Business
New ‘endgame’ bank rules promise greater financial stability, lower returns on December 29, 2023 at 11:00 am Business News | The Hill
The banking sector is bracing for a major set of regulations prompted by the 2007-2008 financial crisis, but whose origins extend as far back as the termination of the gold standard and the introduction of freely floating international currencies.
Bank regulators around the world are poised to finalize the third Basel Accord, an international set of bank capital rules born from a summit that began in 1974.
Experts say the new regulations, known as the “Basel III Endgame,” are still necessary and will help to stabilize an international financial system that is prone to periodic collapse.
Meanwhile, banking industry groups and lobbies are firing on all cylinders to water down the proposed rule changes ahead of a January 16 deadline for public comment.
The new international rules compel banks to hold more capital and rely less on their own internal modeling. While the risk of traditional bank runs like the ones that brought down Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) and Signature Bank earlier this year likely won’t be substantially mitigated by Basel III Endgame, experts say it could reduce the risk of a deeper, industry-wide failure like in 2008.
“There’s a vast body of academic research that presents … a very broad consensus to say that from the current level an increase in capital requirements is probably a good idea – that’s viewed from the perspective of the system as a whole, not from that of an individual bank,” Nicolas Véron, a senior fellow with the Peterson Institute for International Economics, told The Hill.
What will Basel III mean for banks?
The central feature of the new banking rules is higher requirements for capital, which is a measure of the resources banks have to withstand losses. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) estimates an aggregate 16-percent increase in common equity requirements for affected banks.
The rules would also broaden out these requirements for banks worth $100 billion or more, pulling the threshold for more capital down from the $250 billion mark to apply to banks of the size of SVB and Signature.
Banks and their advocates tend to oppose increasing capital requirements, arguing that the Dodd-Frank reforms following the 2007-08 crisis were sufficient and stricter rules will mean fewer loans into the economy.
Higher capital requirements also limit banks’ ability to leverage their capital and extend their balance sheets with borrowed money to distribute more profits to shareholders.
But the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), the international coordinating body for central banks like the Federal Reserve, says that too much leverage was a driving force behind the 2007-2008 financial crisis.
“An underlying cause of the global financial crisis was the build-up of excessive on- and off-balance sheet leverage in the banking system,” a BIS write-up of the Basel plan reads.
“At the height of the crisis, financial markets forced the banking sector to reduce its leverage in a manner that amplified downward pressures on asset prices. This deleveraging process exacerbated the feedback loop between losses, falling bank capital and contracting credit availability.”
More transparency on leverage ratios
Having banks use a more standardized risk model is another key feature of the new rules. The last round of Basel regulations allowed banks to do their own risk assessments.
“This was a very easy system to game,” financial writer and researcher Nathan Tankus told The Hill in an interview.
“You would have a risk modeler who would come in from the compliance department, model the activities that a trading desk was doing, let them do that for a few weeks. Then you would kick the compliance person out, make sure they weren’t allowed at your desk anymore, and then you’d play around with the model and figure out what risk you can take to earn more money without the risk model realizing it,” he said.
The BIS has also called out this operational duplicity and suggested it needs to be amended.
“In many cases, banks built up excessive leverage while reporting strong risk-based capital ratios,” the BIS wrote in 2017.
The proposed rule changes include replacing banking organizations’ internal models for credit risk and operational risk with standardized approaches, the Federal Reserve says.
Disputed effects of higher capital requirements
Bankers say that having to keep more capital on their books means they will decrease lending to households and small businesses or increase the interest rates on their loans, making them more expensive.
“When capital requirements are set excessively high, it makes it much harder to secure a loan or credit — this is especially true for working families and small businesses,” the Bank Policy Institute, a trade group for the banking industry, says on its website.
“If we go too far in terms of burdening US banks with regulations, it is absolutely going to negatively impact a specific subset of people that rely on those institutions, not only for business loans but personal loans, agricultural loans, that type of thing,” financial services director Dana Twomey of consultancy West Monroe told The Hill.
But some research says otherwise.
One frequently cited paper from 2009 found “that there would likely be relatively small changes in loan volumes by U.S. banks as a result of higher capital requirements on loans retained on the banks’ balance sheets.”
Even if banks restructure their balance sheets to optimize returns on stock, such moves “appear unlikely to be large enough, even in the aggregate, to significantly discourage customers from borrowing or move them to other credit suppliers in a major way,” the researcher found.
