FSI Paper Examines Cross-Border Cooperation in Resolution Planning
The Financial Stability Institute (FSI) of BIS published a paper that examines the cross-border resolution cooperation and information-sharing arrangements for global systemically important banks (G-SIBs) and other foreign-owned locally systemic banks in 16 jurisdictions. Cross-border cooperative arrangements provide a means for discussing and agreeing resolution strategies and the planning and coordination of resolvability assessments. The study finds that there has been some progress in establishing a range of arrangements; however, in certain instances the information needs of host authorities on resolution planning continue to be unmet.
The paper is based on a survey of authorities from 16 jurisdictions that are home or host to global and domestic systemically important banks, including the non-crisis management group (CMG) host jurisdictions. The surveyed authorities are from locations worldwide, including EU, UK, US, Canada, Hong Kong, United Arab Emirates, Switzerland, South Africa, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Bermuda, and Bahamas. The paper provides an overview of the forms of cooperative arrangements described in the FSB Non-CMG Host Guidance and illustrative examples of how such arrangements may be adapted to different resolution strategies. It then summarizes recent developments relevant to cross-border cooperation in this area and provides a high-level overview of the FSI survey results. Next, the paper describes the firm-specific and non-firm-specific cooperative arrangements that the surveyed authorities have established or participated in, before concluding with certain suggestions based on the findings of the survey.
The authorities surveyed for this paper generally recognize that cooperation and information-sharing between home and host authorities would lead to better outcomes in cross-border resolution. However, despite the progress to date, the access of host authorities to information varies and gaps still exist. Whether or not host authorities can access adequate information about resolution strategies seems to influence how far they are likely to rely on, or cooperate with, the group resolution strategy. Nevertheless, the commitment of time and resources entailed by the establishment and maintenance of firm-specific cooperative arrangements should not be underestimated. Cross-border cooperation is not new for home and host authorities, but doing so in a resolution-specific context is new ground and requires new or modified arrangements. Establishment of the appropriate information-sharing frameworks takes time and effort on the part of home authorities, who may have to deal with multiple demands.
Non-CMG host authorities would benefit from taking the initiative to notify the home authority where a firm’s operations are locally systemic. They may also wish to consider the type and granularity of information needed to allow them to understand the resolution strategy and, where appropriate, support cross-border resolution. Home resolution authorities may also be more able under their own legal frameworks to share information with overseas authorities that have analogous mandates and functions. Finally, the paper highlights that many of the reported cooperation and information-sharing arrangements remain untested in a crisis. Therefore, simulation exercises may provide a useful means for building certainty and enhancing coordination between home and host authorities in relation to their actions in the event of a cross-border resolution. Continued progress with adopting resolution regimes based on the FSB Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for Financial Institutions may, therefore, be a facilitating condition for cross-border cooperation. Since cooperative arrangements between the home and host authorities are still evolving, it would be helpful to revisit progress made in this area in due course.
Related Links
Keywords: International, Banking, G-SIBs, D-SIBs, Cross-Border Cooperation, Resolution Planning, Crisis Management Framework, Resolvability Assessment, BIS, FSI
Related Articles
FINMA Approves Merger of Credit Suisse and UBS
The Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) has approved the takeover of Credit Suisse by UBS.
BOE Sets Out Its Thinking on Regulatory Capital and Climate Risks
The Bank of England (BOE) published a working paper that aims to understand the climate-related disclosures of UK financial institutions.
OSFI Finalizes on Climate Risk Guideline, Issues Other Updates
The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) is seeking comments, until May 31, 2023, on the draft guideline on culture and behavior risk, with final guideline expected by the end of 2023.
APRA Assesses Macro-Prudential Policy Settings, Issues Other Updates
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) published an information paper that assesses its macro-prudential policy settings aimed at promoting stability at a systemic level.
BIS Paper Examines Impact of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on Lending
BIS issued a paper that investigates the effect of the greenhouse gas, or GHG, emissions of firms on bank loans using bank–firm matched data of Japanese listed firms from 2006 to 2018.
HMT Mulls Alignment of Ring-Fencing and Resolution Regimes for Banks
The HM Treasury (HMT) is seeking evidence, until May 07, 2023, on practicalities of aligning the ring-fencing and the banking resolution regimes for banks.
MFSA Sets Out Supervisory Priorities, Issues Reporting Updates
The Malta Financial Services Authority (MFSA) outlined its supervisory priorities for 2023
German Regulators Issue Multiple Reporting Updates for Banks
Deutsche Bundesbank published the nationally deactivated validation rules for the German Commercial Code (HGB) users on the taxonomy 3.2, which became valid from December 31, 2022
BCBS Report Examines Impact of Basel III Framework for Banks
The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) published results of the Basel III monitoring exercise based on the June 30, 2022 data.
PRA Consults on Prudential Rules for "Simpler-Regime" Firms
Among the recent regulatory updates from UK authorities, a key development is the first-phase consultation, from the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA), on simplifications to the prudential framework that would apply to the simpler-regime firms.
