Featured Product

    FSI Paper Examines Role of Deposit Insurance in Bank Resolution

    August 23, 2019

    The Financial Stability Institute, or FSI, of BIS published a paper that examines the role of deposit insurance schemes in the bank resolution framework. The paper takes stock of the types of alternative measures that the deposit insurance schemes may fund. These measures include purchase and assumption transactions; the transfer of deposits—and, possibly, other business—to a bridge bank; and the provision of capital and liquidity support, either to prevent the failure of a stressed bank or in the context of a resolution or insolvency procedure. The paper discusses how deposit insurance scheme support for such measures can complement bank insolvency and resolution frameworks and expand the toolbox for bank failure management.

    Deposit insurance schemes play an important role in the framework for managing bank failures. The core use of the deposit insurance scheme resources is the payout of insured deposits in the context of a bank closure and insolvency proceeding. The deposit insurance schemes may also fulfill their mandate by funding measures that, at a minimum, preserve access to insured deposits as an alternative to payout. The use of the deposit insurance scheme resources for purposes other than payout is reflected in international standards such as the International Association of Deposit Insurers (IADI) Core Principles for Effective Deposit Insurance Systems and the FSB Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for Financial Institutions. On the basis of responses to a survey of 32 members of IADI, the paper takes stock of the types of alternative measures that deposit insurance schemes may fund.

    The survey reveals a wide range of approaches, based on variables that include the tools available under the applicable framework for bank failure management; the mandate of the deposit insurance schemes; the safeguards to protect deposit insurance scheme resources such as the operation of any financial cap on the amount that can be used for alternative measures for a single bank; and the availability of backup funding arrangements for the deposit insurance schemes. These differences in part reflect policy priorities and national institutional arrangements with the safety net. The ability to use deposit insurance scheme resources for alternative measures can complement bank insolvency and resolution frameworks and expand the options for bank failure management. However, a number of policy considerations frame choices about the use of deposit insurance scheme resources. Although these options can be helpful, they may require capacity on the part of the deposit insurance authority to assess and implement more sophisticated funding arrangements; the availability of appropriate backup funding arrangements if there is a risk that measures other than payout may involve material amounts that could exhaust the available resources of the scheme; and arrangements to deal with any moral hazard incentives for banks. Safeguards in the form of financial caps, including a “least cost” principle, and, where relevant, collateral requirements can help to counterbalance these issues at the cost of lower flexibility.

    The funding options for individual deposit insurance schemes will depend on the measures available under the legal framework for bank failure management and the role of the deposit insurance scheme in that framework. The availability of deposit insurance scheme resources to fund alternative measures is subject to conditions and safeguards. The amount the deposit insurance scheme may contribute to specific measures is generally also subject to constraints aimed at safeguarding its resources although backup funding arrangements may increase the capacity for deposit insurance scheme resources. Within these constraints, the availability of deposit insurance scheme resources to fund alternative measures can increase options for authorities in managing bank failures. This may be especially relevant when dealing with medium-size or non-systemic banks, in which deposits may be the main form of loss absorbency.

     

    Related Links

    Keywords: International, Banking, Deposit Guarantee Scheme, Deposit Insurance, Resolution Framework, Systemic Risk, BIS, FSI

    Featured Experts
    Related Articles
    News

    ESMA Releases Enforcement Priorities for 2019 Annual Financial Reports

    ESMA published a statement on the priorities that European enforcers will consider when examining the 2019 annual financial reports of listed companies.

    October 22, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EC Consults on Alternative Standardized Approach for Market Risk

    EC is consulting on a delegated regulation amending the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) with regard to the alternative standardized approach for market risk.

    October 21, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    CPMI Report Examines Impact of Global Stablecoins

    This report by the G7 Working Group on Stablecoins finds that stablecoins, regardless of size, have implications ranging from anti-money laundering efforts across jurisdictions to operational resilience (including for cyber security), consumer or investor and data protection, and tax compliance.

    October 18, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    BoE Announces Date for Publication of Stress Test Results for Banks

    BoE announced its plans to publish results of the full UK annual stress tests on December 10, 2019.

    October 18, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    US Agencies Request Comments on Use and Impact of CAMELS Ratings

    US Agencies (FDIC and FED) are seeking information and comments from interested parties regarding the consistency of ratings assigned by the agencies under the Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System (UFIRS).

    October 18, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    PRA Consults on Approach to Supervising Liquidity and Funding Risks

    In consultation paper (CP27/19), PRA published a proposal (CP27/19) to update the supervisory statement SS24/15 on the PRA approach to supervising liquidity and funding risk.

    October 17, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    US Agencies Consult on Policy Statement on Allowance for Credit Losses

    US Agencies (FDIC, FED, NCUA, and OCC) are consulting on the policy statement on allowances for credit losses and on the guidance on credit risk review systems.

    October 17, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    FSI Paper Examines Use of Suptech Initiatives by Financial Authorities

    The Financial Stability Institute (FSI) of BIS published a paper that examines the suptech developments by analyzing suptech initiatives of 39 financial authorities globally.

    October 17, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    US Agencies Publish Notice to Extend Form FFIEC 102 for Three Years

    US Agencies (FDIC, FED, and OCC) published a joint notice regarding extension of the market risk regulatory report for institutions subject to the market risk capital rule (FFIEC 102).

    October 17, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    ECB Publishes Recommendations on Euro Risk-Free Rates Transition

    ECB published a report, by private sector working group on euro risk-free rates, which contains recommendations, from a risk management perspective, on the transition to new risk-free rates.

    October 17, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    RESULTS 1 - 10 OF 4006