Interestingly, the Bank of England (BoE) is one of the few central banks that does not have reserve requirements.
Canada, the UK, New Zealand, Australia, Sweden and Hong Kong have no reserve requirements.
This does not mean that banks can—even in theory—create money without limit. On the contrary, banks are constrained by capital requirements, which are arguably more important than reserve requirements even in countries that have reserve requirements. [...]
Even in the United States, which retains formal (though now mostly irrelevant) reserve requirements, the notion of controlling the money supply by targeting the quantity of base money fell out of favor many years ago, and now the pragmatic explanation of monetary policy refers to targeting the interest rate to control the broad money supply.
The first fact, i.e. that the BoE has no reserve requirements is easily confirmed from a 2014 BoE paper by McLeay et al.... which also strongly states the fact from the 3rd paragraph above (monetary policy as the ultimate control on broad money creation.)
On the other hand, the (unsourced) Wikipedia claim that capital requirements are (also) a brake on the creation of broad money is, interestingly, impossible for me to find the McLeay paper. So, how important are capital requirements for controlling broad money supply?
E.g., are there some [semi-]official statements by the major central banks: Fed, ECB, or even BoE on this alleged importance of capital requirements as a control of broad money supply? (I know the central banks [probably] don't entirely control these capital requirements, in the EU at least. On the other hand, it looks like the Fed does have some control over the capital requirements.)
FWIW, I found a blog which is partially contradicting Wikipedia:
capital adequacy requirements don't limit the ability of banks to create money when the economy is doing well. However, they do limit the ability of banks to create money when the economy is doing badly.