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.
Keywords: Americas, US, Banking, US Bankruptcy Code, G-SIB, Too Big to Fail, Dodd Frank Act, Orderly Resolution, Systemic Risk, GAO
Previous ArticleFCA Publishes Feedback on Smarter Digital Regulatory Reporting
OSFI has set out the near-term priorities for federally regulated financial institutions and federally regulated private pension plans for the coming months until March 31, 2022.
Under the Italian G20 Presidency, BIS Innovation Hub and the Italian central bank BDI launched the second edition of the G20 TechSprint on the lookout for innovative solutions to resolve operational problems in green and sustainable finance.
EBA proposed the regulatory technical standards on a central database on anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) in EU.
ECB published its response to the targeted EC consultation on the review of the bank crisis management and deposit insurance framework in EU.
ACPR published Version 1.0.0 of the RUBA taxonomy, which will come into force from the decree of January 31, 2022.
BCBS, CPMI, and IOSCO (the Committees) are inviting entities that participate in market infrastructures and securities markets through an intermediary as well as non-bank intermediaries to complete voluntary surveys on the use of margin calls.
ECB published Decision 2021/752 to amend Decision 2019/1311 on the third series of targeted longer-term refinancing operations or TLTRO III.
The Central Bank of Ireland published Version 2.7 of the draft credit data template and rules for monthly AnaCredit reporting by banks.
OSFI proposed revisions to the Basel Capital Adequacy Reporting (BCAR) and leverage requirements returns for the 2023 reporting, with the comment period ending on July 09, 2021.
EBA published a discussion paper on review of the standardized nonperforming loans (NPL) transaction data templates, along with the proposed revised NPL data templates.