Another BIS paper found that “loss-absorbing capital is only a small proportion of banks’ balance sheets. Increasing this proportion to 10 to 15 percent does not materially affect a bank’s average cost of funding.”
Even assuming diminished lending as a result of higher capital requirements, the Fed could very well offset this stinginess with lower inter-bank interest rates, which could have a more broadly stimulative effect on the economy even despite tighter private lending standards.
“A bug here can also be seen as a feature,” Tankus told The Hill.
What are lawmakers saying?
Some Democrats have been trumpeting the new rules, arguing they’re needed to stabilize the economy against the next inevitable crisis.
“The Fed’s rules for stronger capital requirements for big banks are crucial to protect the economy and taxpayers when banks take risky bets and lose money,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said in a statement to The Hill.
“Wall Street executives are fighting tooth and nail against these rules because they threaten their multimillion-dollar bonuses — but regulators must reject the Big Bank lobby’s efforts and finalize strong capital requirements swiftly,” she said.
Key Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee and House Financial Services Committee have largely backed the banking industry.
“This proposal could limit, and frankly I think will limit, the following: availability of credit for housing for those who need it most, severely restrict lending for small businesses,” Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) said during a hearing on Wall Street oversight earlier this month.
In a letter to financial regulators sent in September, House Republicans bemoaned the increased capital requirements and said the whole plan should be scrapped.
“The proposal .. would force the U.S. to overcapitalize financial institutions, compromising our global competitiveness,” they said.
Just how stable is the financial sector now?
The financial sector teetered in March after SVB and Signature tanked due to clumsy management and basic interest rate exposure — something regulators could have caught but didn’t.
This resulted in the Fed’s extending a line of credit backed by taxpayer money to the banking industry, as well as a private-sector bailout from other big banks to rescue First Republic, another lender that was about to go under.
“The failure of two regional banks in Spring 2023 underscored that activities of non-global systemically important banks can pose a risk to financial stability,” the Treasury Department’s Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) said in its annual report, released last week.
Despite fears of wider failures on the scale of 2007, governmental and private-sector bailouts were able to prop up the industry up, further buttressed by the roaring post-pandemic recovery, leading FSOC to deem the U.S. banking system in December “resilient overall.”
But some substantial risks for FSOC remain, notably in securities related to residential real estate and the $6-trillion commercial real estate sector. They’re risks that raise the specter of the predatory securitized mortgages that tanked big banks starting in 2007 and led to a legislative rescue of the industry.
Maturing loans and expiring leases amid weak demand for office space have the potential to strain the sector further, Treasury officials told The Hill, encouraging market participants to keep a close eye on the sector.
Failures there could spread beyond that segment of the market, they said.
Despite the warnings, the financial sector doesn’t want any more interference in how they securitize mortgages or other types of loans.
“Capital requirements play a key role in the ability of banks to participate in securitizations to fund lending. Higher capital requirements would force banks to hold less inventory leading to lower [asset-backed security] liquidity and higher spreads which in turn raises costs for consumers and businesses,” financial trade group SIFMA said in a November statement.
Market commentators say that changing the way securitization markets work and reining them in is precisely the point of the new regulations.
“Whatever you think about the [impact of these rules on securitization] and how true that is, there’s a certain point of view that says ‘Well, good. That’s a feature, not a bug. Securitization has all sorts of potential pathologies … and so much the better for our financial markets,” Tankus told The Hill.
Business, banking regulator, banking system, basel III, basel III endgame, Elizabeth Warren, Tim Scott The banking sector is bracing for a major set of regulations prompted by the 2007-2008 financial crisis, but whose origins extend as far back as the termination of the gold standard and the introduction of freely floating international currencies. Bank regulators around the world are poised to finalize the third Basel Accord, an international set…
Sustainability is often spoken about as if it belongs only to scientists, policy experts, or environmental activists. On the Roselyn Omaka Show, Otto Cannon makes the case that it belongs to everyone. His message is both urgent and deeply human: sustainability is not just about the environment, but about creating a world where people, planet, and profit exist in balance.
Cannon’s mission is striking in its scale. He wants to build what he calls a global army of 10 million sustainability leaders—people across industries and communities who choose to think beyond short-term gains and take responsibility for the future they are helping shape.
My biggest mission is to raise a 10 million global army of sustainability leaders.
