Purpose: The purpose of this study is to increase the understanding of how a bank’s features and internal factors have affected its choice of method in calculating the capital requirement. Theoretical and Empirical Method: The research strategy of this study has been of a qualitative nature with a deductive approach. The choice of method was depth interviews with respondents from a targeted sample of Swedish banks. These respondents were chosen based on the knowledge they possess as key employees in the capital requirement process and their involvement in choosing their banks’ method for calculating the capital requirement. The interviews were semi-structured, with open questions that allowed a dialogue with the respondents in which they could express their opinions and knowledge regarding the factors affecting their banks’ choice of method. Theoretical Approach: The study is based on the new institutional economics theory of how institutions affect organizational behavior. It’s also based on earlier research within the regulation Basel II by, among others, Hakenes and Schabel (2011), Rime (2005) and Wahlström (2009). Conclusions: The results of this study show that banks have identified different factors that affect their choice of calculation method for the capital requirement. The choice the banks are facing is to keep the standardized method, develop an advanced internal based method, create partnerships with other banks or focus on alternative clientele portfolios. The two factors that were considered to be have the greatest significant for the choice of calculation method were resources associated with the implementation of the IRB approach models and how the banks’ clientele portfolio was designed. How these were distributed and to what extent they influenced the choice was highly individual for the chosen banks. / Syfte: Syftet med den här studien är att öka förståelsen om hur en banks förutsättningar och interna faktorer har påverkat dess val av beräkningsmetod för kapitalkravet. Teoretisk och empirisk metod: Forskningsstrategin för studien har varit av den kvalitativa typen med en deduktiv ansats. Valet av metod var djupintervjuer med respondenter från ett målinriktat urval av svenska banker. Respondenterna valdes utifrån de kunskaper som de besitter genom sin position på respektive bank, där deras deltagande i metodvalsprocessen påverkade valet av beräkningsmetod. Intervjuerna var av typen semistrukturerade, med öppna intervjufrågor för att få till en dialog med respondenterna och ta del av deras åsikter och kunskaper gällande de olika faktorerna till metodvalet. Teoretisk referensram: Studien utgick från den nyinstitutionella teorin, om hur institutioner påverkar organisationers beteenden. Den har baserats på tidigare forskning inom regelverket Basel II av bland annat Hakenes och Schnabel (2011), Rime (2005) samt Wahlström (2009). Slutsats: Resultatet av denna studie visar på att bankerna har identifierat olika faktorer som påverkar valet av beräkningsmetod för kapitalkravet. Valet som bankerna står inför är att behålla Schablonmetoden, utveckla en IRK-metod, skapa samarbeten med andra banker eller fokusera på alternativa klientelportföljer. De två faktorer som ansågs ha störst signifikans för valet av beräkningsmetod var resurserna som förknippades med implementeringen av modellerna i IRKmetoden och hur bankens klientelportfölj var utformad. Hur dessa var fördelade och i vilken grad de påverkade valet var högst individuellt för de utvalda bankerna.

Since the implementation of the Basel II framework in 2007, banks have been given the  opportunity to apply for the option to develop intern models for calculating their required capital. The purpose with this opportunity is that the capital requirements will correspond to the real risk exposure. This has been criticized, since there are incentives for the bank to do  an incorrect risk assessment intentionally and through that get a lower capital requirement. In this report we study how this opportunity affects the banks’ capitalization and if stricter capital requirements in fact leads to that the Swedish banks are better prepared for a financial crisis. The report also describes the risks that this opportunity to internal rating  causes. The study has been done by qualitative method where seven people, with different interests in the market, have been interviewed. By the answers given by the respondents and by earlier publications this report reveals that stronger capitalization is positive, but that  the Basel framework causes a risk that the banks intentionally underestimates  their risks. Nor is it possible to conclude that the banks are better prepared for a crisis afterthe implementation. This is because the IRB approach is something new and therefore  not optimized and yet balanced.