Elke König of SRB published two articles that express her views on the need for an EU liquidation regime for banks and on ways to close the gaps in the Banking Union regarding funding in resolution. These articles were published in The Eurofi Magazine.
Why we need an EU liquidation regime for banks. The resolution of banks is a specific insolvency procedure, introduced as an alternative to liquidation under national laws. The lack of an EU liquidation regime is a major obstacle toward full-fledged Banking Union. With nineteen different insolvency frameworks in the Banking Union, the analysis of the insolvency counterfactual for a cross-border bank in resolution is a challenge and results in diverging outcomes depending on the home country of the institution. Bank insolvency procedures should be subject to common standards and practices at the EU level. The ideal solution would be EU-wide rules on insolvency proceedings for the banking sector. SRB is working within the Single Resolution Mechanism on National Handbooks to define how to implement resolution schemes in each country as well as national implementation steps for a decision not to adopt resolution. This is a step in the right direction, but is only a “second best” option and not comparable to a harmonization of bank insolvency procedures—something only legislators can deliver. Proposals for harmonization will inevitably be fraught with political perils and resistance. An incremental approach—such as the one exemplified by the recent harmonization of the ranking of unsecured debt instruments in insolvency—may be a more palatable solution. The ultimate goal, however, must be to have in place an EU liquidation regime alongside an EU resolution regime.
Gaps in the Banking Union regarding funding in resolution and how to close them. By definition a recapitalized bank that has absorbed losses will be solvent and have better access to funding. However, given that analysts and creditors will likely require time to re-assess the financial position, the return to market funding will be a process rather than a one-off fix. Addressing the risk of banks having insufficient liquidity following resolution action, therefore, presents a crucial task in resolution planning. FSB guidance recommends establishing temporary public backstop funding mechanisms. Such a tool does not exist in the Banking Union, which is a missing piece in the overall framework. A credible tool would address open issues in the current system and put the Banking Union framework at equal footing with other jurisdictions such as the US or UK. A credible temporary public solution will provide markets with the needed confidence and allow fast return to private funding. When designing a credible tool some fundamentals must be fulfilled:
- First, all pre-conditions must be clear and resolution authorities should have certainty they can rely on the tool for finalizing all features of the resolution scheme, including funding, that is, liquidity on day one.
- Second, the scale must be sizable and flexible enough to support the effective implementation of any resolution strategy. It goes without saying, that only viable and solvent institutions in resolution should be supported with funding.
- Finally, the creation of a new sovereign-bank nexus should be avoided.
Keywords: Europe, EU, Banking, Resolution Planning, Liquidation Regime, Banking Union, SRB
Previous ArticleBaFin Announces Supervisory Priorities for 2019
Next ArticleCBB Amends Rulebook Volumes 1, 2, and 5 for Banks
BIS Innovation Hub published the work program for 2021, with focus on suptech and regtech, next-generation financial market infrastructure, central bank digital currencies, open finance, green finance, and cyber security.
In an article published by SRB, Mairead McGuinness, the European Commissioner for Financial Services, Financial Stability, and Capital Markets Union, discussed the progress and next steps toward completion of the Banking Union.
EBA finalized the two sets of draft regulatory technical standards on the identification of material risk-takers and on the classes of instruments used for remuneration under the Investment Firms Directive (IFD).
EC published, in the Official Journal of the European Union, a notification that the European Court of Auditors (ECA) has published a special report on resolution planning in the Single Resolution Mechanism.
BoE published a scenario against which it will be stress testing banks in 2021, in addition to setting out the key elements of the 2021 stress test, guidance on the 2021 stress test, and the variable paths for the 2021 stress test.
PRA published a consultation paper (CP3/21) proposes rules regarding the timing of identity verification required for eligibility of depositor protection under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS).
FSB published the work program for 2021, which reflects a strategic shift in priorities in the COVID-19 environment.
FCA announced that 50% firms have started using the new data collection platform RegData, which is slated to replace the existing platform known Gabriel.
Bundesbank published Version 5.0 of the derivation rules for completeness check at the form level, with respect to the data quality of the European harmonized reporting system.
FED finalized a rule that updates capital planning requirements to reflect the new framework from 2019 that sorts large banks into categories, with requirements that are tailored to the risks of each category.