 2011, which happens to be the highest
level in a decade.72
Table 8. Top 10 Turkish Banks Credit Business Volume, 201175
Business loans % of total Consumer loans % of total SME loans % of total

Garanti Bank 13.2 Ziraat Bank 17.2 Yapı Kredi Bank 12.4
Iş Bank 12.0 Vakıflar Bank 11.4 Halk Bank 12.3
Ziraat Bank 10.2 Iş Bank 11.2 Iş Bank 11.9
Akbank 10.2 Garanti Bank 10.7 Garanti Bank 10.4
Yapı Kredi Bank 9.5 Akbank 9.2 Akbank 9.1
Vakıflar Bank 8.3 Halk Bank 8.3 Ekonomi Bank 5.4
Halk Bank 8.1 Yapı Kredi Bank 7.9 Vakıflar Bank 5.3
69 Large banks (5% or higher), medium (between 1% and 5%), small (between 0.20% and 1%), micro (below 0.20%)
70 See BDDK: “Structural Changes in Banking” Volume 6, December 2011, ISSN-1307-5691, p.19

Finans Bank 4.3 Finans Bank 6.1 Ziraat Bank 4.9

Ekonomi Bank 3.6 Deniz Bank 4.1 Finans Bank 3.7
Deniz Bank 3.2 Ekonomi Bank 3.7 ING Bank 3.3
Total 82.6% Total 89.8% Total 78.7%
Even though profits of the foreign owners in the banking sector have increased from 2.1% in end of 2010 to 7.5% in
December 2011; however, this huge rise in profits is overshadowed when the market size (15.1% of all banks in
Turkey) of the foreign banks is taken into consideration. 2011 saw a limited activity in mergers and acquisitions
(M&A); a domestic bank and an international bank merged bringing the bank total to 48. In addition, the BRSA
awarded a banking license to a foreign investment group in 2011. As of last year, nearly 2/3 of all 48 banks are
money deposit banks (31) and about 50% of these banks contain foreign investment. One thing is strikingly
interesting; within the last decade, there has been no change in the public bank number and there has been a decline
in privately funded banks.73
More than half (51%) of the banks’ branches are located in five big cities (30% in Istanbul, Ankara (capital city),
Izmir, Antalya, and Bursa). Banks in the Turkish banking sector have operations in 34 different countries. Most of
overseas operations are located in Northern Cypress Turkish Republic (KKTC) and other Turkish speaking countries.
Although branch operation in the European zone is more evenly distributed, the Nederland has a considerably larger
share among the other EU countries. Banks continued opening new branches in 2011 as they did in past years; banks
increased domestic branches by 4% (402 more branches) bringing the total to 10,468. Out of those 88 overseas
branches, 76 are off-shore and 12 of them are on-shore branches. For further growth, banks opened 10 branches in
Bahrain, 4 in Iraq, and one in Saudi Arabia.74
Significant portion (88.2%) of commercial (business) loans were generated by money deposit banks by the end of
2011; the remaining was shared by development & investment banks (4.8%) and profit/loss sharing banks (7%).
Small business loans are 35% of all business loans generated by all banks in the sector. Nevertheless, the credit
market for SMEs has been shrinking since 2006, but the declining period ended in 2011. Just like in all banking
segments, the SME credit market is also fundamentally dominated by the large money deposit banks having 66.4%
(7 of the 31 banks); medium-size banks had a respectable 24.6% share; and 7.2% was handled by the small banks.
All 31 money deposit banks enjoyed 88.8% of loans given to small-medium size businesses. The profit/loss sharing
banks have shown a noticeable growth in this segment and increased their market share to 9.5%.76
As of December 2011, 96.3% of consumer loans were provided by the money deposit banks, and 3.3% was handled
by the profit/loss sharing banks. Public banks have the highest market share (26.8%) in this segment. Except one
bank (ING Bank), the top 10 list has not changed from 2010 to 2011. The largest public bank, the Ziraat Bank, kept
its number one place in 2011. Vakıf Bank, number two largest public bank, improved its ranking from number 4 in
2010 to number 2 in 2011. The position of the third largest public bank, Halk Bank, remained same as the number 6
place. The EU countries on average gave €68 billion as consumer loans, and this number for Turkey was around €32
billion.77
76 See BDDK: “Structural Changes in Banking” Volume 6, December 2011, ISSN-1307-5691, pp.45-46
77 See BDDK: “Structural Changes in Banking” Volume 6, December 2011, ISSN-1307-5691, pp.47-48