Otto’s understanding of this work did not begin in a conference room. It began in childhood, shaped by a father who taught him to see the world’s problems as personal assignments. That early influence instilled in him the belief that real leadership means stepping forward, identifying what is broken, and dedicating yourself to fixing it.
That mindset later became deeply personal. In one of the interview’s most emotional moments, Cannon shares how the death of his dog after swallowing a plastic bottle cap changed his life. What might have seemed like an isolated tragedy became, for him, a doorway into a much larger truth: waste is never just waste when it destroys ecosystems, harms wildlife, and threatens the future.
Instead of turning away, he turned pain into action. Through his work, he helped build a recycling company that processed over 10,000 tons of plastic and supported tree-planting efforts that have already reached more than 500,000 trees. His story reflects the broader idea of sustainability leadership, which is commonly framed as the integration of environmental, social, and economic responsibility into real-world decision-making.
What makes Cannon’s perspective especially compelling is the way he challenges common misconceptions. He argues that sustainability is too often boxed into environmental language alone, when in reality it applies to every sector—fashion, construction, energy, transportation, manufacturing, and beyond. This broader understanding aligns with current sustainability leadership thinking, which emphasizes systems, collaboration, and long-term value creation across sectors.
Profit should never come at the expense of people or the planet.
That belief is central to everything Cannon describes. For him, sustainability is not anti-business. It is about designing business, innovation, and progress in a way that does not leave harm behind for future generations. A solution that helps today but creates a deeper problem tomorrow, he argues, is not truly a solution at all.
This is also the thinking behind the Global Sustainability Summit and Awards in London, where Cannon brings together leaders from government, business, and civil society to share ideas, showcase innovation, and inspire action. Cross-sector collaboration is widely recognized as a core part of effective sustainability work, especially when the goal is cultural and systemic change rather than isolated projects.
The power of Cannon’s message lies in its accessibility. He is not calling only on policymakers or executives. He is speaking to creators, founders, farmers, designers, builders, and everyday professionals—anyone who has influence over materials, waste, systems, sourcing, or the choices that shape modern life.
By the end of the conversation, one image lingers: the idea that one person is a drop of water, but many drops together can become a wave. That is the future Otto Cannon is working toward—not a movement powered by one voice, but one built by millions who decide that sustainability is not optional, but necessary.
Business
GLOBAL SUSTAINABILITY SUMMIT RETURNS FOR ITS 5TH EDITION AT THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT – HOUSE OF LORDS, PALACE OF WESTMINSTER
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Theme: “People, Planet, and Profit in the Age of AI and Innovation”
London, United Kingdom — The Global Sustainability Summit (GSS) is officially back for its landmark 5th Edition, continuing its legacy as one of the leading international platforms driving sustainable development, climate action, ethical investment, innovation, and global collaboration.
Convened annually at the prestigious British Parliament, House of Lords, Palace of Westminster, by Ambassador Canon Chinenem Otto, the Summit has, over the last four years, successfully fostered international dialogue and partnerships that have contributed to the advancement of global sustainability goals, the establishment of sustainability-focused ministries, departments and policy structures across national and subnational governments, and the attraction of major investors into sustainable development projects, corporations and emerging economies.
This year’s summit, themed “People, Planet, and Profit in the Age of AI and Innovation,” will explore how emerging technologies, responsible leadership, sustainable finance, innovation, and global partnerships can shape a more inclusive, resilient and environmentally conscious future.
The 5th Edition promises to be the most impactful yet, bringing together world leaders, policymakers, diplomats, investors, academics, innovators, climate experts and youth leaders from across the globe to discuss actionable solutions toward achieving a sustainable and equitable future.
