Agreements are obscure to people outside the banking system, but they are the backbone of the financial system. The Basel Accords were created to protect against financial shocks when a weakened capital market hurts the real economy, as opposed to a simple disruption. The implementing act of the Basel III agreements in the European Union is the new legislative package consisting of Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD IV) and Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms (CRR).  One of the most difficult aspects of implementing an international agreement is the need to take into account different cultures, different structural models, complexities of public policy and existing rules. Think tanks such as the World Pensions Council have argued that Basel III builds only on the existing Basel II regulatory basis and continues to develop it without calling into question its core principles, in particular the growing reliance on standardised “credit risk” assessments marketed by two private sector agencies, Moody`s and S&P, and thus use public policies, reinforce anti-competitive practices.   The contradictory and unreliable credit ratings of these agencies are generally seen as an important contribution to the US housing bubble. Scientists criticise Basel III for continuing to allow large banks to calculate credit risk using internal models and lowering minimum capital requirements as a whole.  On 15 November 27, 2005, the Committee published a revised version of the agreement, which contains changes to the market risk calculations and the treatment of double default effects. These changes had been marked well in advance in a document published in July 2005.  The internal ratings approach is suitable for banks that carry out more complex operations with more developed risk management systems.
. . .