General Information & Client Service
  • Americas: +1.212.553.1653
  • Asia: +852.3551.3077
  • China: +86.10.6319.6580
  • EMEA: +44.20.7772.5454
  • Japan: +81.3.5408.4100
Media Relations
  • New York: +1.212.553.0376
  • London: +44.20.7772.5456
  • Hong Kong: +852.3758.1350
  • Tokyo: +813.5408.4110
  • Sydney: +61.2.9270.8141
  • Mexico City: +001.888.779.5833
  • Buenos Aires: +0800.666.3506
  • São Paulo: +0800.891.2518
April 19, 2018

Dr. Andreas Dombret of Deutsche Bundesbank spoke at the 2018 Europe-U.S. Symposium of the Harvard Law School Program on International Financial Systems in New York. He highlighted that Brexit might set in motion fundamental changes that impact where banks do business and how international supervision works. In addition to discussing the ways in which Brexit will impact the future of cross-border finance, Dr. Dombret examined the potential negotiation outcomes in the current scenario.

While examining the feasibility of the Free trade Agreement (FTA) between the UK and EU, he emphasized that “supervisors cannot allow a foreign bank to provide financial services in their market without having the possibility to curb behavior that endangers financial stability.” This is keeping in mind that the UK government has chosen to leave the single market and the customs union and withdrawn from the associated regulatory framework. Thus, “… a chapter on financial services in a free trade agreement (FTA) would be very limited … .” Next, he discussed the possibility of implementing the equivalence agreement, similar to the one with the U.S. However, the EU approach is built on a law-by-law basis, where equivalence can only be granted when the specific piece of legislation has an explicit provision. There is, for example, no basis for an equivalence decision when it comes to the licensing of banks. The European Council has, therefore, asked EC and the Brexit negotiation team to analyze whether it would be prudent to enhance this approach. In this context, he highlighted the possibility of three potential negotiation outcomes: the enhanced equivalence option, the subsidiarisation option (establishment of independent subsidiaries in each other's market), and several potential combinations of limited financial services agreements plus a less ambitious revision of the equivalence regime (that is, an extension of the law-by-law approach to encompass other regulatory areas that are currently not out of scope). “None of the remaining options for financial services are ideal. So we will have to make do with complicated, second-best solutions,” said Dr. Dombret.

If one were to follow the preferences of industry groups, a new equivalence regime would ensure a high level of liberalization for financial services; regulatory equivalence would be managed by a technical committee of EU and UK supervisors, with independent arbiters dealing with cases of conflict. He added that he is skeptical about this mutual recognition approach and about similar approaches based on regulatory harmonization through technical committees and independent arbitration mechanisms. On the other hand, the subsidiarisation option would be well-suited to preserving financial stability and democratic accountability. It might also be less costly than a full-blown mutual recognition regime. “There is no ideal option on the table, nor is any one of the three second-best solutions clearly better than the others,” said Dr. Dombret. According to him, the key takeaways are that two sovereign regulatory jurisdictions will emerge, free cross-border trade in financial services will be limited, and the remaining options all require further analysis and thought. “No matter which direction we take, our decisions will have an indirect, albeit substantial impact on other third countries to the EU.”

Brexit could affect two avenues that give financial firms access to the EU market: namely, decisions of supervisory equivalence and the licensing process. A new equivalence framework could be more systematic. For third-country CCPs, this enhanced equivalence is attractive, as it makes the decision more predictable and transparent. However, for U.S. CCPs, this approach may not be appropriate or necessary because we already have a robust equivalence decision. Given the Bundesbankk's thorough process of mutual assessment, there is a case for sustaining this outcome—for example, through a bilateral U.S.-EU agreement on CCP equivalence. The second avenue via which Brexit could affect how financial firms gain access to the EU market are higher demands for licensing foreign bank branches and subsidiaries. Take, for example, the discussion about a draft law proposing to introduce EU intermediate parent undertakings (IPUs) for short. Similar to the U.S. intermediate holding companies, or IHCs, foreign banks would have to bring their EU operations under a single holding company. He added that Bundesbank will continue to advocate fair access for foreign banks. From the perspective of U.S. banks and those from other third countries, Brexit will impact on how they can do business in the EU single market. Both the new IPU requirements and a potential enhanced equivalence approach mean a more systematic approach to ensuring fair, transparent, and stable rules for the provisioning of cross-border financial services. While this may imply some new requirements, it might end up streamlining the rules and promoting clear supervisory dialog.


Related Link: Speech

Keywords: Europe, EU, US, Banking, Securities, Brexit, Passporting Regime, Equivalence, Licensing, Bundesbank, BIS

Related Insights

FSB Report Examines Financial Stability Implications of Fintech

FSB published a report that assesses fintech-related market developments and their potential implications for financial stability.

February 14, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

US Agencies Amend Regulatory Capital Rule to Allow Phase-In for CECL

US Agencies (FDIC, FED, and OCC) adopted the final rule to address changes to credit loss accounting under the U.S. generally accepted accounting principles; this includes banking organizations’ implementation of the current expected credit losses (CECL) methodology.

February 14, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

OCC Consults on Company-Run Stress Test Requirements for Banks

OCC proposed amendments to its company-run stress testing requirements for national banks and Federal savings associations, consistent with section 401 of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection (EGRRCP) Act.

February 12, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

CFTC Extends Comment Periods for Trade Execution Requirement Proposals

CFTC announced that it is extending comment period for the proposed amendments related to the regulations on swap execution facilities (SEF) and trade execution requirement.

February 12, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

OCC Proposes to Renew Information Collection Under Stress Test Rule

OCC is proposing to renew its information collection titled “Annual Stress Test Rule” (OMB Control No: 1557-0311). Comments must be received on or before March 13, 2019.

February 11, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

OSFI Consults on NSFR Disclosure Requirements for D-SIBs

OSFI proposed the draft guideline on the net stable funding ratio (NSFR) disclosure requirements for domestic systemically important banks (D-SIBs).

February 11, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

EC Amends Its Regulation to Clarify Impairment Requirements for IFRS 9

EC published the EU Regulation 2019/237 that amends Regulation (EC) No 1126/2008 adopting certain international accounting standards, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 regarding International Accounting Standard (IAS) 28 on Investments in Associates and Joint Ventures.

February 11, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

FSB Chair Randal Quarles Speaks About the Upcoming Work of FSB

While speaking at the BIS Special Governors Meeting in Hong Kong, Randal K. Quarles, the Chair of FSB and Vice Chair of FED, discussed his views on how the work of FSB must evolve and the key principles that, he believes, should inform that work.

February 10, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

OSFI Proposes to Amend the Liquidity Adequacy Requirements for Banks

OSFI proposed revisions to the Liquidity Adequacy Requirements (LAR) Guideline for banks. OSFI published the proposed drafts (with proposed changes highlighted in yellow) of Chapters 1,2, 4, and 5 of the LAR guideline.

February 08, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

HKMA Publishes FAQs on Local Implementation of IRRBB Framework

HKMA published the frequently asked questions (FAQs) related to the local implementation of the interest rate risk in the banking book (IRRBB).

February 08, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
RESULTS 1 - 10 OF 2593