The Financial Stability Institute (FSI) of BIS published a paper that examines the cross-border resolution cooperation and information-sharing arrangements for global systemically important banks (G-SIBs) and other foreign-owned locally systemic banks in 16 jurisdictions. Cross-border cooperative arrangements provide a means for discussing and agreeing resolution strategies and the planning and coordination of resolvability assessments. The study finds that there has been some progress in establishing a range of arrangements; however, in certain instances the information needs of host authorities on resolution planning continue to be unmet.
The paper is based on a survey of authorities from 16 jurisdictions that are home or host to global and domestic systemically important banks, including the non-crisis management group (CMG) host jurisdictions. The surveyed authorities are from locations worldwide, including EU, UK, US, Canada, Hong Kong, United Arab Emirates, Switzerland, South Africa, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Bermuda, and Bahamas. The paper provides an overview of the forms of cooperative arrangements described in the FSB Non-CMG Host Guidance and illustrative examples of how such arrangements may be adapted to different resolution strategies. It then summarizes recent developments relevant to cross-border cooperation in this area and provides a high-level overview of the FSI survey results. Next, the paper describes the firm-specific and non-firm-specific cooperative arrangements that the surveyed authorities have established or participated in, before concluding with certain suggestions based on the findings of the survey.
The authorities surveyed for this paper generally recognize that cooperation and information-sharing between home and host authorities would lead to better outcomes in cross-border resolution. However, despite the progress to date, the access of host authorities to information varies and gaps still exist. Whether or not host authorities can access adequate information about resolution strategies seems to influence how far they are likely to rely on, or cooperate with, the group resolution strategy. Nevertheless, the commitment of time and resources entailed by the establishment and maintenance of firm-specific cooperative arrangements should not be underestimated. Cross-border cooperation is not new for home and host authorities, but doing so in a resolution-specific context is new ground and requires new or modified arrangements. Establishment of the appropriate information-sharing frameworks takes time and effort on the part of home authorities, who may have to deal with multiple demands.
Non-CMG host authorities would benefit from taking the initiative to notify the home authority where a firm’s operations are locally systemic. They may also wish to consider the type and granularity of information needed to allow them to understand the resolution strategy and, where appropriate, support cross-border resolution. Home resolution authorities may also be more able under their own legal frameworks to share information with overseas authorities that have analogous mandates and functions. Finally, the paper highlights that many of the reported cooperation and information-sharing arrangements remain untested in a crisis. Therefore, simulation exercises may provide a useful means for building certainty and enhancing coordination between home and host authorities in relation to their actions in the event of a cross-border resolution. Continued progress with adopting resolution regimes based on the FSB Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for Financial Institutions may, therefore, be a facilitating condition for cross-border cooperation. Since cooperative arrangements between the home and host authorities are still evolving, it would be helpful to revisit progress made in this area in due course.
Keywords: International, Banking, G-SIBs, D-SIBs, Cross-Border Cooperation, Resolution Planning, Crisis Management Framework, Resolvability Assessment, BIS, FSI
Previous ArticleSEC Publishes Observations on Cybersecurity and Resiliency Practices
The three European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) issued a letter to inform about delay in the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) mandate, along with a Call for Evidence on greenwashing practices.
The International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) of the IFRS Foundations made several announcements at COP27 and with respect to its work on the sustainability standards.
The International Organization for Securities Commissions (IOSCO), at COP27, outlined the regulatory priorities for sustainability disclosures, mitigation of greenwashing, and promotion of integrity in carbon markets.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) issued a statement in the context of COP27, clarified the operationalization of intermediate EU parent undertakings (IPUs) of third-country groups
The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) published an annual report on its activities, a report on forward-looking work.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) finalized amendments to the capital framework, announced a review of the prudential framework for groups.
The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) Innovation Hubs and several central banks are working together on various central bank digital currency (CBDC) pilots.
The European Central Bank (ECB) published the results of its thematic review, which shows that banks are still far from adequately managing climate and environmental risks.
Among its recent publications, the European Banking Authority (EBA) published the final standards and guidelines on interest rate risk arising from non-trading book activities (IRRBB)
The European Commission (EC) recently adopted regulations with respect to the calculation of own funds requirements for market risk, the prudential treatment of global systemically important institutions (G-SIIs)