FSB Examines Implementation of Resolution Regimes in Financial Sector
FSB published a report that examines progress in implementing policy measures to enhance the resolvability of systemically important financial institutions and sets out plans for further work. The report also presents the status of implementation of aspects of bank resolution regimes by FSB jurisdictions, along with the planned actions and timelines going forward. The report reveals that significant progress has been achieved; however, progress is uneven across reform areas and sectors and there is need to be mindful of remaining gaps. The report concludes that authorities and firms need to be mindful of the remaining gaps as they work toward making resolution strategies and plans operational in all sectors.
This report, which has been prepared by the FSB Resolution Steering Group or ReSG, is the eighth report on the implementation of resolution reforms. It takes stock of progress made by FSB members in implementing reforms and summarizes findings from the monitoring of resolvability across the banking, insurance, and financial market infrastructure sectors. It discusses progress in implementing the resolution policies of FSB for banks, insurers, and central counterparties or CCPs. It also examines the initiatives in monitoring implementation and evaluating the effects of resolution reforms and presents actions and timelines going forward. Annex 1 to the report presents the status of implementation of aspects of bank resolution regimes by FSB jurisdictions, as of September 2019. The status is based on self-reporting by national authorities. The availability of legal frameworks and regimes in jurisdictions does not mean that resolution will necessarily be effective, nor does the absence of such powers necessarily mean that a jurisdiction will not be able to achieve an effective resolution.
With respect to the banking sector, the report highlights that global systemically important banks have been made more resolvable through the build-up of total loss-absorbing capacity, or TLAC, and other measures. Notwithstanding this progress, challenges remain. Authorities need to determine the appropriate balance between group-internal distribution of Total loss-absorbing capacity and non-pre-positioned resources. Furthermore, access to temporary liquidity in relevant currencies and in adequate amounts when and where needed is critical for firms going through resolution and requires ex ante preparation by firms and authorities.
In the insurance sector, over the past year, two jurisdictions (Netherlands and Singapore) have introduced or strengthened powers to resolve insurers. Resolvability monitoring highlighted the challenges stemming from group-internal interconnectedness. Ongoing work on resolution planning focuses on intragroup funding, intragroup reinsurance, centralized cash pooling, intragroup guarantees, and operational interconnections. Additionally, work on resolution funding encompasses temporary sources of funding and interactions with any existing policyholder protection schemes, information-sharing, and communication.
A policy priority for the FSB is the further strengthening of the resilience and resolvability of central counterparties. The continuing work on financial resources and tools to support orderly resolution will lead to further guidance, on which the FSB will publicly consult during the second quarter of 2020. FSB is developing this guidance in consultation with CPMI and IOSCO. This work draws on the experience of authorities and Crisis Management Groups in assessing the quality and quantity of resources for resolution and on the comments received from stakeholders in response to the public consultation. The future guidance should help authorities and Crisis Management Groups in adopting a structured process for evaluating the adequacy of resources to support resolution on a CCP-specific basis and, if necessary, addressing the need for any additional resources considering a reasonable range of scenarios. It should also assist authorities and Crisis Management Groups in their analysis of the treatment of central counterparty equity.
Related Links
Keywords: International, Banking, Insurance, Securities, FMI, CCPs, Resolution Regime, Resolution Framework, Crisis Management, Systemic Risk, SIFI, FSB
Featured Experts
Blake Coules
Across 35 years in banking, Blake has gained deep insights into the inner working of this sector. Over the last two decades, Blake has been an Operating Committee member, leading teams and executing strategies in Credit and Enterprise Risk as well as Line of Business. His focus over this time has been primarily Commercial/Corporate with particular emphasis on CRE. Blake has spent most of his career with large and mid-size banks. Blake joined Moody’s Analytics in 2021 after leading the transformation of the credit approval and reporting process at a $25 billion bank.
Previous Article
ESAs Publish Draft Amendments to Bilateral Margin RequirementsRelated Articles
APRA Sets LAC for D-SIBs, Proposes to Enhance Crisis Preparedness
APRA issued a letter on the loss-absorbing capacity (LAC) requirements for domestic systemically important banks (D-SIBs) and published a discussion paper, along with the proposed the prudential standards on financial contingency planning (CPS 190) and resolution planning (CPS 900).
EC to Review Macro-Prudential Rules while ESRB Assesses Policy Stance
The European Commission (EC) launched a call for evidence, until March 18, 2022, as part of a comprehensive review of the macro-prudential rules for the banking sector under the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) and Directive (CRD IV).
FSB Sets Out Good Practices for Crisis Management Groups
The Financial Stability Board (FSB) published a report that sets out good practices for crisis management groups.
APRA Penalizes Heritage Bank for Incorrect Reporting of Capital
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) found that Heritage Bank Limited had incorrectly reported capital because of weaknesses in operational risk and compliance frameworks, although the bank did not breach minimum prudential capital ratios at any point and remains well-capitalized.
OSFI Releases Annual Report 2021-2022
The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) released the annual report for 2020-2021.
OSFI Updates Timeline for Implementation of Certain Basel Rules
Through a letter addressed to the banking sector entities, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) announced deferral of the domestic implementation of the final Basel III reforms from the first to the second quarter of 2023.
EC Defers Adoption of Regulatory Standards for Disclosures Under SFDR
EIOPA recently published a letter in which EC is informing the European Parliament and Council that it could not adopt the set of draft regulatory technical standards for disclosures under the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) within the stipulated three-month period, given their length and technical detail.
FCA Releases MIFIDPRU Application Forms and Third Set of Rules on IFPR
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published the third in a series of policy statements that set out rules to introduce the UK Investment Firm Prudential Regime (IFPR), which will take effect on January 01, 2022.
APRA Finalizes Capital Adequacy Standards for Banks
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) published, along with a summary of its response to the consultation feedback, an information paper that summarizes the finalized capital framework that is in line with the internationally agreed Basel III requirements for banks.
CPMI-IOSCO Seek Comments on Access to Central Clearing and Portability
The Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI) and the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) issued a consultative report focusing on access to central counterparty (CCP) clearing and client-position portability.
