FSB published responses received to the consultation on the solvent wind-down of the derivatives and trading book portfolio of a global systemically important bank (G-SIB). The consultation was launched in June 2019, withe the comment period on the consultation ending on August 02, 2019. FSB published the feedback received from Bank Policy Institute (BPI) and Financial Services Forum (FSF); European Banking Federation (EBF); and Global Financial Markets Association (GFMA), Institute for International Finance (IIF), and International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA).
The considerations set out in the consultation paper included consideration of firms’ general capabilities to conduct a solvent wind-down of derivative and trading book activities, the capital and liquidity resources needed to manage the wind-down, and the implications of a wind-down on the viability of the rest of the group. These considerations may be relevant for authorities and firms for both recovery and resolution planning. Solvent wind-down means that all claims are paid in full and all obligations are met in connection with the derivatives and trading book portfolio that is wound-down in a timely and measured manner. Solvent wind-down analysis explores options for how the exit from such positions could be managed as part of a recovery or a resolution. The consultation paper drew on the practices that are emerging in some jurisdictions and describes, subject to eventual specific requests by supervisory and/or resolution authorities, capabilities and arrangements that may need to be put in place to ensure a solvent wind-down plan can be effectively executed. The paper highlighted that solvent wind-down work in some jurisdictions is more advanced than in others (for example, in certain jurisdictions, firms have been requested to develop solvent wind-down plans based on guidance prepared by authorities).
Keywords: International, Banking, Resolution Planning, G-SIB, Solvent Wind-Down, Derivatives, Recovery and Resolution, Trading Book, Systemic Risk, Financial Stability, Responses to Consultation, FSB
Previous ArticleFSB Publishes Responses to Consultation on Resolvability Disclosures
ECB published a decision allowing the euro area banks under its direct supervision to exclude certain central bank exposures from the leverage ratio.
ESAs launched a survey seeking feedback on the presentational aspects of product templates under the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR or Regulation 2019/2088).
ECB published input of the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) into the EBA feasibility report on reducing the reporting burden for banks in EU.
ECB finalized the guide on assessment methodology for the internal model method for calculating exposure to counterparty credit risk (CCR) and the advanced method for own funds requirements for credit valuation adjustment (A-CVA) risk.
EBA published an Opinion addressed to EC to raise awareness about the opportunity to clarify certain issues related to the definition of credit institution in the upcoming review of the Capital Requirements Directive and Regulation (CRD and CRR).
APRA is consulting on updates to ARS 210.0, the reporting standard that sets out requirements for provision of information on liquidity and funding of an authorized deposit-taking institution.
FED released hypothetical scenarios for a second round of stress tests for banks.
FED is proposing to temporarily revise the capital assessments and stress testing reports (FR Y-14A/Q/M) to implement the changes necessary to conduct stressed analysis in connection with the re-submission of capital plans, using data as of June 30, 2020.
FED adopted a proposal to extend for three years, with revision, the information collection under the market risk capital rule (FR 4201; OMB No. 7100-0314).
EBA published a voluntary online survey seeking input from credit institutions on their practices and future plans for Pillar 3 disclosures on the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) risks.