European Parliament published a briefing paper that gives an overview of the seven aspects of resolvability defined in 2019 by SRB. The seven aspects of resolvability are governance, loss absorption and recapitalization capacity, liquidity and funding in resolution, operational continuity and access to financial market infrastructures, information systems and data requirements, communication, and separability and restructuring. The briefing also assesses progress in two key areas—raising sufficient financial resources and changes in legal and operational structures of banks to facilitate resolution—based on evidence gathered from public disclosures of the 20 largest euro-area banks. The largest banks have made good progress in raising bail-in capital. However, changes to legal and operational structures of banks that will facilitate resolution will take more time.
This briefing reviews the two most important frameworks for resolvability assessments in Europe—that is, the frameworks in the UK (adopted in 2019) and in the euro area (in consultation stage). It then assesses progress in raising minimum required own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL) and the impediments that smaller banks are likely to confront in raising subordinated debt. Next, it assesses the transparency of the euro-area regime, before reviewing challenges in creating supportive governance arrangements and operational structures in the sample of 20 banks. This is examined in more detail in the following section of the paper for a subset of cross-border banks that have systematically important subsidiaries in a number of EU countries.
The briefing highlights that making banks in Europe resolvable will be a long process. So far, only the first steps have been taken. Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) 2 updated the earlier regime of 2014 and the draft resolvability assessment framework of SRB has clarified its expectation that banks will need to play a key role in this process. While smaller banks may be safely liquidated, numerous barriers still impede resolvability of the banks for which SRB intervention might be necessary. Several of the impediments in this process may reflect constraints in debt markets or unclear coordination between different resolution authorities. Additional loss-absorbing capital has been raised by the largest banks while mid-size banks are likely to face problems. Even where MREL targets are met, investors might question the utility of bail-in capital should significant parts need to be prepositioned in individual jurisdictions, or if there are refinancing risks. Unclear coordination between home and host countries might leave the final resolution strategy unclear for some time.
The work program of SRB to remove barriers to resolvability is likely to identify numerous bank-specific barriers in terms of inadequate governance and management information system, and legal and operational structures. Central European countries used to be dependent on cross-border parent and wholesale funding, but have now become much more reliant on local deposit funding, making them more amenable to multiple local resolution schemes and restructuring. However, the review of resolution-related disclosures by the 20 largest euro-area banks has offered very limited evidence that other operational and legal barriers to resolvability are being addressed. SRB should become more open about its own standards, the barriers it has identified, and how it goes about addressing these barriers. The U.S. experience has shown that banks can be asked to produce public versions of their crisis plans and that it might be in their interest to do so. Given the formalization of the expectations for banks and the future work program of SRB, addressing barriers to resolvability will become a central part of the agenda in EU.
Keywords: Europe, EU, Banking, BRRD2, MREL, Bail-in, Recapitalization, Resolution Framework, European Parliament
Previous ArticleESMA Publishes Market Share Figures for Credit Rating Agencies in EU
ECB finalized the guide on assessment methodology for the internal model method for calculating exposure to counterparty credit risk (CCR) and the advanced method for own funds requirements for credit valuation adjustment (A-CVA) risk.
EBA published an Opinion addressed to EC to raise awareness about the opportunity to clarify certain issues related to the definition of credit institution in the upcoming review of the Capital Requirements Directive and Regulation (CRD and CRR).
APRA is consulting on updates to ARS 210.0, the reporting standard that sets out requirements for provision of information on liquidity and funding of an authorized deposit-taking institution.
FED released hypothetical scenarios for a second round of stress tests for banks.
PRA published updates in relation to the 2021 Supervisory Benchmarking Portfolio exercise.
FED adopted a proposal to extend for three years, with revision, the capital assessments and stress testing reports (FR Y-14A/Q/M; OMB No. 7100-0341).
HKMA revised the Supervisory Policy Manual module CR-G-14 on margin and other risk mitigation standards for non-centrally cleared over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives transactions.
EBA issued a revised list of validation rules with respect to the implementing technical standards on supervisory reporting.
EBA published its response to the call for advice of EC on ways to strengthen the EU legal framework on anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT).
NGFS published a paper on the overview of environmental risk analysis by financial institutions and an occasional paper on the case studies on environmental risk analysis methodologies.