The SRB Chair Elke König recently published two articles in The Eurofi Magazine: one article discusses the importance of creation of a centralized administrative liquidation tool while the other article examines the pros and cons of following either a single point of entry (SPE) or a multiple point of entry (MPE) approach to resolution of banking groups. The SRB Chair proclaims that a centralized liquidation regime in EU would address the current gap in the framework for medium-size banks and improve the overall system.
Centralized liquidation regime
The SRB experience to date has showed the need to find a solution for those medium-size banks that are too “small” to meet the public interest assessment, but possibly too “large” to be placed in insolvency. In the article, Ms. König highlights that a centralized liquidation regime in the EU would address the current gap in the framework for medium-size banks. SRB has been clear that the harmonization of insolvency regimes for banks is a necessary end-goal. However, it is unlikely to be achieved in the short term. The creation of a centralized administrative liquidation tool, therefore, may be more feasible in the short-medium term and would address many of the issues identified for medium-size banks, with insolvency tools remaining available for smaller banks.
Such a liquidation tool could be created by amending the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive, the Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation, and the Deposit Guarantee Schemes Directive and could provide for the powers to transfer (some) assets and liabilities in an orderly liquidation, much in line with the current resolution tools. In the Banking Union, this could be entrusted to a central authority. FDIC in the United States is a useful comparison, as it highlights the advantages of the purchase and assumption tool (P&A) for liquidation, which was used for the majority of US bank failures in the last decade. The FDIC experience also shows the benefits of having a centralized authority with harmonized resolution and insolvency procedures, P&A tools, and Deposit Guarantee competences.
Resolution strategies and approaches for banking groups
Ms. König states that resolution strategies for banking groups with subsidiaries in several countries can follow either SPE or MPE approach. For groups with centralized structures, resolution authorities will likely opt for an SPE approach and apply resolution tools at the parent level, while groups with a sufficiently decentralized structure may be subject to an MPE strategy. The Banking Package strengthens the feasibility and credibility of implementing SPE, by requiring resolution authorities to set internal Minimum Requirement for own funds and Eligible Liabilities (MREL) and Total Loss Absorbing Capital (TLAC) requirements, which should facilitate loss absorption within a group. However, the new provisions also provide for a high level of pre-positioning of internal MREL, potentially leading to locked-in capital.
It is too early to judge the consequences, but SRB is concerned that this de facto ring-fencing within EU might substantially reduce the needed financial flexibility at parent level. Policymakers are encouraged to take forward the concrete work on a legally enforceable group insolvency support mechanism for banking groups. These measures should apply to banking groups in Europe, but concrete solutions are also needed at the FSB level. In the meantime, SRB has made “bail-in playbooks” a priority of its work since 2018 and is focusing on credible and executable plans to upstream losses and downstream capital within a group, if need be.
Keywords: Europe, EU, Banking, Centralized Liquidation Regime, Resolution Framework, Crisis Management Framework, SPE Approach, MPE Approach, SRB
Previous ArticleHKMA Announces Publication of SA-CCR Rules in Gazette
PRA, via the consultation paper CP12/20, proposed changes to its rules, supervisory statements, and statements of policy to implement certain elements of the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD5).
EIOPA published the financial stability report that provides detailed quantitative and qualitative assessment of the key risks identified for the insurance and occupational pensions sectors in the European Economic Area.
EBA published its risk dashboard for the first quarter of 2020 together with the results of the risk assessment questionnaire.
EBA announced that the next stress testing exercise is expected to be launched at the end of January 2021 and its results are to be published at the end of July 2021.
PRA published the consultation paper CP11/20 that sets out its expectations and guidance related to auditors’ work on the matching adjustment under Solvency II.
MAS published a statement guidance on dividend distribution by banks.
APRA updated its capital management guidance for banks, particularly easing restrictions around paying dividends as institutions continue to manage the disruption caused by COVID-19 pandemic.
FSB published a report that reviews the progress on data collection for macro-prudential analysis and the availability and use of macro-prudential tools in Germany.
EBA issued a statement reminding financial institutions that the transition period between EU and UK will expire on December 31, 2020; this will end the possibility for the UK-based financial institutions to offer financial services to EU customers on a cross-border basis via passporting.
SRB published guidance on operational continuity in resolution and financial market infrastructure (FMI) contingency plans.