Featured Product

    GAO Examines GSIB Actions to Mitigate Obstacles for Orderly Resolution

    December 10, 2018

    The U.S. GAO published a report on financial and legal obstacles global systemically important bank holding companies (G-SIBs) could face under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. This report describes actions G-SIBs took to mitigate such financial and legal obstacles and analyzes expert views on the effectiveness of the actions, need for additional actions, and likely success of the single point-of-entry (SPOE) strategy. GAO focused on five U.S. G-SIBs with large portfolios of derivatives: Bank of America Corporation, Citigroup Inc, Goldman Sachs Group Inc, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and Morgan Stanley.

    The five G-SIBs in the review incorporated procedures and other controls in their 2017 resolution plans to mitigate financial and legal obstacles to orderly resolution under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Each G-SIB developed a resolution strategy using SPOE—that is, only the G-SIB holding company would enter bankruptcy. Before entering bankruptcy, the holding company would provide its subsidiaries with capital and liquidity to keep them solvent and enable their orderly wind-down or sale. However, a G-SIB could lack sufficient capital and liquidity to keep subsidiaries solvent or face legal challenges from creditors. To mitigate such obstacles, the five G-SIBs estimated the financial needs of subsidiaries under SPOE, pre-positioned loss-absorbing capital and long-term debt at key subsidiaries, conducted legal analysis to identify potential creditor challenges, and took other actions. In their review, FDIC and FED found no deficiencies with the G-SIBs’ 2017 plans. However, since none of the G-SIBs have gone through bankruptcy using SPOE, the potential effectiveness of their controls cannot be known.

    GAO reviewed and analyzed academic and industry studies on resolution of large financial firms; public sections of G-SIB resolution plans; laws, regulations, and regulatory guidance on G-SIB resolution plans; and proposals to amend the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. GAO judgmentally selected and interviewed 30 experts (judges, academics, attorneys, other professional service providers, and counterparties) based on their knowledge of the Code and G-SIB resolution. GAO also interviewed federal banking regulators and the five G-SIBs covered by the review of GAO. The experts interviewed by GAO had the following views on the controls of five G-SIBs to mitigate obstacles, on the need for additional actions, and on the SPOE strategies.

    • Most experts viewed G-SIB controls to mitigate financial obstacles as potentially "somewhat effective." However, some experts expressed concerns about the controls, partly because of the difficulty of forecasting capital and liquidity needs of subsidiaries and uncertainty about future events in a G-SIB failure. 
    • Experts had mixed views on the potential effectiveness of G-SIB controls to mitigate creditor challenges and other legal obstacles but supported certain Code amendments to further mitigate the obstacles. Most experts generally supported amending the Code to limit creditors from challenging a G-SIB’s provision of capital and liquidity to its subsidiaries before filing for bankruptcy. However, some were concerned about trade-offs between the interests of creditors and the public associated with such an amendment.
    • Most experts said a G-SIB could likely execute its SPOE strategy successfully if its failure affected only itself. However, most viewed success as unlikely if the failure occurred during a widespread market disruption. In that regard, some experts said it was important not to repeal the Orderly Liquidation Authority of the Dodd-Frank Act—which allows the federal government, if warranted, to resolve a G-SIB outside the Code.

     

    Related Links

    Keywords: Americas, US, Banking, US Bankruptcy Code, G-SIB, Too Big to Fail, Dodd Frank Act, Orderly Resolution, Systemic Risk, GAO

    Featured Experts
    Related Articles
    News

    ESMA Updates Q&A on Credit Rating Agencies Regulation

    ESMA updated questions and answers (Q&A) document on the Credit Rating Agencies (CRA) Regulation.

    February 17, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EC Announces Funding for Sustainable Finance Project in France

    EC announced an investment for the latest projects, including a project on sustainable finance, under the LIFE program for the environment and climate action.

    February 17, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    FDIC Releases Economic Scenarios for Stress Testing in 2020

    FDIC released the hypothetical economic scenarios for use in the upcoming stress tests for covered institutions with total consolidated assets of more than USD 250 billion.

    February 14, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EBA Acknowledges EC Adoption of Amended Supervisory Reporting Standard

    EBA acknowledged the adoption, by EC, of an Implementing Act with regard to the common reporting (COREP) and financial reporting (FINREP) changes, in accordance with the Capital Requirements Regulation or CRR.

    February 14, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    APRA and ASIC Welcome Proposed Reforms for Superannuation Sector

    APRA and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) have jointly welcomed the proposed legislative reforms increasing the role of ASIC in the superannuation sector.

    February 14, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    ESMA Responds to EC Consultation on Review of Benchmarks Regulation

    ESMA published its response to EC consultation on review of the Benchmarks Regulation in EU.

    February 14, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    OSFI on Guide and Form for Replicating Portfolio Information Summary

    OSFI revised the instruction guide and form related to filing the Replicating Portfolio Information Summary.

    February 14, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    ISDA Guide on Smart Contracts for Equity and Interest Rate Derivatives

    ISDA has published the fourth and fifth installments in a series of legal guidelines for smart derivatives contracts.

    February 13, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    FED Paper Describes FLARE, A Top-Down Model for Stress Testing

    FED published a technical paper that describes the Forward-Looking Analysis of Risk Events (FLARE) model.

    February 13, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EC Rule Updates Data for Calculations Under Solvency II Reporting

    EC published the Implementing Regulation 2020/193, which lays down technical information for the calculation of technical provisions and basic own funds for reporting with reference dates from December 31, 2019 to March 30, 2020, in accordance with the Solvency II Directive (2009/138/EC).

    February 13, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    RESULTS 1 - 10 OF 4680