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
December 10, 2018

The U.S. GAO published a report on financial and legal obstacles global systemically important bank holding companies (G-SIBs) could face under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. This report describes actions G-SIBs took to mitigate such financial and legal obstacles and analyzes expert views on the effectiveness of the actions, need for additional actions, and likely success of the single point-of-entry (SPOE) strategy. GAO focused on five U.S. G-SIBs with large portfolios of derivatives: Bank of America Corporation, Citigroup Inc, Goldman Sachs Group Inc, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and Morgan Stanley.

The five G-SIBs in the review incorporated procedures and other controls in their 2017 resolution plans to mitigate financial and legal obstacles to orderly resolution under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Each G-SIB developed a resolution strategy using SPOE—that is, only the G-SIB holding company would enter bankruptcy. Before entering bankruptcy, the holding company would provide its subsidiaries with capital and liquidity to keep them solvent and enable their orderly wind-down or sale. However, a G-SIB could lack sufficient capital and liquidity to keep subsidiaries solvent or face legal challenges from creditors. To mitigate such obstacles, the five G-SIBs estimated the financial needs of subsidiaries under SPOE, pre-positioned loss-absorbing capital and long-term debt at key subsidiaries, conducted legal analysis to identify potential creditor challenges, and took other actions. In their review, FDIC and FED found no deficiencies with the G-SIBs’ 2017 plans. However, since none of the G-SIBs have gone through bankruptcy using SPOE, the potential effectiveness of their controls cannot be known.

GAO reviewed and analyzed academic and industry studies on resolution of large financial firms; public sections of G-SIB resolution plans; laws, regulations, and regulatory guidance on G-SIB resolution plans; and proposals to amend the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. GAO judgmentally selected and interviewed 30 experts (judges, academics, attorneys, other professional service providers, and counterparties) based on their knowledge of the Code and G-SIB resolution. GAO also interviewed federal banking regulators and the five G-SIBs covered by the review of GAO. The experts interviewed by GAO had the following views on the controls of five G-SIBs to mitigate obstacles, on the need for additional actions, and on the SPOE strategies.

  • Most experts viewed G-SIB controls to mitigate financial obstacles as potentially "somewhat effective." However, some experts expressed concerns about the controls, partly because of the difficulty of forecasting capital and liquidity needs of subsidiaries and uncertainty about future events in a G-SIB failure. 
  • Experts had mixed views on the potential effectiveness of G-SIB controls to mitigate creditor challenges and other legal obstacles but supported certain Code amendments to further mitigate the obstacles. Most experts generally supported amending the Code to limit creditors from challenging a G-SIB’s provision of capital and liquidity to its subsidiaries before filing for bankruptcy. However, some were concerned about trade-offs between the interests of creditors and the public associated with such an amendment.
  • Most experts said a G-SIB could likely execute its SPOE strategy successfully if its failure affected only itself. However, most viewed success as unlikely if the failure occurred during a widespread market disruption. In that regard, some experts said it was important not to repeal the Orderly Liquidation Authority of the Dodd-Frank Act—which allows the federal government, if warranted, to resolve a G-SIB outside the Code.

 

Related Links

Keywords: Americas, US, Banking, US Bankruptcy Code, G-SIB, Too Big to Fail, Dodd Frank Act, Orderly Resolution, Systemic Risk, GAO

Related Insights
News

OFR Adopts Data Collection Rule on Centrally Cleared Repo Transactions

OFR adopted a final rule to establish a data collection covering centrally cleared funding transactions in the U.S. repurchase agreement (repo) market.

February 20, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
News

FHFA Finalizes Rule on Federal Home Loan Bank Capital Requirements

FHFA published, in Federal Register, the final rule to adopt, as its own, portions of the regulations of the Federal Housing Finance Board pertaining to the capital requirements for the Federal Home Loan Banks.

February 20, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
News

SRB Publishes Framework for Performing Valuations in Resolution

The framework provides independent valuers and the general public with an indication of the expectations of SRB on the principles and methodologies for valuation reports, as set out in the legal framework.

February 19, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
News

US Agencies Extend Consultation Period for the Proposed SA-CCR

US Agencies (FDIC, FED, and OCC) extended the comment period for a proposed rule to update their standards for how firms measure counterparty credit risk posed by derivative contracts.

February 18, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
News

FED Extends Consultation Period for Stress Testing Rule

FED has published in the Federal Register a notice proposing amendments to the company run and supervisory stress test rules.

February 15, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
News

EBA Single Rulebook Q&A: Third Update for February 2019

EBA published answers to two questions under the Single Rulebook question and answer (Q&A) updates for this week.

February 15, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
News

SEC Proposes Rule on Risk Mitigation Techniques for Uncleared SBS

SEC proposed a rule that would require the application of specific risk-mitigation techniques to portfolios of security-based swaps (SBS) that are not submitted for clearing.

February 15, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
News

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
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
News

FASB Proposes Taxonomy Improvements for the Credit Losses Standard

FASB proposed the taxonomy improvements for the proposed Accounting Standards Updates on Targeted Transition Relief for Topic 326 (Financial Instruments—Credit Losses) and Topic 805 (on Business Combinations—Revenue from Contracts with Customers).

February 14, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
RESULTS 1 - 10 OF 2617