FSI Paper Examines Effectiveness of Bank Resolution Frameworks
The Financial Stability Institute (FSI) of BIS published a paper that reviews institutional implementation of the principles set out in the FSB Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes in 16 jurisdictions. The analysis concludes that conflicts of interest between the resolution and supervisory functions can arise irrespective of whether they are institutionally co-located or separate. A key factor in all types of arrangements is balancing operational independence for the resolution function with structures that allow it to benefit from synergies with the supervisory function.
The review shows the variation that exists in the institutional arrangements for bank resolution. While the adoption of the Key Attributes has given authorities an opportunity to review and possibly adjust their bank resolution arrangements, the principles-based nature of these standards regarding the resolution authority leaves scope for jurisdictions to integrate the resolution function within their existing institutional architecture. One of the principal considerations that emerged from discussions with authorities is how to achieve appropriate operational independence for the resolution function while enabling it to benefit from the synergies with the supervisory function. While the potential for conflicts of interest between supervision and resolution is widely recognized, there is a growing perception of the benefits of institutional arrangements that support close cooperation between the two functions. This negotiation between the two principles—operational independence and conflict management, on the one hand, and exploiting synergies on the other—is still ongoing in some authorities as new arrangements evolve and mature.
The review shows that conflicts of interest between resolution and supervisory functions could arise independently of the location of the resolution function. The co-location of the supervisory and resolution functions facilitates coordination and the resolution of conflicts through internal governance arrangements. To date, the bank resolution function in its current form is relatively new, and untested, in many jurisdictions. Therefore, effective practices in this area may still be a work in progress. Resolution authorities have not encountered significant obstacles in resolution planning and, where the arrangements were in place in earlier crises, in the conduct of bank resolution. Complex arrangements, such as hybrid models primarily resulting from historical experience, require greater coordination efforts. Resolution authorities also consider their staffing levels and legal protection as broadly adequate to exercise their functions, with the possibility of scaling-up resources in times of increased pressure.
Related Links
Keywords: International, Banking, Resolution Planning, Resolution Framework, Key Attributes, Resolution Regime, Reporting, FSI, BIS
Featured Experts
María Cañamero
Skilled market researcher; growth strategist; successful go-to-market campaign developer
Nicolas Degruson
Works with financial institutions, regulatory experts, business analysts, product managers, and software engineers to drive regulatory solutions across the globe.
David Fihrer
Skilled life insurance actuary; subject matter expert on IFRS 17 and source of earnings
Previous Article
EIOPA Launches Stress Test for Insurance Sector in EURelated Articles
US Agencies Issue Several Regulatory and Reporting Updates
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FED) adopted the final rule on Adjustable Interest Rate (LIBOR) Act.
ECB Issues Multiple Reports and Regulatory Updates for Banks
The European Central Bank (ECB) published an updated list of supervised entities, a report on the supervision of less significant institutions (LSIs), a statement on macro-prudential policy.
HKMA Keeps List of D-SIBs Unchanged, Makes Other Announcements
The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) published a circular on the prudential treatment of crypto-asset exposures, an update on the status of transition to new interest rate benchmarks.
EU Issues FAQs on Taxonomy Regulation, Rules Under CRD, FICOD and SFDR
The European Commission (EC) adopted the standards addressing supervisory reporting of risk concentrations and intra-group transactions, benchmarking of internal approaches, and authorization of credit institutions.
CBIRC Revises Measures on Corporate Governance Supervision
The China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission (CBIRC) issued rules to manage the risk of off-balance sheet business of commercial banks and rules on corporate governance of financial institutions.
HKMA Publications Address Sustainability Issues in Financial Sector
The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) made announcements to address sustainability issues in the financial sector.
EBA Updates Address Basel and NPL Requirements for Banks
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published regulatory standards on identification of a group of connected clients (GCC) as well as updated the lists of identified financial conglomerates.
ESMA Publishes 2022 ESEF XBRL Taxonomy and Conformance Suite
The General Board of the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB), at its December meeting, issued an updated risk assessment via the quarterly risk dashboard and held discussions on key policy priorities to address the systemic risks in the European Union.
FCA Sets up ESG Committee, Imposes Penalties, and Issues Other Updates
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is seeking comments, until December 21, 2022, on the draft guidance for firms to support existing mortgage borrowers.
FSB Reports Assess NBFI Sector and Progress on LIBOR Transition
The Financial Stability Board (FSB) published a report that assesses progress on the transition from the Interbank Offered Rates, or IBORs, to overnight risk-free rates as well as a report that assesses global trends in the non-bank financial intermediation (NBFI) sector.