Table 9. The Overview of Turkish Banks by Segments (in millions USD)78
Rank Name of Bank Deposits $ % of Sector % of Group

Money Deposit Banks 31 banks total = $639.95 billion USD
1 Türkiye Đş Bank 92,443 13.29 18.14
2 T.C. Ziraat Bank 91,818 13.20 18.02
3 Türkiye Garanti Bank 83,795 12.04 16.45
4 Akbank 76,315 10.97 14.98
Total 344,371 49.5% 67.59%
Profit/Loss Sharing Banks 4 banks total = 32.07 billion USD
1 Asya Katılım Bank 9,822 1.41 30.62
2 Kuveyt Türk Katılım Bank 8,544 1.23 26.66
3 Kuveyt Türk Katılım Bank 7,730 1.11 24.09
4 Albaraka Türk Katılım Bank 5,978 0.89 18.63
Total 32,074 4.64% 100%
Development & Investment Bank 13 banks total = $23.79 billion USD
1 Đller (cities) Bank 6,510 0.94 27.36
2 Türk Đhracat Kredi Bank 5,520 0.79 23.20
3 Türk Sınai Kalkınma Bank 5,403 0.78 22.71
4 Türk Kalkınma Bank 1,600 0.23 6.72
Total 19,033 2.74% 79.99%
Grand Total 395,478 56.88% 61.80%
Turkey’s remarkable economic development and financial growth along with a major decline in interest rates created
a perfect opportunity for establishment of the real estate mortgage industry which has been the fastest growing
segment in Turkish banking industry. As of December 2011, mortgage loans make up 11% of all loans and 33% of
personal loans (individual loans). A decline of mortgage loans in small-size banks has been observed; thus, 97.7% of
all mortgage loans are provided by the large and medium-size banks. The money deposit banks, as usual, hold 93.3%
of the mortgage loan market; the remaining 6.7% is provided by the profit/loss sharing banks whose market share
improved from 5.5% in 2010 to 6.7% in 2011. Even though the banking industry experienced a strong growth in real
estate mortgage sector, the volume of mortgage loans was around €21 billion as of 2009; this was $3 trillion for the
U.S., $992 billion for the UK, $962 billion for Germany, $716 for France, $657 for Spain, $378 for Holland, $68 for
Greece, and $27 for Russia.79
The credit card segment (8% of all loan types and 25% of consumer loans) continues to be one of the most important
business areas in Turkish banking sector. The market share of large and medium size banks has not changed from
2010 to 2011, which is 98.1% as of December 2011. The top banks by volume in the credit card segment included
two public banks and eight private banks. Yapi Kredi Bank was number one in both 2010 and 2011; the two public
banks were Vakıf Bank (ranked number 7) and Ziraat Bank (number 8). In 2010, The United States was on top of the
list with 39% of all transactions done by credit card; the U.S. fell to the second place for payments by check (30.9%),
China with 44.9% took the first place.80

