IMF published staff discussion note on trade-offs in bank resolution. The note examines the economic forces that determine the relative costs and benefits of bail-ins and bail-outs. The note revisits the trade-off entailed in the decision of a policymaker on the relative role of bail-ins of private stakeholders and public bail-outs.
The first section of the note presents the theoretical model that provides a framework to assess the circumstances in which losses may need to be borne by the public sector, rather than private investors. The answer crucially hinges on the trade-off between the moral hazard costs associated with bail-outs and the potential spillovers arising from bail-ins. The second section discusses the empirical evidence that is consistent with the existence of moral hazard effects associated with bail-outs and of spillovers associated with bail-ins. The third section briefly discusses the recent reforms to enhance resolution frameworks, along with the progress in shifting the burden of a crisis to private investors, strengthening resolution frameworks, and improving the bail-in/out trade-offs by enhancing resolvability and increasing loss absorbency.
The note supports the ongoing reform agenda to provide resolution authorities with effective bail-in powers and stresses that frameworks should aim to minimize moral hazard associated with bailouts. Nonetheless, it also emphasizes the need to allow for sufficient, albeit constrained, flexibility to be able to use public resources in the context of systemic banking crises—when spillovers are significant and deemed likely to severely jeopardize financial stability. Furthermore, the analysis calls for continued efforts to enhance loss-absorbing capacity, ensure that holders of bail-in-able debt are those best situated to absorb losses, and improve arrangements for cross-border resolution. This is essential to further boost the effectiveness of bail-in powers and contain the risk of spillovers.
Related Link: Discussion Note
Previous ArticleEIOPA Q&A on Regulations: First Update for February 2018
PRA published a "Dear CEO" letter from Sam Woods, its Deputy Governor and CEO, to update the March guidance on treatment of COVID-19-related payment deferrals under IFRS 9 and the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR).
MAS, along with the Ministry of Finance (MOF), the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS), and the Enterprise Singapore (ESG), announced a package of measures to support those that may face cash-flow constraints.
ESMA published a consultation paper on guidelines on outsourcing to cloud service providers.
EBA announced that it will release the bank-by-bank data of the Spring 2020 EU-wide transparency exercise on Monday, June 8.
PRA issued a statement confirming that firms may use electronic signatures for submission of forms and other regulatory documents, although in specific instances PRA may request a "wet signature" where it is appropriate to do so.
EBA published the guidelines and templates for reporting and disclosure of exposures subject to measures applied in response to the COVID-19 crisis.
FCA updated its guidance confirming the support firms should give to mortgage customers that are either coming to the end of a payment holiday or are yet to request one.
US Agencies (FDIC, FED, and OCC) published an interim final rule that temporarily revises the supplementary leverage ratio calculation for depository institutions.
APRA published a frequently asked question (FAQ) providing guidance to all APRA-regulated entities in determining their requirements under the prudential standard CPS 226 on margins and risk mitigation for non-centrally cleared derivatives.
EBA published a consultation paper on the draft amended regulatory technical standards on own funds and eligible liabilities.