EBA published a report that examines the interlinkages between recovery and resolution planning under the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD). The comparative analysis of recovery and resolution plans by EBA indicates that further work is needed in this area to study the impact of resolution plans on recovery planning and develop further guidance on certain aspects of the interlinkage.
The report outlines the observations of EBA from its first comparative analysis of recovery and resolution plans and identifies best practices and areas where further improvement and/or clarifications are needed. In addition, on certain common elements between both types of plans, such as critical functions and access to central bank facilities, the report clarifies their specific purpose in each planning phase and the advantages or disadvantages of a potential convergence or harmonization. Finally, the report analyzes the potential impact of recovery options on the resolvability of an institution and introduces an assessment framework to support the assessment and consultation process between resolution and competent authorities. Annex 1 to the report includes a template used to perform comparative analysis of a sample of recovery and resolution plans while Annex 2 presents a practical tool to help resolution authorities in conducting the analyses of the potential impact of recovery options on the resolvability of an institution.
The assessment in this report is intended to enhance synergies between recovery and resolution planning phases and ensure consistency in their potential implementation. The findings of the comparative analysis of recovery and resolution plans reveal that further work is needed in this area. Therefore, EBA plans to perform further work on the impact of resolution plans—particularly the impact of measures to remove impediments to resolvability—on ongoing supervision and recovery planning. The guidance work on certain practical aspects of interlinkage, such as on the timelines of recovery and resolution planning cycles, will also be undertaken, as such work is deemed useful for enhancing interactions among competent authorities and the resolution authorities.
Keywords: Europe, EU, Banking, Recovery Planning, Resolution Planning, BRRD, Systemic Risk, Comparative Analysis, Resolution Framework, EBA
Sam leads the quantitative research team within the CreditEdge™ research group. In this role, he develops novel risk and forecasting solutions for financial institutions while providing thought leadership on related trends in global financial markets.
Previous ArticleBIS on Impact of Increasing Use of Cloud Technology on Cyber Risk
HKMA, together with the Banking Sector Small and Medium-Size Enterprise (SME) Lending Coordination Mechanism, announced a ninety-day repayment deferment for trade facilities under the Pre-approved Principal Payment Holiday Scheme.
The Advisory Scientific Committee of ESRB published a response, in the form of an Insights Paper, to the EBA proposals for reforms to the stress testing framework in EU.
MAS announced several initiatives to support adoption of the Singapore Overnight Rate Average (SORA), which is administered by MAS.
BoE updated the reporting template for Form ER as well as the Form ER definitions, which contain guidance on the methodology to be used in calculating annualized interest rates.
PRA published the policy statement PS19/20 on the final policy for extending coverage under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) for Temporary High Balance.
EBA published the final draft implementing technical standards for disclosures and reporting on the minimum requirements for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL) and the total loss-absorbing capacity (TLAC) requirements in EU.
EBA published an erratum for the phase 2 of technical package on the reporting framework 2.10.
EC published the Implementing Regulation 2020/1145, which lays down technical information for calculation of technical provisions and basic own funds.
FFIEC, on behalf of its members that include US Agencies such as CFPB, FDIC, FED, NCUA, and OCC, issued a joint statement that sets out prudent risk management and consumer protection principles for financial institutions to consider while working with borrowers.
PRA, via the consultation paper CP12/20, proposed changes to its rules, supervisory statements, and statements of policy to implement certain elements of the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD5).