Basel III Easing Could Fuel Buybacks—But Now Is The Wrong Time

According to Fitch Ratings, U.S. banks could gain room to boost share buybacks or raise dividends.

getty

Fitch Ratings warns that a more lenient approach to bank capital calculations could boost reported capital ratios without improving underlying financial strength, potentially encouraging shareholder payouts at the expense of tangible capital. With geopolitical risk elevated, yields high, and private credit and real estate weakening, banks should preserve capital rather than distribute it.

A forthcoming revision of U.S. bank capital rules could give financial institutions greater latitude to return capital to shareholders, even as questions remain about the strength of their underlying balance sheets. The concern, highlighted in an October 8 research note from Fitch Ratings, is that changes to the Basel III framework could make banks appear better capitalized without necessarily making them more resilient to financial stress. My view is that, whatever the rules ultimately permit, this is the wrong moment for banks to expand buybacks or dividends.

The distinction matters. Regulatory capital ratios are central to assessing a bank’s ability to withstand losses, but those ratios depend partly on how regulators calculate risk-weighted assets (RWAs). If the rules reduce the amount of capital banks must hold against certain assets, reported capital ratios can rise even when neither the assets themselves nor the bank’s capacity to generate earnings has improved.

Under the finalized Basel III framework, which Fitch says could be completed before the end of 2026, implementation could begin in early 2028. The proposed changes are expected to lower risk-weighted assets for regional and smaller banks, primarily through reduced credit risk weights. That would mechanically increase their Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) capital ratios, potentially creating what amounts to paper excess capital: additional regulatory headroom that does not necessarily reflect an improvement in underlying financial strength.

Higher Capital Ratios Do Not Necessarily Mean Stronger Banks

The impact of the proposed changes will vary by institution. Federal Reserve calculations cited by Fitch indicate that the Basel III endgame and expanded risk-based approach proposal would increase aggregate CET1 capital requirements for Category I and II banks by 1.4%, reflecting higher market-risk, operational-risk and credit valuation adjustment requirements. Lower credit risk weights would partially offset those increases. Fitch expects forthcoming changes to the global systemically important bank (G-SIB) surcharge methodology and the stress-testing framework to more than offset the increase in RWAs.

For banks already operating above regulatory minimums and their own internal capital targets, the resulting changes could create additional flexibility. Management teams could use that flexibility to repurchase shares, increase dividends, expand lending or purchase securities.

Fitch illustrates the potential scale of the effect with a hypothetical 8% reduction in RWAs. Across its rated U.S. bank universe, that reduction would produce an average increase of approximately 100 basis points in CET1 capital ratios. But if banks redeployed the resulting capital relief into share buybacks, Fitch estimates that tangible capital ratios would decline by approximately 65 basis points on average.

That is the central tension in the proposed framework: a bank could report a higher regulatory capital ratio following a change in calculation methodology, then use the resulting headroom to distribute capital to shareholders, leaving its tangible capital position weaker than it otherwise would have been.

The reduction in tangible capital would not necessarily translate into an immediate ratings downgrade. Fitch emphasizes that the credit implications depend on each bank’s response and its capacity to generate capital organically. Nevertheless, the combination of lower tangible capital and aggressive distributions could reduce a bank’s margin for error if economic conditions deteriorate.

The Cost of Buying Back Shares Above Book Value

Share repurchases present a particular challenge for banks trading at substantial premiums to their book value. According to Fitch, nearly 70% of its publicly rated U.S. bank universe trades at more than 1.2 times price to book value. At these valuations, repurchasing shares would generally dilute tangible book value per share, even if the transactions increased return on tangible common equity (ROTCE).

The mechanics are straightforward. When a bank buys back shares for more than their tangible book value per share, it spends more in cash than the tangible equity attributable to those shares. The transaction reduces the tangible book value remaining for each outstanding share, all else equal.

That does not necessarily make a buyback an irrational decision. Management may prioritize ROTCE targets, earnings per share or other measures of shareholder returns. Fitch expects some banks to continue repurchasing shares at prices well above book value for precisely these reasons.

