Following fierce industry lobbying and sharp disagreements among its 27 member jurisdictions, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision this week reached "broad agreement on the overall design" of the Basel III package of global prudential reforms. With the sole exception of Germany, which is thought to be seeking further clarity on some aspects before signing up to the tighter capital and liquidity requirements, the central bank governors and prudential supervisors who oversee the committee agreed the outlines of its proposals on the definition of capital, counterparty credit risk, a leverage ratio, capital and liquidity buffers, specific requirements for systemic banks, and a global liquidity standard, which includes a controversial new stable net funding ratio. The fullest details available of the proposals are set out here, but as the committee acknowledges, much of the final work is still to be done. This means that not all the granular details and actual numbers will be available by the time political leaders meet in Seoul for the G20 summit in November.Richard Barfield, director, risk and capital advisory, FS Consulting, at PricewaterhouseCoopers, cautioned against jumping to conclusions about Basel III's eventual outcome, at what is still an interim stage in its development."The Basel Committee has achieved a lot in a short time. But it's important to remember that it's only when the overall package is presented that the industry will be able to assess the likely impact of what's being proposed," Barfield told Complinet.For example, and very importantly, the new minimum capital ratio, calculated as the relation between tier-one capital and risk-weighted assets, has yet to be agreed, making it very difficult to work out the best calibration for the proposed capital buffers. Neither the capital conservation and countercyclical buffers, nor the equally important net stable funding ratio, will be finally agreed among regulators until after the G20 meeting. But the NSFR now has a long introduction period, running to 2018, and Barfield thought that even if it was not agreed before the end of the year it was less important than the delay in agreeing the details of the capital buffers. "Conservation and counter-cyclical buffers are obviously a very important area, where careful thought is needed between now and the end of the year," he said.The NSFR gauges the maturity mismatch between an institution's assets and its liabilities over a one-year period. Barfield noted that both ways institutions could improve their NSFRs — seeking longer-term funding on the liabilities side or reducing longer-term lending on the assets side — had implications for macro-economic growth and stability in the present climate. "By pushing the NSFR's introduction period out to 2018, the Basel Committee seems to be recognising these implications for the wider economy," he said.Steven Hall, a director in KPMG's financial risk management practice, thought the industry would welcome the changes in the definition of capital, including the treatment of minority interests and deferred tax assets. "The treatment of minority interests was particularly harsh in the December proposals so industry will be pleased that