Benoît Cœuré of ECB spoke at the ILF Conference on “Resolution in Europe: the unresolved questions” in Frankfurt. He emphasized the importance of FSB guidance on central counterparty (CCP) resolution and its focus on a cooperative approach to the recovery and resolution of CCPs. He added that cooperation in resolution planning, and co-ordination between recovery and resolution planning, is essential to ensure that a CCP is able to continue performing its systemically relevant functions across all concerned jurisdictions.
However, the resolution authority should have flexibility to determine the optimal choice of available tools, as well as the best point in time for entry into resolution, as long as the “no creditor worse off” principle is respected. He also stressed that it is beneficial to assess how further guidance could support authorities in assessing potential resolution funding needs for individual CCPs, taking into account, for example, the specific risk characteristics of the products they clear, the types of market they serve, and the concentration in CCP memberships. He said that he fully supports the work under way in FSB in this area, before moving on to discuss the three key areas where more work is needed:
- Enhanced international cooperation. Authorities responsible for several major cross-border CCPs have not yet started working on resolution planning and no cross-border crisis management arrangements are yet in place. This could be because of barriers to sharing confidential information or reticence to engage with others while legislative frameworks are still evolving. In this context, discussions should get under way as soon as possible, although CPMI and IOSCO are conducting some work in this respect.
- Improved understanding of CCP resolution. He discussed the FSB work in this area and highlighted that further steps should be taken to improve the analytical foundation of CCP resolution planning and to better prepare authorities. Referring to the CPMI and IOSCO recently published guidance for supervisory stress testing, he added that testing the recovery plan of a CCP by authorities may help in this regard. Furthermore, coordinating CCP and banking stress testing will provide additional understanding on how resolution plans would work in case of extreme scenarios. With stress testing, potential funding strains can be further explored and useful information for CCP and bank supervisors as well as resolution authorities can be gleaned.
- Better coordination of resolution and recovery arrangements in the Single Market. Under the legislative proposal for a regulation on CCP recovery and resolution, authorities will be required to enforce CCPs’ contractual obligations before using any resolution tools, subject to limited exemptions. Another aspect to keep in mind is that systemic risk for the Single Market may arise not only from EU CCPs, but also from non-EU CCPs with substantial activities in the EU. This aspect will become increasingly important after Brexit. Thus, the current efforts to strengthen the EU arrangements for third-country CCPs are very important. Particularly, if a third-country CCP is systemically important for EU, it is not enough to focus on regulatory equivalence alone.
He concluded that CCPs are systemically important across border and across the EU. Therefore, any recovery and resolution planning for individual CCPs requires an EU-wide systemic risk assessment and a strong coordination at the global level. However, at the EU level, this could involve, for instance, aggregated data collection, joint stress-testing, and crisis simulation exercises, along with the closer coordination of related supervisory assessments and recovery and resolution planning. Given the financial stability, macro-prudential, and liquidity issues a CCP resolution raises, central banks must be involved in all aspects of this work.
Related Link: Speech
Keywords: Europe, EU, PMI, Banking, Securities, CCPs, Recovery and Resolution, Brexit, ECB
Previous ArticleHKMA Announces Publication of BDAR 2018 into the Gazette
Next ArticleESAs Consult on Amendments to Joint EMIR Standards
BCBS is consulting on the principles for operational resilience and the revisions to the principles for sound management of operational risk for banks.
The Financial Stability Institute (FSI) of BIS published a brief note that examines the supervisory challenges associated with certain temporary regulatory relief measures introduced by BCBS and prudential authorities in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
HKMA, together with the Banking Sector Small and Medium-Size Enterprise (SME) Lending Coordination Mechanism, announced a ninety-day repayment deferment for trade facilities under the Pre-approved Principal Payment Holiday Scheme.
The Advisory Scientific Committee of ESRB published a response, in the form of an Insights Paper, to the EBA proposals for reforms to the stress testing framework in EU.
MAS announced several initiatives to support adoption of the Singapore Overnight Rate Average (SORA), which is administered by MAS.
BoE updated the reporting template for Form ER as well as the Form ER definitions, which contain guidance on the methodology to be used in calculating annualized interest rates.
PRA published the policy statement PS19/20 on the final policy for extending coverage under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) for Temporary High Balance.
EBA published the final draft implementing technical standards for disclosures and reporting on the minimum requirements for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL) and the total loss-absorbing capacity (TLAC) requirements in EU.
EBA published an erratum for the phase 2 of technical package on the reporting framework 2.10.
EC published the Implementing Regulation 2020/1145, which lays down technical information for calculation of technical provisions and basic own funds.