Chart 7. Bank Capital to Assets Ratio (CAR) of Turkish Banking Sector (%)81
16% 14.4%
16.5%
13.7% 13.4% 13.3% 13.4%
14% 13.0%
11.9% 11.8% 12.3%
11.5%
12%
10%
10.5% 2019
8%
6%
4% 7% by 2013
2%
0%
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Turkey CAR % Basel III CAR 10.5%
Due to recent crises in the past two decades alone (1994 & 1999 Turkish economic crises, 1997-1998 Asian crisis,
1998 Russian ruble and debt default crisis, 2001 US dot.com crash, and 2007-2008 financial crisis), most banks
worldwide tend to hold considerably more capital than required by regulators just to be on the safe side. Banks
understand that regulatory requirements set under Basel I, II, and III or other country specific regulatory
requirements are not the only determining factors of actual capital levels (Slovik, 2011).
Simon Clark, Bloomberg Businessweek – Global Economics, reported that Turkish Finance Minister Mehmet
Simsek said Turkey’s banking industry would have a capital adequacy ratio of about 17% if the country implemented
the Basel III’s new rules today.82 Regardless of new capital requirements under Basel II or III, Turkish banking
system has already been under a great deal of scrutiny for some time and they are subject to heavy regulation under
the BRSA since 2002. For a decade now since 2001 crisis, Turkish banks have been operating under stringent rules
of the BRSA and besides banks operating in Turkey must keep a capital adequacy ratio of 12% under the BRSA
regulation in order to be able to open new branches. A great number of banks in Turkey feel that Basel III’s rigorous
capital requirements will not pose a significant challenge because Turkish banks since 2002 are already operating
under very strict rules of the BRSA. Wolfgang Schilk, executive vice-president for risk management at Yapı Kredi
Bank (fourth largest bank in Turkey), feels that “local regulation is very strict and very clear, so either it will go on
like this or we will need to see some harmonization with European Union countries.”83 Ali Ulvi Sargon, Halkbank’s
risk management president, claims that “although the return on equities might be adversely affected because of the
additional capital requirements under Basel III, it is highly expected that these measures will make positive
contributions to the growth rates in the middle term. Besides, it is quite obvious that a banking system with stronger
capital structure will have a more effective role in the creation of macroeconomic balances.”84
81 Source: The World Bank, “Bank capital to assets ratio (%)” chart is prepared by the author
82 See Bloomberg Businessweek, http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2010-11-24/turkish-banks-would-have-17-
percent-basel-iii-capital-simsek-saysbusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice
83 See Risk Magazine news, “Turkish banks seek freedom as Basel II hits capital ratios” http://www.risk.net/risk-
magazine/feature/2183190/turkish-banks-seek-freedom-basel-ii-hits-capital-ratios
84 See Today’s Zaman article, “Turkish banks indifferent about Basel III criteria,” http://www.todayszaman.com/news-
222747-turkish-banks-indifferent-about-basel-iii-criteria.html

Chart 8. Bank Capital to Assets Ratio (CAR) of Different Regions (%)85
16% 14.4%
13.4% 13.0% 13.3%
14%
11.9% 11.8%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Turkey The US Euro Japan
According to a press release on August 6, 2012, the BRSA reported that the asset size of the Turkish banking sector
has reached $727.87 billion ($1 = 1.75 TL used) as of June 2012. The sector’s total asset has increased by $32.04
billion (4.6%) comparing to the end of last year ($30.63 billion). As of June 2012, loans were 57.9% of total assets
amounting to $421.44 billion. In the same period, the sector’s profit is $6.61 billion, which is an increase of $674.85
million (11.4%) compared to the same period of previous year ($605.80 million). The sector’s return on assets
(ROA) and return on equity (ROE) are 1.9% and 16.3% respectively, which are considerably high compared to the
results of banks in the Euro zone. The Turkish banking sector’s capital adequacy standard ratio has been higher than
Basel II or Basel III CAR requirement since 2002. As the BRSA reported recently, the banking sector’s CAR is
16.5% as of June 2012, which is even much higher than the 10.5% CAR requirement under Basel III which will be in
full effect by January 2019. The sector’s total non-performing loans (gross) have increased slightly from the end-
2011 levels; however, when this slight increase is evaluated, it is contributed to the growth experienced in credit
portfolio in recent years, and not from the increase due to the number of loans that have gone into default.86
Usual factors like countries’ growth expectations, economic and political stability, corporate governance, tax laws,
well-developed financial system and modern accounting standards can certainly influence investors’ decisions. As an
emerging market, according to IMF International Financial Statistics, Turkey still receives a tiny fraction of gross
foreign portfolio inflows (see figure 1.8) compared to countries such as Brazil and South Africa (twice more), Korea
(three times more), and Spain (thirteen times more). Foreign portfolio inflow can be increased significantly if
Turkey’s rating is raised to ‘investment country’ or Turkey is included in internationally recognized ‘Morgan Stanley
Capital International’ (MSCI) equity indices; according to which, Turkey represented 0.05% of the MSCI compared
to the US (53.99%), Spain (1.32%), Korea (0.86%), India (0.20%), Mexico (0.31%), Brazil (0.21%), and Poland
(0.05%). If Turkey really wants to get more FDI, then as a top priority, it must develop non-bank financial
institutions (NBFIs) such insurance companies, mutual funds, leasing and venture capitalist firms, all of which
together only account less than 20% and the Turkish banking sector still continues to dominate with over 85%.87
Turkey finally succeeded in fixing traditional sources of fragility that was affecting forward economic progress
(irresponsible monetary policies, unsustainable fiscal expenditures, poor financial regulation, or inconsistent
exchange-rate policies). Monetary policy is now governed by an inflation targeting framework and an independent
central bank focused on developing sound monetary policies. Fiscal policy has been generally restrained and the
public debt-to-GDP ratio stable or declining. Turkish Banks in general have strong balance sheets, and regulation
and supervision are much tighter than before. The currency is afloat. When it comes to macroeconomic management,
Turkey has adopted all the best practices (Rodrik, 2009).
85 Source: The World Bank, “Bank capital to assets ratio (%)” chart is constructed by the author
86 BDDK (BRSA) Press Release (NO: 2012/21) on 6/8/ 2012: General Outlook of the Turkish Banking Sector, June 2012
87 Source: MSCI - Morgan Stanley Capital International equity indices, A World Bank country study report (2003), “Non-
Bank Financial Institutions and Capital Markets in Turkey”

