FSB finalized guidance on financial resources to support central counterparty (CCP) resolution and on approaches to the treatment of CCP equity in resolution. The guidance will support resolution authorities and crisis management groups in assessing the adequacy of financial resources for CCP resolution. FSB stipulates that resolution authorities should conduct such assessment in cooperation with a CCP’s oversight and/or supervisory authorities. For CCPs that are systemically important in more than one jurisdiction, such assessment should be reviewed and updated on an annual basis, with the results of such review or update to be discussed within the firms’ crisis management groups. FSB also published an overview of responses received to the consultation on the guidance.
The guidance is intended to assist resolution authorities in applying the existing principles incorporated in the Key Attributes of effective resolution regimes for financial institutions, the implementation guidance on financial market infrastructure resolution, and the FSB 2017 guidance on CCP resolution and resolution planning. The guidance consists of two parts, with the first part of the guidance proposing five steps to guide the authorities in assessing the adequacy of a CCP’s financial resources and the potential financial stability implications of their use. As per the five steps, the authorities should:
- Identify hypothetical default and non-default loss scenarios (and a combination of them) that may lead to a resolution of a CCP
- Conduct a qualitative and quantitative evaluation of existing resources and tools available in the resolution of the CCP
- Assess potential resolution costs
- Compare existing resources and tools to resolution costs and identify any gaps
- Evaluate the availability, costs, and benefits of potential means of addressing any identified gaps
The second part of the guidance addresses the treatment of CCP equity in resolution. It provides a framework for resolution authorities to evaluate the exposure of CCP equity to losses in recovery, liquidation, and resolution and how (where it is possible) the treatment of CCP equity in resolution could be adjusted.
Five years after the publication of this guidance, FSB will consider, in consultation with CPMI-IOSCO, whether further adjustments are needed in light of market developments and resolution authorities’ experience with using the guidance. The final timetable will be informed by authorities’ feedback on the use of the guidance and any additional resolution related policy work that may be undertaken. Additionally, considering the increasing systemic relevance of CCPs, the Chairs of FSB, CPMI, IOSCO, and the FSB Resolution Steering Group have proposed to collaborate on, and conduct further work on, CCP financial resources through their respective committees. Such work will consider, during the course of 2021, the need for, and develop as appropriate, international policy on the use, composition, and amount of financial resources in recovery and resolution to further strengthen the resilience and resolvability of CCPs in default and non-default loss scenarios. This would include assessing whether any new types of pre-funded resources would be necessary to enhance CCP resolvability.
Keywords: International, Banking, Securities, CCP, CCP Resolution, Resolution Planning, OTC Derivatives, Crisis Management, Resolution Framework, FSB
Previous ArticleEuropean Council Adopts Conclusions on Sandboxes as Regulatory Tools
APRA finalized the reporting standard ARS 115.0 on capital adequacy with respect to the standardized measurement approach to operational risk for authorized deposit-taking institutions in Australia.
EBA is consulting on the implementing technical standards for Pillar 3 disclosures on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) risks, as set out in requirements under Article 449a of the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR).
ESAs Issue Advice on KPIs on Sustainability for Nonfinancial Reporting
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 EBA Single Rulebook question and answer (Q&A) tool updates for this month include answers to ten questions.
ESMA updated the set of questions and answers (Q&A), along with the reporting instructions and an XML schema for the templates set out in the technical standards on disclosure requirements, under the Securitization Regulation.
EU published Regulation 2021/337, which amends the Transparency Directive (2004/109/EC), regarding the use of the single electronic reporting format for annual financial reports.
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.