ALMOST 18 YEARS ago, amid the global financial crisis, a document was released which was to have a profound(深远的，深刻的) impact on the banking system. The snappily named “Principles for Sound Liquidity Risk Management and Supervision” was pen(撰写，起草)ned by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), a club of central banks. Walter Bagehot’s “Lombard Street” it was not; the principles are a dull read even for a financial nerd(极客，书呆子). But the report eventually led to the “Basel III” rules on banking supervision, named after the BIS’s Swiss home—and hence to vast new protective capital buffers(资本缓冲).
大约18年前，在全球金融危机期间，一份对银行体系产生深远影响的文件发布了。这份被简洁地命名为《健全流动性风险管理和监管原则》的文件由国际清算银行（BIS）——一个央行俱乐部——撰写。它可不是沃尔特·白芝浩的《伦巴第街》；这些原则即使对金融极客来说也是枯燥读物。但该报告最终导致了巴塞尔III银行监管规则，以国际清算银行瑞士总部所在地命名——并由此带来了庞大的新型保护性资本缓冲。
The rules are, to most observers, a success. But like many products of the bygone(过去的，已逝的) era of multilateralism, they are beginning to fray(磨损，变得紧张), as America and Europe disagree about their future. In a world of wars—commercial and kinetic(动力的，物理的（指热战）)—battles over capital requirements may seem peripheral(边缘的，次要的). Yet if they bring about an era of deregulatory competition, they could store up a lot of trouble.
在大多数观察者看来，这些规则是成功的。但像多边主义时代的许多产物一样，它们开始出现裂痕，因为美国和欧洲对其未来存在分歧。在一个充满战争——商业和热战——的世界里，资本要求之争可能显得边缘化。然而，如果它们引发一个放松监管竞争的时期，就可能埋下许多隐患。
American rulemakers are the most trigger-happy(好斗的，急于行动的). In March the Federal Reserve reduced extra capital charges for the biggest banks and relaxed some of the more onerous(繁重的，麻烦的) Basel “endgame” rules proposed in 2023. Morgan Stanley, an investment bank, reckons these and other manoeuvres(策略，动作（复数）) will free up(释放，腾出) as much as $54bn in capital—which in banks’ case more or less means equity—across the banking sector. This means the system can become more leveraged(杠杆化的，借债经营的).
美国规则制定者最为咄咄逼人。今年3月，美联储削减了对最大银行的额外资本费用，并放松了2023年提出的部分更为繁重的巴塞尔“终局”规则。投行摩根士丹利估计，这些及其他举措将为整个银行业释放高达540亿美元的资本——对银行而言，这或多或少意味着股权。这意味着体系可以变得更具杠杆化。