Enhancing Risk Coverage under Basel III
The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) clear observed during the recent crisis that risk coverage of
the capital framework under Basel II was insufficient and needed to be strengthened; in addition, banks worldwide
were ineffective capturing on- and off-balance sheet risks, as well as derivative related exposures. These fundamental
deficiencies in the banking system were key destabilizing factors before, during, and aftermath the 2008 financial
crisis. As an enhanced treatment of risk coverage, the BCBS introduced a stressed value-at-risk (VaR) capital
requirement based on a 12-month period of significant financial stress.88
The Committee also introduced something called “resecuritizations” of both banking and trading books where banks
are required to carry higher capital. The adverse effects of counterparty credit exposures arising from banks’
derivatives, repo and securities financing activities before and during the crisis not only affected the banking system
but the broader economy was significantly affected as well. With these new additional enhanced risk coverage, Basel
III standard will attempt to reduce procyclicality which in turn will help reduce systemic risk across the financial
system.
Banks will have to determine how much capital to put aside for counterparty credit risk because there were concerns
before regarding capital charges being too low to address procyclicality. Going forward, banks will be subject to a
capital charge for mark-to-market losses. During the 2008 crisis, the Committee saw a major flaw in Basel II’s risk
coverage of counterparty defaults, which did not even address the associated risk resulting from “credit valuation
adjustment (CVA).” The potential losses from this particular source were much greater than those losses related to
counterpart defaults. Moreover, better collateral risk management practices are also introduced under Basel III.89
To address the issue of the buildup of excessive on- and off-balance sheet leverage in the banking system, the
Committee is introducing the leverage ratio which is intended to improve the risk-based capital requirement. The
mentioned issue above has been a familiar feature in previous financial crisis such as the late 1997 and early 1998
Asian crisis, 1999 and 2001 Turkish crisis. With the leverage ratio, banks will not be allowed to buildup on- and off-
balance sheet leverage because Basel III will enforce a limit (floor) to what extend banks can buildup leverage. This
way, it is envisioned to protect the banking system and the broader economy from any risk of destabilizing
deleveraging processes. The important thing is that the leverage ratio will be calculated the same way (equivalent)
across countries worldwide.90
The Committee felt that Basel II completely failed to cover any of the potential risks related to complex trading
activities, resecuritizations and exposures to off-balance sheet vehicles, in fact, according to the Committee, Basel II
was in a way responsible for the risk sensitivity and coverage of the regulatory capital requirement to increase. To
better handle this matter, the BCBS is introducing downturn loss-given-default (“LGD”). Banks are also required to
conduct stress tests during an economic recession or financial stress to determine the direction (downward) of their
credit portfolios. The Committee said that it received a number of proposals on two of which an impact study is
being conducted. These two proposals under review are; use of the highest average probability of default (“PD”)
estimate; and use of an average of historic PD estimates for each exposure class.91
The Committee introduced two liquidity ratios; (1) short-term liquidity – Liquidity Coverage Ratio (“LCR”) which
will be in full effect as of 2015. This basically means that banks must have high quality liquid assets at any given
time as produced by the LCR. In spite of that, banks will be required to maintain enough liquid assets for a month-
long (30 days) under a specified acute liquidity stress; (2) long-term liquidity – Net Stable Funding Ratio (“NSFR”)
of which the implementation is scheduled for 2018. With NSFR, banks will be required to have stable funding in
place to address funding needs over a stressed one year period. The idea through NSFR to ensure that banks do not
carry longer-term structural liquidity mismatches in their balance sheets. It became explicitly obvious as the 2008
crisis intensified that a good number of financial institutions possessed instable forms of funding which made them