But the trade-off deserves scrutiny. A buyback can improve selected performance measures while reducing the tangible equity cushion available to absorb losses. The benefits to shareholders may be more immediate and visible than the potential costs to creditors, depositors or the bank’s resilience during a downturn.

That trade-off is sharper today. Repurchasing shares at a substantial premium to tangible book value is a bet that capital is better placed in shareholders’ hands than on the balance sheet. When geopolitical, interest-rate, private credit and real estate risks are all elevated at once, that bet is hard to defend: the bank pays full price to shrink the very cushion it may soon need.

Why Tangible Capital Deserves Closer Attention

To assess whether distributions are eroding a bank’s underlying capital strength, Fitch also examines tangible common equity to tangible assets (TCE/TA).

Unlike CET1, which is calculated using regulatory definitions of capital and risk-weighted assets, TCE/TA is an unweighted measure of tangible common equity relative to tangible assets. Because it does not depend on risk weights, it is not directly boosted by changes in the methodology used to calculate RWAs.

The distinction makes TCE/TA a useful complement to regulatory capital ratios. CET1 measures capital relative to the risks recognized under regulatory rules; TCE/TA provides a different perspective on the tangible equity supporting the balance sheet.

If a bank’s CET1 ratio rises because regulatory calculations become less demanding, but its tangible capital ratio falls as it distributes capital, investors and creditors may see very different signals from the two measures. Tracking both can help reveal whether shareholder payouts are outpacing the bank’s ability to replenish its capital through retained earnings.

Neither metric tells the whole story. Unweighted capital ratios do not account for differences in asset risk, while regulatory ratios are sensitive to the assumptions and classifications embedded in their calculations. Taken together, however, they provide a more complete picture of capitalization and leverage.

A Late-Cycle Economy Complicates the Decision

The prospect of additional capital flexibility arrives amid an uncertain economic outlook and concerns about late-cycle credit conditions. Banks may be reluctant to distribute capital if they anticipate higher loan losses or a deterioration in borrowers’ ability to repay. In today’s environment, that reluctance is warranted.

Others may prefer to reinvest in technology, business expansion or acquisitions rather than return capital through buybacks and dividends. Lending is another potential destination for the additional capacity. Fitch notes that annual loan growth recently resumed at approximately 7% in both the first and second quarters, making loan expansion a potentially attractive use of capital under the finalized rules.

Loan growth, however, carries its own risks. Expanding lending during favorable conditions can increase exposure to a subsequent downturn, particularly if underwriting standards weaken or credit risk is underestimated. Whether additional lending strengthens a bank’s long-term earnings or increases its vulnerability will depend on the quality of the loans and the capital maintained against them.

Banks also face a separate regulatory development that could offset some of the anticipated relief: the requirement for certain Category III and IV institutions to incorporate accumulated other comprehensive income (AOCI) into regulatory capital calculations.

AOCI can include unrealized gains and losses on securities, including bonds whose market values have declined as interest rates have risen. For affected banks, incorporating AOCI into regulatory capital can make reported capital ratios more sensitive to those valuation changes, even when securities classified as held to maturity are not being sold.

Fitch estimates that, as of June 30, 2026, the AOCI impact ranged from 10 to 260 basis points for the large banks that will no longer be able to opt out of including AOCI in regulatory capital. That variation underscores the importance of examining each institution’s balance sheet rather than assuming that all banks will benefit equally from the revised Basel III calculations.

For a bank facing substantial AOCI-related capital pressure, the combination of regulatory changes and shareholder distributions could leave less room to absorb adverse developments. The degree of vulnerability will depend on the bank’s securities portfolio, capital generation, interest-rate exposure and broader risk profile.

Why Now Is the Wrong Time to Raise Payouts

Fitch is careful to note that the credit consequences depend on how each bank responds. That is precisely why the timing of the response matters. The case against raising buybacks and dividends now rests on four mutually reinforcing risks.

First, geopolitical risk is elevated. Armed conflicts, trade tensions and sanctions can produce sudden shocks to energy prices, supply chains, market liquidity and borrower cash flows, and such shocks are difficult to capture in stress tests. Capital paid out today cannot be recalled if conditions deteriorate quickly; retained capital is the only buffer available on the day a shock arrives.

