. 3 the committee must take action to avoid this outcome, specifically through the committee ’ s standards implementation group ( sig ). the sig is initiating this year a peer review process, through which teams of experts will assess the extent to which countries have implemented basel committee standards. while these reviews will focus initially on standards other than capital, such as stress testing, the process should nevertheless provide insight into how approaches and outcomes related to the implementation of basel iii can be meaningfully monitored and compared. the sig has already begun sharing information on the status of basel iii implementation by member countries and is in the early stages of planning comparative work on risk - weighted assets across jurisdictions and banks to promote consistent implementation. as the basel committee moves into this next phase, we will urge the committee to take a comprehensive approach to monitoring processes that includes three elements. first, the committee should begin work as soon as possible to develop mechanisms to implement effective cross - country monitoring. second, this process should go beyond traditional stocktaking exercises to include a careful assessment of the methodologies national regulators use to determine the appropriateness and acceptability of bank practices. third – and here is where the real work will lie – the committee must develop a mechanism to validate the actual risk - weighted assets calculated by individual banks under international capital standards. there are several possibilities for conducting this work. one that has been discussed in the basel committee would be to use tools such as benchmarks and test portfolios, in order to provide an accurate, quantifiable comparison of standards implementation across jurisdictions. another, more far - reaching option would be to use validation teams working under the auspices of the basel committee itself to verify the methodologies used at individual banks to ensure their compliance with international standards. they could use expertise gained through horizontal reviews of institutions to make assessments of individual banks in different jurisdictions. a less far - reaching variant of this option would entail national supervisors collaboratively participating in examinations of specific institutions. as a result of these monitoring and validation processes, outliers ( i. e., banks whose risk weights for comparable assets differ materially from those of other banks ) could be identified so that national supervisors might perform more in - depth analyses of their banks ’ processes and outcomes. this would lead to a greater understanding of the disparity in results for certain institutions or jurisdictions based on their assumptions, data, or risk profiles. there can be legitimate reasons that banks may have different risk estimates for similar portfolios. where di

. the anpr is built on ideas advanced by a broad set of stakeholders, including the nba and mdis. it has been 25 years since we last reformed cra, so it is important that we get it done right. the cra is a critical law, enacted along with other complementary federal civil rights laws during the late 1960s and 1970s, to address redlining and systemic inequities in access to credit and other financial services for minority communities that contributed to dramatic differences in economic access and overall financial well - being. even with these critical laws, the legacy of discriminatory lending and systemic inequity in credit access remains in evidence today. a foundational goal for the anpr is to advance the core purpose of the cra statute. right at the outset, the anpr asks for open - ended feedback on a foundational question : how should cra ’ s regulatory implementation be modified or changed to address systemic inequity in credit access to minority individuals and communities? as leaders in this field, we welcome your feedback on how to strengthen cra implementation to further the statute ’ s core purpose. advancing the cra ’ s core purpose includes strengthening the regulations to ensure that a wide range of low - income and minority banking needs are being met. as part of this objective, cra modernization provides a unique opportunity to carefully - 6examine the mdi provisions in the cra statute to ensure proposed changes to the regulation maximize the benefit and impact for mdi banks and the customers and communities they serve. in the anpr, we placed a priority on strengthening the special consideration for mdis, women - owned financial institutions, and low - income credit unions in the current regulation, as well as adding new proposals based on your feedback. the board believes that any provisions to assist mdis should be clearly defined and applied in cra performance assessments. we consistently heard from mdis and larger banks that there is a lack of awareness of the existing mdi provisions in the cra regulations or a lack of understanding of how collaboration with mdis ultimately “ count ” in a cra examination. in response, the board plans to highlight all mdi special provisions and make the credit they receive more prominent and clear in revised regulation, examination guidance, and other public documentation. in addition, in the anpr, we proposed four specific new mdi provisions. first, the anpr proposes giving banks credit for activities with mdis, women - owned financial institutions, and low