extremely vulnerable to the financial and economic shocks during stress. What this means is that illiquid assets must
be backed with 100% NSFR. In the case of residential real estate mortgages, NFSR can be as low as 65%.92
Table 10. Existing Dividend Payment Strategy of Banks in Turkey93
CAR > 18% 16% < CAR < 18% 13% < CAR < 16%
Max Distribution 20% 15% 10%
Maximum Allowable
Decrease in CAR After 100bp 70bp 40bp
Distribution
Existence of General Additional 15% Additional10%
------
Reserves for Potential Risks of General Reserves of General Reserves
CONCLUSION
As highlighted by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, healthy and strong banking system was extremely
vital in Turkey’s economic progress. Establishment of the Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency (BRSA or
BDDK in Turkish), creation of an independent central bank, and explicit inflation targeting framework were the best
reforms on the government part enabling a much quicker economic recovery post 2001 crisis, which was considered
the biggest financial and economic shock in the history of Turkey in nearly a century. Political stability (one-party
government in the last three parliamentary elections since 2002) along with the EU harmonization process created a
positive impact and served well the appetite of potential global investors to consider investing in Turkey in terms of
FDIs and FPIs. A decade of transformation through devotion, full commitment and relentless hard work, Turkey now
deservedly enjoys being the 16th largest economy in the world with over $1.087 trillion in GDP94. When banks in so
many countries throughout the world are being liquidated, taken into government control, or bankrupt as well as
some European countries are facing sovereign-debt issues; no bank in Turkey, before, during or after 2008 crisis, has
asked the government to receive any financial support; and probably more importantly, there has not been a single
case of any bank liquidation or bankruptcy in Turkey since 2003.
Political instability and recurrent military intervention may have been the real reasons behind Turkey’s more
accustomed history of economic struggles during much of the 1980s and 1990s. Violence, political and economic
instability, and social unrest plagued Turkey’s trivial chance of forward development in those years and the country
was gradually drifted into a state of chaos. Every time Turkey was about to record any means of positive progress,
the process was toppled plentiful times by other domestic or foreign shocks. For instance, six parliamentary elections
occurred between 1983 and 2002 (1983, 1987, 1991, 1995, 1999, and 2002) in which 9 different parties took part in
the government. Moreover, the election years of 1991, 1995, and 1999 produced two-party or three-party coalition
governments. Furthermore, Turkey’s political and economic developments have been intervened at four different
times by the country’s armed forces causing further instability (the coups of 1960, 1971, and 1980; and the 1997
"coup by memorandum" which is nothing less than an ultimatum by the armed forces asking the government to
resign).
The capital adequacy ratio of banks in Turkey on average is substantially higher than the banks in the U.S. or in the
Euro region. According to a press release on August 6, 2012, the BRSA reported that the asset size of the Turkish
banking sector has reached 1.27 trillion TL or $727.87 billion ($1 = 1.75 TL used). The Turkish banking sector’s
capital adequacy standard ratio (CAR) has been higher than Basel II (8%) or Basel III (10.5% by 2019) requirement
since 2002. As the BRSA reported recently, the banking sector’s CAR is 16.5% as of June 2012, which is
significantly higher than the 10.5% CAR requirement under Basel III which will be in full effect by January 2019.
92 Shearman & Sterling report “The New Basel III Framework: Implications for Banking Organizations” 3/30/ 2011
93 Source: BRSA (BDDK) – Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency of Turkey
94 See CIA – The World Factbook states that Turkey’s GDP (purchasing power parity) is $1.087 trillion (2011 est.), and GDP
(official exchange rate) is $778.1 billion (2011 est.).