Second, yields are high. Elevated long-term Treasury yields raise funding and refinancing costs for borrowers, pressure asset values and deepen unrealized losses on bank securities portfolios. As Fitch’s AOCI estimates show, those losses can be material for some large banks, and they will count against regulatory capital more directly once the opt-out is removed. Distributing capital while the rate environment is still working against balance sheets would compound that pressure. High yields also raise the hurdle for buybacks: with attractive risk-free returns available, repurchasing stock at a premium to tangible book value is harder to justify.

Third, private credit institutions are showing signs of strain. Banks have extended substantial leverage and credit lines to private credit funds and other non-bank lenders, and compete with them for leveraged borrowers. Redemption pressure, borrowers paying interest with additional debt rather than cash, and valuation questions at these vehicles can transmit stress back to the banks that finance them. Because such exposures are often opaque, regulatory capital ratios may not capture them adequately, which is another reason not to treat paper excess capital as real excess capital.

Fourth, commercial real estate remains weak. Office valuations sit well below their peaks, and a large volume of commercial mortgages is coming due at interest rates far above those at which the loans were originated. Regional and smaller banks, which tend to carry the most concentrated real estate exposure, are the institutions Fitch expects to benefit most from reduced risk weights, and therefore the ones most tempted to distribute. Lower risk weights do not make these loans any less likely to default.

Taken together, these pressures argue for building, not drawing down, tangible capital. A bank that retains the capital relief can keep lending to creditworthy borrowers, absorb losses and, if conditions stabilize, return capital later from a position of strength. A bank that distributes it has no such option. The asymmetry favors patience: modestly delayed returns cost shareholders little, whereas capital depleted before a downturn can be costly to rebuild and may force dilutive issuance or ratings pressure.

The Ratings Implications

Fitch’s analysis suggests that the consequences of the finalized rules will depend less on the headline increase in CET1 ratios than on what banks do with the additional regulatory capacity.

Institutions that retain the resulting capital relief may strengthen their ability to withstand losses. Banks that direct it toward productive lending or technology investment may support future earnings, although those strategies introduce their own risks. Institutions that use it for buybacks and dividends may deliver immediate shareholder returns while reducing tangible capital buffers.

The effects on credit ratings will depend on how these choices interact with each bank’s capital generation and risk profile. A decline in tangible capital could reduce ratings headroom and, in some cases, place downward pressure on ratings. Given the risks described above, that downside is more plausible now than in a benign environment.

The changes may also affect the interpretation of bank profitability. Fitch uses operating profit to RWAs as a core metric in its assessment of earnings and profitability. An 8% reduction in RWAs would have a less material effect on this measure, Fitch says, because it is calculated using a four-year average, than on capitalization and leverage measures that reflect more recent capital levels.

That difference reinforces a broader point: regulatory changes can affect individual measures of bank performance and resilience in different ways. A higher CET1 ratio is not, by itself, evidence of stronger earnings, lower underlying risk or a greater capacity to absorb losses.

As regulators finalize the framework, investors, analysts and policymakers will need to look beyond headline capital ratios. The key questions will be whether banks preserve the capital relief, how they allocate it, and whether their tangible capital positions remain sufficient to absorb losses if these risks materialize. On that test, the prudent answer today is to retain capital rather than return it.

Concluding Thoughts

Basel III recalibration may give U.S. banks more flexibility to return capital, but regulatory headroom and financial resilience are not interchangeable. If banks treat mechanically higher capital ratios as permission to increase distributions, the result could be stronger short-term shareholder returns alongside thinner tangible capital cushions. Fitch’s analysis makes the case for monitoring not just how much capital banks report, but how much tangible loss-absorbing capacity they retain. Given heightened geopolitical risk, high yields, and weakening private credit and real estate, banks should treat the extra headroom as a cushion to keep, not a payout to make. Boards and regulators alike should resist converting paper excess capital into buybacks and dividends until these risks recede.