Among the distinguished speakers, delegates and honorees already lined up for the Summit are:
• His Excellency Mallam AbdulRahman AbdulRazaq — Executive Governor of Kwara State, Nigeria and Chairman of the Nigeria Governors’ Forum
• His Excellency Senator Prince Bassey Otu — Executive Governor of Cross River State, Nigeria
• Ambassador Patricia Espinosa Cantellano — Former Executive Secretary of UN Climate Change (UNFCCC) and Former Foreign Minister of Mexico
• Lord Marvin Rees, Baron Rees of Easton OBE — Member of the House of Lords, United Kingdom
• Hon. Neema K. Lugangira — Secretary-General of Women Political Leaders (WPL), Brussels and Former Member of Parliament
• Her Excellency Dr. Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah — President of the Republic of Namibia
• His Excellency Nangolo Mbumba — Former President of Namibia
• Former President of Tanzania
• Her Excellency Ambassador Professor Olufolake AbdulRazaq — First Lady of Kwara State, Nigeria and Chairperson of Nigeria Governors’ Spouses Forum
• Your Excellency Dr. Dikko Umar Radda, PhD, CON — Executive Governor of Katsina State and Chairman of the Northwest Governors Forum, Nigeria
• Hon. Sam Shafiishuna Nujoma — Governor of Khomas Region, Namibia
• H.E. Mr. Veiccoh Nghiwete — High Commissioner of the Republic of Namibia to the United Kingdom
• Her Excellency Ms. Macenje “Che Che” Mazoka — High Commissioner of Zambia to the United Kingdom
• Ms. Danielle Newman — Partner Lead, ICT, World Economic Forum
• Leanne Elliott Young — Co-founder, Institute of Digital Fashion & CommuneEast
• Ms. Chloe Russell — Producer & Presenter, Art, Science and Nature
• Professor Marie-Claire Cordonier Segger — University of Cambridge & University of Waterloo
• Dr. Alexandra R. Harrington — IUCN World Commission on Environmental Law (WCEL)
• Professor Payam Akhavan — Massey College, University of Toronto
• Mr. Mallai C. E. Sathya — President, Dravida Vetri Kazhagam and International Movement for Tamil Culture Asia
The Summit will feature high-level panel discussions, strategic investment conversations, sustainability awards, policy dialogues, innovation showcases, youth engagement sessions and international networking opportunities focused on climate resilience, ethical financing, food-water-energy sustainability, circular economy, artificial intelligence, diplomacy and sustainable development.
Speaking ahead of the Summit, Convener Ambassador Canon Chinenem Otto noted:
“As the world rapidly evolves through artificial intelligence and technological innovation, we must ensure that sustainability remains people-centered, environmentally responsible and economically inclusive. The Global Sustainability Summit continues to serve as a bridge connecting governments, institutions, innovators and investors to accelerate practical sustainability solutions globally. Our fifth edition is not only a celebration of progress made over the years, but also a renewed call for global collaboration and actionable impact toward achieving the Sustainable Development Goals and Net Zero ambitions.”
The Global Sustainability Summit continues to position itself as a catalyst for transformative partnerships and sustainable global progress, reinforcing the urgent need for collective action toward a more resilient and sustainable future.
More announcements regarding additional speakers, partners and summit activities will be unveiled in the coming weeks.
The Michael Jackson biopic Michael is more than celebrity drama; it is a real-time lesson in how legal decisions can quietly rewrite a story that millions of people will see. You do not need a $200M budget for the same forces—contracts, settlements, and rights issues—to shape or even erase key parts of your own work.
What Happened to Michael
The film Michael originally included a third act that addressed the 1993 child sexual abuse allegations and their impact on Jackson’s life and career. Trade reports say this version showed investigators at Neverland Ranch and dramatized the scandal as a turning point in the story. After cameras rolled, lawyers for the Jackson estate realized there was a clause in the settlement with accuser Jordan Chandler that barred any depiction or mention of him in a movie.
Because of that old agreement, the filmmakers had to remove all references to Chandler and rework the ending so the story stopped years earlier, in the late 1980s at Jackson’s commercial peak.
According to reporting, this meant roughly 22 days of reshoots, costing around 10–15 million dollars and pushing the total budget over 200 million.
Meanwhile, actress Kat Graham confirmed her portrayal of Diana Ross was cut for “legal considerations,” showing how likeness and approval issues can wipe out an entire character even after filming.
For audiences, the result is a movie that intentionally avoids one of the most controversial chapters of Jackson’s life, which some critics argue makes the portrait feel incomplete or selectively curated.
The Hidden Power of Contracts and Rights
The key detail in the Michael story is that a contract signed decades ago could dictate what present-day filmmakers are allowed to show. That settlement clause did not just affect the people who signed it; it effectively controlled the narrative of a big-budget film made years later. This is how legal documents become invisible co-authors: they quietly set boundaries around what your story can and cannot include.
Creators face similar invisible lines with:
- Life-rights and defamation: If you dramatize real people, especially in a negative light, they can claim defamation or invasion of privacy if your portrayal is inaccurate or harmful.
- Copyright and trademarks: Unlicensed music, clips, logos, or artwork can trigger copyright or trademark claims that block distribution or force expensive changes.
