EP published a briefing in context of the design of the new arrangements for provision of liquidity funding in bank resolution in the Banking Union. The report describes the existing arrangements in the Banking Union, compares those arrangements with the U.S. and the UK regimes, and echoes ongoing reflections on possible new arrangements with a view to completing the Banking Union.
In EU, the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM) Regulation has entrusted the Single Resolution Fund (SRF) with the task of providing liquidity in resolution. The SRF is designed as financing arrangements under the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD). While not designated as financing arrangements for resolution under BRRD, other public sources of liquidity exist: Emergency Liquidity Assistance (ELA) provided by national central banks and State Aid support authorized by EC, where feasible and appropriate. While the SRF has not been used so far, the recent cases involved ELA and State Aid support. The resolution of Banco Popular has, in particular, raised questions on whether existing public financing arrangements during bank resolution are sufficiently robust to finance banks under resolution.
The report highlights that, in keeping with the FSB principles for effective resolution, the U.S. and UK have equipped their resolution toolkit with a special facility intended to provide funding to banks under resolution, where short-term liquidity from the private sector is not immediately available. The Banking Union framework has been qualified as “being geared towards addressing solvency issues more than liquidity.” For example, if a bank that is short of sufficient collateral be resolved on a Friday, bail-in would not provide on Monday additional collateral that would allow the bank to have access to central bank money. That is why there is a need for central banks to step in and to provide liquidity in resolution. Additionally, the analysis highlights that unlike the UK and U.S. regimes, financing in resolution in the Banking Union is provided by different bodies, which may raise coordination challenges, as different sources of liquidity (ELA, SRF, and the backstop, once in place, and State support) may be available depending on the circumstances of each case and the availability of the SRF fund (and its backstop). While the funding provided by the SRF is capped by the size of the SRF, its backstop, and the amount of ex post contributions that the SRF may raise, liquidity in resolution in the UK is designed to be provided “in the necessary scale.”
The recent case of Banco Popular has shown the importance of liquidity funding in the context of bank resolution. The Eurogroup report endorsed by the December 2018 Euro Summit noted the “broad support for the assessment of the institutions that there are limitations in the current framework (for liquidity provision in resolution), which may hamper its effectiveness. The June 2019 Euro summit has not yet reached any conclusions on the design of that liquidity facility, as planned. The Eurogroup is expected to report back to the Euro-Summit regarding this in December 2019.
Keywords: Europe, EU, UK, US, Banking, Banking Union, SRMR, BRRD, SRF, Bank Resolution, Liquidity Risk, EP
Previous ArticleChristopher Woolard of FCA on AI and Future of Regulation
EBA published a report analyzing the impact of the unwind mechanism of the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) for a sample of European banks over a three-year period, from the end of 2016 to the first quarter of 2020.
In response to questions from a member of the European Parliament, the ECB President Christine Lagarde issued a letter clarifying the possibility of amending the AnaCredit Regulation and making targeted longer-term refinancing operations (TLTROs) dependent on the climate-related impact of bank loans.
IASB started the post-implementation review of the classification and measurement requirements in IFRS 9 on financial instruments and added the review as a project to its work plan.
FSB published a report that examines progress in implementing policy measures to enhance the resolvability of systemically important financial institutions.
EBA published a report on the benchmarking of national loan enforcement frameworks across 27 EU member states, in response to the call for advice from EC.
FSB published a letter from its Chair Randal K. Quarles, along with two reports exploring various aspects of the market turmoil resulting from the COVID-19 event.
RBNZ launched a consultation on the details for implementing the final Capital Review decisions announced in December 2019.
The Trustees of the IFRS Foundation, which are responsible for the governance and oversight of IASB, have announced the appointment of Dr. Andreas Barckow as the IASB Chair, effective July 2021.
HKMA issued a letter to consult the banking industry on a full set of proposed draft amendments to the Banking (Capital) Rules for implementing the Basel standard on capital requirements for banks’ equity investments in funds in Hong Kong.
ESRB published an opinion assessing the decision of Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority (FSA) to extend the application period of a stricter measure for residential mortgage lending, in accordance with Article 458 of the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR).