CBIRC published interim measures for implementation of recovery and resolution plans of bancassurance institutions, along with the questions and answers (Q&A) on these measures. The bancassurance institutions, as mentioned in these measures, refer to the financial institutions established within the territory of the People’s Republic of China, such as commercial banks, rural credit cooperatives, and other financial institutions that accept public deposits, in addition to financial asset management companies, financial leasing companies, and insurance companies. These measures, draw on the international financial regulatory standards while considering the peculiarities of the local environment, came into force on the date of promulgation.
The measures cover basic principles behind establishment of a recovery and resolution plan mechanism, supervision and administration of such plans, and supplementary requirements or provisions related to recovery and resolution planning. The measures also detail the scope of application, internal governance structure of financial institutions, implementation of the information management system, and working mechanism between supervisory departments. The measures set out objectives for development of recovery and resolution plans, content to be included in the recovery and resolution plans, and implementation process of recovery and resolution plans. The “recovery plan” referred to in these measures refers to a response plan formulated in advance by a bancassurance institution and approved by CBIRC and its dispatched offices while the "resolution plan" referred to in these measures refers to the response plan proposed in advance by the bancassurance institution and approved by CBIRC and its dispatched agencies. The measures emphasize that the recovery and resolution plans should insist on using the institution’s own assets, shareholder assistance, and other market-oriented channels to raise funds to carry out self-rescue, to help strengthen the main responsibility and shareholder responsibilities of bancassurance institutions in risk prevention and resolution and to effectively prevent moral hazards.
In terms of the scope of application, “big to fail” and “small but easy to fail” are both “pain points” that should be considered and dealt with in recovery and resolution plans. The measures stipulate that institutions meeting certain thresholds should formulate recovery and resolution plans. After adjustments, depository financial institutions, financial asset management companies, and financial leasing companies whose on-balance sheet and off-balance sheet assets reach RMB 300 billion or more as well as the insurance (holding) groups and insurance companies whose total on-balance sheet assets reach RMB 200 billion or more shall formulate recovery and resolution plans. The above thresholds should be based on all consolidated data of the group and the scope of consolidation is determined in accordance with the scope of consolidation under the supervision of CBIRC. Recovery and resolution plans should separately consider the stress scenarios of a single bancassurance institution or its holding group and the entire financial system as well as consider the potential impact of cross-market, cross-industry, and cross-border risk transmission in crisis situations. If necessary, bancassurance institutions should adjust the assumptions of stress test scenarios or add additional stress scenarios. For global and domestic systemically important financial institutions, if other regulatory provisions exist regarding the recovery and resolution plans, those provisions shall prevail. Moreover, if the previously issued relevant measures are inconsistent with this measure, they shall be implemented in accordance with the provisions of this measure.
Related Links (in Chinese)
Effective Date: Promulgation Date
Keywords: Asia Pacific, China, Banking, Insurance, Resolution Framework, Resolution Planning, Recovery Planning, Q&A, CBIRC
Previous ArticleECB to Supervise Securitization Requirements for Banks
The Bank of England (BoE) published a consultation paper on approach to setting minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL), an operational guide on executing bail-in, and a statement from the Deputy Governor Dave Ramsden.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) is seeking preliminary input on standardization of the proportionality assessment methodology for credit institutions and investment firms.
Certain regulatory authorities in the US are extending period for completion of the review of certain residential mortgage provisions and for publication of notice disclosing the determination of this review until December 20, 2021.
The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) published the policy statement PS18/21, which introduces an amendment in the definition of "higher paid material risk taker" in the Remuneration Part of the PRA Rulebook.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published its annual report on asset encumbrance in banking sector.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published a methodological guide to mystery shopping.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) released a letter to authorized deposit-taking institutions to provide an update on key policy settings for the capital framework reforms, which will come into effect from January 01, 2023.
The Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI) and the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) published a report that assesses the business continuity planning activities of financial market infrastructures or FMIs.
The Bank of England (BoE) published questions and answers (Q&A) on OSCA to BEEDS migration for statistical reporting as well a presentation from the project overview session held with statistical reporters.
The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) is consulting on a technical amendment to the Basel Framework to reflect a new process reviewing the global systemically important bank (G-SIB) assessment methodology.