In recent months, there has been a lot of activity towards strengthening the resilience of the $($global$)$ banking sector. The lead seems to have been taken by the Federal Reserve of the United States, other major central banks in Europe, including the European Central Bank $($ECB$)$ as well as the BIS and the G$-20.$

The reasons stem from not just the fairly recent $(2007-2009)$ financial crisis but from decadesold initiatives by the US Federal Reserve and the British Bank of England, when these two institutions were at the forefront of the Basel Accord $($or what is now referred to as "Basel l$")$ in $1988.$ It is generally perceived that effective$-$and adequate$-$capital automatically leads to increased financial stability in countries and in the global financial system.

Briefly describe the turf war that is going on among the FDIC, the CFTC$,$ the US Federal Reserve, etc., as to effectively regulating the financial institution, with specific focus on capital adequacy. Also clearly state your views about the arguments made by these institutions$/$their current and$/$or previous heads, with some details.

Which of the three "pillars" of Basel II deals primarily with capital adequacy and how does it ensure that? What are the other two pillars, and how do you think the other two pillars support or hinder capital adequacy? Do you think Basel II$,$ in general has succeeded or not? Why?

What is the essence of "Basel III" and how is it supposed to different from Basel II$?$