1 day ago
13
The man who until recently ran the world’s most important banking standards body has a message for European policymakers: don’t do it.
Neil Esho, who served as secretary general of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) until March 2026, told Bloomberg that the EU’s consideration of abandoning the output floor, a cornerstone of post-financial-crisis capital rules, would be “a disaster” and “a big step too far.”
What the output floor actually does
The output floor is one of those regulatory mechanisms that sounds mind-numbingly technical until you realize what it prevents. Established in 2017 as part of the Basel III reforms, the rule says that when banks use their own internal models to calculate how risky their assets are, the result can’t fall below 72.5% of what a standardized approach would produce.
The rule exists because the financial crisis revealed a deeply uncomfortable truth: banks using internal models had a tendency to produce flattering risk assessments. The variability between institutions was enormous, and regulators decided that enough was enough.
Now the EU is reportedly weighing whether to scrap or significantly relax this requirement in the name of European competitiveness. Esho’s response, delivered in an August 11 interview, suggests he views that rationale as dangerously short-sighted.
The competitiveness trap
The EU’s logic isn’t entirely irrational on its face. European banks have long complained that Basel III’s implementation puts them at a disadvantage compared to US and Asian competitors. The output floor, in particular, tends to hit European banks harder because they rely more heavily on internal models, especially for mortgage lending and corporate credit.
The Basel framework works precisely because it’s global. When one major jurisdiction starts pulling threads, the whole fabric weakens. Esho’s warning points to exactly this dynamic: if the EU walks away from the output floor, other jurisdictions might feel emboldened to cherry-pick which rules they follow too.
The EU has already delayed elements of Basel III implementation, particularly the Fundamental Review of the Trading Book, pushing timelines to 2026 or later.
Why Esho’s voice matters here
Esho isn’t just any critic. As the former top official at the BCBS, he had a front-row seat to the painstaking negotiations that produced these rules. The Basel Committee operates by consensus among central bankers and supervisors from 28 jurisdictions, meaning every rule represents years of diplomatic horse-trading.
His resignation from the role in March 2026 makes his public comments particularly notable. Calling a potential EU policy move “a disaster” is about as blunt as it gets in the world of central banking communication.
The timing matters too. His comments come as European policymakers are actively debating how aggressively to pursue deregulation as a growth strategy, alongside broader political pressure to boost EU economic competitiveness relative to the US and China.
What investors should watch
If the EU does proceed with relaxing the output floor, the immediate effect would likely benefit European bank balance sheets. Lower capital requirements mean banks can deploy more of their resources toward lending and trading, which typically boosts return on equity.
There’s also the question of market credibility. Foreign investors assessing European bank stocks or bonds factor regulatory rigor into their calculations. A jurisdiction perceived as willing to bend global rules for competitive advantage may find that the confidence discount outweighs the capital benefit.
Cross-border banking relationships could get more complicated as well. US regulators might respond by imposing additional requirements on European banks operating in American markets, resulting in more complexity, more compliance costs, and less efficiency.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
English (US) ·