- Distribution contracts: Some deals give distributors the right to re-edit, retitle, or repackage your work without your approval unless you negotiate otherwise.
Legal commentary warns that fictionalizing real events and people carries heightened risk because audiences tend to connect your dramatization back to actual individuals. That risk does not disappear just because you are “small” or “indie”; impact, not audience size, usually determines exposure.
Why This Matters for Indie Filmmakers and Creators
Independent filmmakers often choose the indie route precisely to maintain creative control, but they can face more risk if they skip legal planning. Common problems include unclear ownership of the script, missing music licenses, handshake agreements with collaborators, and no written permission to use locations or people’s likenesses. These are the kinds of issues that can derail distribution, block a streaming deal, or force last-minute cuts that fundamentally change your story.
Legal guides for indie filmmakers consistently emphasize a few realities:
- You do not fully “own” your film unless you have clear contracts for writing, directing, producing, and underlying rights.
- Unregistered or unlicensed creative elements (like music and logos) can make your project uninsurable or unattractive to distributors.
- Fixing legal problems after the fact is almost always more expensive and limiting than planning for them at the beginning.
So when you watch Michael skip over certain events, you are seeing, in exaggerated form, the same forces that can shape an indie short, web series, documentary, or podcast episode.
Practical Legal Lessons You Can Apply Now
You do not need a law degree, but you do need a basic legal strategy for your creative work. Here are practical steps drawn from entertainment-law and indie-film resources:
- Clarify who owns the story
- Use written agreements with co-writers, directors, and producers that state who owns the script and finished film.
- If your work is based on a real person or memoir, secure life-rights or written permission where appropriate, especially if the portrayal is sensitive.
- Be intentional with real people and events
- When telling true or inspired-by-true stories, avoid making specific, negative claims about identifiable people unless they are well-documented and legally vetted.
- Change names, details, and circumstances enough that the person is not clearly identifiable if you do not have their cooperation.
- Lock down music and visuals
- Use original scores, licensed tracks, or reputable libraries; never assume you can keep a song just because it is in a rough cut.
- Clear artwork, logos, and recognizable brands, or replace them with generic or custom-designed alternatives.
- Protect yourself in contracts
- When signing any distribution or platform deal, read the clauses about editing, retitling, and marketing carefully; ask for limits or at least consultation rights.
- Include terms that let you reclaim rights if a partner fails to release the work, goes dark, or breaches key promises.
- Document everything
- Keep organized copies of releases, licenses, and contracts; these documents are part of your project’s value and proof of your rights.
- Register your work where applicable (for example, copyright), which strengthens your ability to enforce your rights if someone copies you.
Education-focused legal resources repeatedly stress that preventative steps—basic contracts, clear permissions, and simple registrations—are far cheaper than dealing with takedowns, lawsuits, or forced rewrites later.
The Big Takeaway: Story and Law Are Connected
The Michael biopic illustrates what happens when legal obligations and creative vision collide: whole characters disappear, endings are rewritten, and the public only sees a version of the story that fits within old contracts.
As an indie filmmaker, writer, or content creator, you may not have millions at stake, but you do have something just as valuable—your voice and your ability to tell the story you meant to tell.
Understanding the legal dimensions of your work is not a distraction from creativity; it is a way of protecting it. When you know where the legal boundaries are, you can design stories that are bold, truthful, and still safe enough to reach the audiences they deserve.
STREAMING PREMIERE · JUNE 13, 2026
Adam Drexler Headlines Glow Ball Friday Night Live
‘Sinners’ Becomes a Haunted House at Universal
Advice4 weeks agoHow to Make Your Indie Film Pay Off Without Losing Half to Distributors
- Advice4 weeks ago
How to Find Your Voice as a Filmmaker
- Entertainment3 weeks ago
Ozempic Era: Beauty, Lizard Venom, Big Pharma
- Film Industry3 weeks ago
67% Of Film Roles Are Now White Again — And Hollywood Knows Exactly What It’s Doing
- News4 weeks ago
Can AI Really Steal Your Fingerprints From a Selfie?
- Film Industry4 weeks ago
Actors Win AI Deal – But Your Face Is Still Training the Machine
- Business3 weeks ago
Building a 10 Million Army: One Leader’s Mission to Save Tomorrow
- Advice3 weeks ago
Independent Film’s New Reality: 10 Brutal Truths You Have to Face in 2026