Turkey’s decade long social, economic and political stability (no military intervention and one-party government in
last three elections since 2002) fostered a great deal of economic development, which in turn created positive
progress in various parts of the society. However, Turkey must continue its mission of enhancing structural and
macroeconomic policies to further improve the resilience of its banking system. Becoming the 16th largest economy
in the world puts extra pressure on Turkey to prove to the world that its unique story of economic success is not a
fluke as some people might think. Turkey now needs to take the advantage of favorable macro and microeconomic
environment to tackle four problematic areas constraining long-term growth; high urban unemployment rate, current
account deficit, budget deficit and trade deficit.
It is extremely tough for Turkey to prevent having a large current account deficit because it highly depends on
energy import to continue its economic growth which in turn tends to create a massive current account deficit at
present hovering around little over $70 billion. However, Turkish economists believe that the deficit will improve
and continue its gradual descend until end of 2012 to meet the central bank guidance for the year. As far as the
banking industry is concerned, the BRSA must encourage further development of the Turkish banking sector in order
to become a full-fledged financial system consisting some of the following critical components of a modern financial
industry:
• The insurance sector is very limited and it is not sufficient; therefore, it needs further development.
• An over the counter (OTC) market for securities does not exist and its establishment is necessary.
• Venture capitalist firms should be formed and the initial public offering (IPO) should be expanded.
• Privatization work needs to continue, maybe even a bit accelerated.
• The securities market needs to be further developed to include options, derivatives, and other financial
investment instruments.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to acknowledge the support of Universiti Malaysia, Sarawak (Unimas). He likes to extend thanks
to Prof. Dr. Abu Hassan Md. Isa, Universiti Malaysia, Sarawak - Unimas, for his helpful comments on this paper and
for his direction and guidance on the dissertation. He would also like to thank Prof. Dr. Shazali Abu Mansor, and
Associate Prof. Dr. Mohamad Jais – Universiti Malaysia, Sarawak - Unimas for their support.
BIOGRAPHY
John Taskinsoy has been teaching business communication, marketing, finance and various other business courses
for several years. Since 2011 he has been teaching at Universiti Malaysia, Sarawak (Unimas), where he has worked
as senior lecturer. John has served in a variety of leadership roles in technology companies. Other experiences in
corporate management include manufacturing manager, system integration manager, project manager, international
business manager, overseas operations director, project director, senior editor, director of global manufacturing &
procurement, and operations director. Over 20 years of professional experience in sales, manufacturing, operations,
marketing, human resource, budgeting, forecasting, outsourcing, ISO implementations, new product introduction,
international marketing, and management positions enable John to bring “real world” examples and cases into his
classroom teaching environment. After graduating from San Francisco State University (SFSU) in 1997 with a BSc
degree in business administration, he was offered a management position at Nortel Networks where he worked from
1997 to 2001, and then he joined Flextronics International, LSI Logic, and Trexta in later years. While he was
employed, he also went on completing his first master’s (MBA) degree in 1999 at University of Phoenix, and then he
decided to finish a second master’s (MSc - Telecommunication) at Golden Gate University in 2002.
REFERENCES
1. Allen, B., Chan, K. K., Milne, A., & Thomas, S. (2012). Basel III: Is the cure worse than the disease
Elsevier, International Review of Financial Analysis, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2012.08.004
2. Angelini, P., Clerc, L., Curdia, V., Gambacorta, L., Gerali, A., Locarno, A., Motto, R., Röger, W., Van den
Heuvel, S. & Vlček, J. (2011). Basel III: Long-Term Impact on Economic Performance and Fluctuations
Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1785522 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1785522

