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 ArticleDNB Revises Submission Deadlines for Reporting by Supervised Banks
The European Commission (EC) published a report summarizing responses to the targeted consultation on the supervisory convergence and the single rulebook in the European Union (EU).
The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) published an update on the discussion paper that intended to engage federally regulated financial institutions and other interested stakeholders in a dialog with OSFI, to proactively enhance and align assurance expectations over key regulatory returns.
The European Central Bank (ECB) published its opinion on a proposal for a regulation on European green bonds, following a request from the European Parliament.
The Advisory Scientific Committee (ASC) of the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) published a report that explores the expected impact of digitalization on provision of financial and banking services, and proposes policy measures to address the risks stemming from digitalization.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) announced that the guidelines on the reporting and disclosure of exposures subject to measures COVID-relief measures shall continue to apply until further notice.
The Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority (FI) announced that the capital adequacy reporting as at December 31, 2021 must be done by February 11, 2022.
The Central Bank of the Philippines (BSP) issued communications covering developments related to online lending platforms, open finance framework and roadmap, and on the expected regulations in the area sustainable finance.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FED) published the final rule that amends Regulation I to reduce the quarterly reporting burden for member banks by automating the application process for adjusting their subscriptions to the Federal Reserve Bank capital stock, except in the context of mergers.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published its assessment of risks through the quarterly Risk Dashboard and the results of the Autumn edition of the Risk Assessment Questionnaire (RAQ).
The Malta Financial Services Authority (MFSA) updated the guidelines on supervisory reporting requirements under the reporting framework 3.0.