Fernando Restoy, the Chair of the Financial Stability Institute (FSI) of BIS, spoke at the FSI-IADI conference on crisis management, resolution, and deposit insurance. He highlighted that FSB reviews show an uneven and incomplete implementation of the FSB-issued Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes. In most FSB jurisdictions, resolution planning to date has largely concentrated on global and domestic systemic banks. However, the design of effective regimes for managing smaller bank failures is also important and gaining increasing attention. Such strengthening of the crisis management frameworks might also benefit the emerging market economies where the nature of the local financial system does not support the smooth application of international standards designed for large, complex institutions.
Mr. Restoy point out that it is unclear that bail-in is an appropriate tool for smaller banks with little experience of tapping capital markets in the way that would be necessary to issue sufficient amounts of bail-in-able liabilities. Such retail-focused banks are mainly funded by capital and deposits and may not easily satisfy, within their current business models, the loss-absorbing capacity requirements that would be required for resolution. Additionally, in many jurisdictions, smaller banks that do not meet thresholds for the use of special resolution powers are subject to an ordinary corporate insolvency regime. This may not provide suitable tools for dealing with the public interest considerations that may arise in the insolvency of any bank, irrespective of whether it is systemic.
He explained that deposit insurance is a fundamental element of an effective bank crisis management framework. In its most basic form, depositor protection contributes to financial stability by reducing the risk of depositor runs. However, where the mandate allows the funds to be used for purposes other than payout, this can support alternatives to liquidation for banks that do not meet the threshold conditions for the use of resolution powers. He highlighted the role of deposit insurance in bank failure management, as discussed in a recently published FSI Insights paper. The paper shows a wide range of approaches to the use of deposit insurance funds to support measures within resolution or insolvency that maintain access to insured deposits, or to prevent the failure of a member bank. The ability of deposit insurers to fund alternative measures can increase options for managing bank failures. This may be especially relevant for medium-size or non-systemic banks, in which deposits may be the main form of loss absorbency.
The FSI Chair added that these considerations are gaining prominence in the policy arena. In EU, a promising debate is gaining momentum on the eventual creation of an FDIC-like authority backed by a harmonized insolvency regime for banks that do not meet the thresholds for resolution. He concluded that improvements to bank insolvency regimes along the lines suggested may help strengthen crisis management frameworks in emerging market economies, where the nature of the local financial system does not support the smooth application of international standards designed for large, complex institutions.
Keywords: International, Banking, Deposit Insurance, G-SIBs, Small Banks, Resolution Planning, Crisis Management Framework, BIS, FSI
Previous ArticleFDIC Finalizes Rules on Community Bank Leverage Ratio Framework
PRA, via the consultation paper CP12/20, proposed changes to its rules, supervisory statements, and statements of policy to implement certain elements of the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD5).
EIOPA published the financial stability report that provides detailed quantitative and qualitative assessment of the key risks identified for the insurance and occupational pensions sectors in the European Economic Area.
EBA published its risk dashboard for the first quarter of 2020 together with the results of the risk assessment questionnaire.
EBA announced that the next stress testing exercise is expected to be launched at the end of January 2021 and its results are to be published at the end of July 2021.
PRA published the consultation paper CP11/20 that sets out its expectations and guidance related to auditors’ work on the matching adjustment under Solvency II.
MAS published a statement guidance on dividend distribution by banks.
APRA updated its capital management guidance for banks, particularly easing restrictions around paying dividends as institutions continue to manage the disruption caused by COVID-19 pandemic.
FSB published a report that reviews the progress on data collection for macro-prudential analysis and the availability and use of macro-prudential tools in Germany.
EBA issued a statement reminding financial institutions that the transition period between EU and UK will expire on December 31, 2020; this will end the possibility for the UK-based financial institutions to offer financial services to EU customers on a cross-border basis via passporting.
SRB published guidance on operational continuity in resolution and financial market infrastructure (FMI) contingency plans.