3. Baig, T. & Goldfajn, I. (1999). “Financial Market Contagion in the Asian Crisis” IMF Staff Papers 46 (2)
4. Bair, S. (2007). “Remarks by Sheila Bair Chairman, U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation” 2007 Risk
Management and Allocation Conference, Paris, France, June 25, 2007
5. Bekaert, G. & Harvey, C., R. (1998). “Capital Flows and the Behavior of Emerging Market Equity Returns”,
NBER Working Paper Series, 6669
6. Bredenkamp, H., Josefsson, M., & Lindgren, C., J. (2009), “Turkey’s Renaissance: From Banking Crisis to
Economic Revival”, in Brau E. and I. McDonald, Successes of the International Monetary Fund: Untold Stories
of Cooperation at Work, Palgrave Macmillan
7. Broner, F. A., & Rigobon, R. (2004). “Why Are Capital Flows So Much More Volatile In Emerging Than In
Developed Countries?” Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=884381
8. Calvo, G. & Mendoza, E. (1997). “Rational herd behavior and the globalization of securities markets”. Mimeo,
University of Maryland.
9. Rijckeghem, C., V. & Űçer, M. (2005). Chronicle of the Turkish Financial Crises of 2000–2001,
Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press, 2005
10. Caruana, J. (2010). Why Basel III matters for Latin American and Caribbean financial markets. General
Manager, Bank for International Settlements
11. Cosimano, T., F. & Hakura, D. (2011). Bank Behavior in Response to Basel III: A Cross-Country Analysis
(May 1, 2011). IMF Working Paper No. 11/119. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1860182 or
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1860182
12. Elliott, D., J. (2010). Basel III, the Banks, and the Economy, The Brookings Institution, July 23, 2010
13. Feridun, M. (2004). “Turkish Financial Crisis of 2001: Did Politics Play Any Role?” Investment Management
and Financial Innovations, 1/2004
14. Fisher, S. (1998). “The Asian Crisis: a View From the IMF” Journal of International Management and
Accounting 9(2)
15. Gordy, M., B. (2003), “A Risk-Factor Model Foundation for Ratings-Based Bank Capital Rules”, Journal of
Financial Intermediation, vol. 12
16. Haidar, J. I. (2012). "Sovereign Credit Risk in the Eurozone," World Economics, World Economics, vol. 13(1),
pp. 123-136
17. Huw, J. (2010). "Basel rules to have little impact on economy" (pdf).
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/16/oecd-basel-idUSLDE71E23Q20110216
18. Ingves, S. (2012). Basel III Is Simpler and Stronger: The new rules will make taxpayer bailouts less likely.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444799904578050150684344438.html
19. Jackson, P. (1999). “Capital Requirements and Bank Behavior: The Impact of the Basle Accord”, Basle
Committee on Banking Supervision Working Papers, No. 1, April
20. Kuhnhenn, J. (2010). “Senate passes sweeping Wall Street reform”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38258047/38316915
21. Masson, P. (1998). “Contagion: Monsoonal Effects, Spillovers, and Jumps between Multiple Equilibria” IMF
Working Paper, WP/98/142 September 1998.
22. Mody, A., & Schindler, M. (2005). ‘Economic Growth in Turkey, 1960–2000,’ in Turkey at the Crossroads:
From Crisis Resolution to EU Accession, Washington DC: International Monetary Fund, 2005
23. Nanto, D. K. (1998). “The 1997-98 Asian Financial Crisis”, CRS Report for Congress, February6, 1998,
http://www.fas.org/man/crs/crs-asia2.htm
24. Nicolas, M. & Firzli, J. (2011). "A Critique of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision" Revue Analyse
Financière, Nov. 10 2011 & Q2 2012
25. Onis, Z. (2009). “Beyond the 2001 Financial Crisis: The Political Economy of the New Phase of Neo-Liberal
Restructuring in Turkey” Review of International Political Economy, 16(3) pp. 409-432
26. Otker-Robe, I., & Pazarbaşıoğlu, C. (2010). “Impact of Regulatory Reforms on Large and Complex Financial
Institutions”, International Monetary Fund, Staff Position Note, 3 November, SPN/10/16$
27. Quignon, L. (2011). “Basel III: no Achilles’ spear” BNP Paribas: Economic Research Department, May 2011
28. Raccagni, M. (1980). “The French Economic Interests in the Ottoman Empire”, International Journal of Middle
East Studies, Cambridge University Press, 1980, p. 343
29. Raina, L., Bakker, M.R. (2003). A World Bank Country Study Report: “Non-Bank Financial Institutions and
Capital Markets in Turkey” World Bank, Washington, D.C. April 2003.
30. Razin, A. (2002). “FDI Contribution to Capital Flows and Investment in Capacity”, NBER Working Paper,
9204.

31. Rawdanowicz, L. (2010), “The 2008-09 Crisis in Turkey: Performance, Policy Responses and Challenges for
Sustaining the Recovery”, OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 819, OECD Publishing. doi:
10.1787/5km36j7d320s-en
32. Sarno, L. & Taylor, M. (1999). “Hot Money, Accounting Labels and the Permanence of Capital Flows to
Developing Countries: An Empirical Investigation”, Journal of Development Economics, 59, p. 337–364.
33. Slovik, P. (2012), "Systematically Important Banks and Capital Regulations Challenges", OECD Economics
Department Working Papers, No. 916, OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/5kg0ps8cq8q6-en
34. Wearden, G. (2011). "EU debt crisis: Italy hit with rating downgrade". The Guardian (UK), Retrieved 20
September, 2012 http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/blog/2011/sep/20/eu-debt-crisis-italy-downgrade.
Retrieved 20 September 2012.

Rigorous Capital Requirements Under Basel Iii Possible Impact On Turkey's Financial Sector

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rigorous Capital Requirements Under Basel Iii Possible Impact On Turkey's Financial Sector

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rigorous Capital Requirements Under Basel Iii Possible Impact On Turkey's Financial Sector

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of WEI Business and Economics-April 2013 Volume 2 Number 1

RIGOROUS CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS UNDER BASEL III

Keywords: Basel III, liquidity management, financial crises, and Turkey

JEL Classification Code: G01, G21, G28, G30, F30, E52

The West East Institute 1

Looking at Basel II under the Microscope

The West East Institute 2

Key Elements of Proposal under Basel III

The West East Institute 3

Table 1. Basel III Capital Reforms Implementation Timetable10

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

The West East Institute 4

The West East Institute 5

Chart 1. Long-Term Interest Rates in Euro Area as of July 2012 (%)19

The West East Institute 6

The West East Institute 7

The West East Institute 8

Chart 2. Phase in Arrangements of Basel III Capital Requirements28

The West East Institute 9

Enhanced Risk Coverage under Basel III

Tier 1 (T1) + Tier 2 (T2)

The West East Institute 10

Stock of high-quality liquid assets

Available amount of stable funding > 100

Basel III Impact on Asian Countries

The West East Institute 11

Chart 3. Basel III Impact on Asian Countries40

A Quick Overview of the History of Turkish Economy

The West East Institute 12

Rise & Fall of the Ottoman Empire

Rebuilding the Newly Formed Turkish Republic under Atatürk’s Reforms

The West East Institute 13

Political Instability Amid Privatization Attempts

46 See Financial Times Survey: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Times

The West East Institute 14

Table 4. Overview of the Turkish Banking Sector in 200051

Bank Type Total Assets Total Loans Total Deposits

51 Source: BDDK and The Banks Association of Turkey

The West East Institute 15

Table 5. Overview of the Turkish Banking Sector: Financial Indicators55

in Billion $USD 1990 1994 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

The West East Institute 16

Table 6. Turkish Banking Sector Before and After 2001 Crisis 57

in $ billion USD 2001 2010 in $ billion USD 2000 2001 2010

56 Source: Sunday’s Zaman & BDDK, http://www.bddk.org.tr/WebSitesi/English.aspx

The West East Institute 17

58 See Reuter: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/16/turkey-budget-idUSL5E8LG63L20121016

The West East Institute 18

Chart 5. Foreign Portfolio Investment, Inflows (in billions USD)62

Chart 6. Bank Nonperforming Loans to Total Gross Loans (%)66

The West East Institute 19

Table 7. Turkish Banks by Deposit, Loans and Assets68

all numbers in % 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

67 See The Central Bank of Turkey, “International Investment Position Report”

The West East Institute 20

First 5 Banks 63.9 63.2 62.2 62.3 62.6 63.1 59.8

First 10 Banks 86.9 87.3 86.3 86.1 86.1 86.9 86.5

Table 8. Top 10 Turkish Banks Credit Business Volume, 201175

Business loans % of total Consumer loans % of total SME loans % of total