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 ArticleSBV Amends Circulars Related to Operation of Credit Institutions
Next ArticleAPRA Revises Related Entities Standard for Banks
EU published Directive 2021/338, which amends the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID) II and the Capital Requirements Directives (CRD 4 and 5) to facilitate recovery from the COVID-19 crisis.
The Standing Committee of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) recommended that a systemic risk buffer level of 4.5% for domestic exposures can be considered appropriate for addressing the identified systemic risks to the stability of the financial system in Norway.
In a recent statement, PRA clarified its approach to the application of certain EU regulatory technical standards and EBA guidelines on standardized and internal ratings-based approaches to credit risk, following the end of the Brexit transition.
In a recently published letter addressed to the G20 finance ministers and central bank governors, the FSB Chair Randal K. Quarles has set out the key FSB priorities for 2021.
EU published, in the Official Journal of the European Union, a corrigendum to the revised Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR2 or Regulation 2019/876).
ESAs published a joint supervisory statement on the effective and consistent application and on national supervision of the regulation on sustainability-related disclosures in the financial services sector (SFDR).
EC published a public consultation on the review of crisis management and deposit insurance frameworks in EU.
HKMA announced that enhancements will be made to the Special 100% Loan Guarantee of the SME Financing Guarantee Scheme (SFGS) and the application period will be extended to December 31, 2021.
EBA launched consultations on the regulatory and implementing technical standards on cooperation and information exchange between competent authorities involved in prudential supervision of investment firms.
BoE issued a letter to the CEOs of eight major UK banks that are in scope of the first Resolvability Assessment Framework (RAF) reporting and disclosure cycle.