使零售银行可清算

Ioannis G. Asimakopoulos
{"title":"使零售银行可清算","authors":"Ioannis G. Asimakopoulos","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3471187","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The EU bank resolution framework relies heavily on banks' internal capacity for loss-absorption and recapitalization through the issuance of bail-inable financial instruments (MREL). Meanwhile, the existing collective funding arrangements (resolution and deposit insurance funds) seem inadequate to support other alternatives, such as resolution transfer strategies or administrative liquidation. Based on resolution experience and evidence thus far, such regulatory architecture cannot work effectively on all EU banks regardless of size and business model. Many retail banks – both significant and less significant with deposits higher than 40% of their total liabilities and own funds (TLOF) – struggle to comply with the existing framework due to their funding model and difficulty to tap capital markets. Ultimately, efforts to improve their resolvability could threaten their viability. In order to improve the resolvability of retail banks, regulators need to enhance resolution transfer strategies which would ultimately reduce MREL requirements. Credible transfer strategies though require credible financing arrangements when a buyer is not readily available. Therefore, resolution funds would need to be able to contribute more than the current 5% TLOF in order to credibly supplement bail-in. Otherwise, regulators should incentivize banks to establish voluntary collective industry funds – similar or identical to institutional protection schemes, which would finance transfer-based resolution strategies integrated into the resolution plans. Participation in such voluntary funds would occur in exchange for lower MREL requirements. The use of transfer strategies in conjunction with the establishment of voluntary industry funds would significantly reduce MREL requirements for retail banks.","PeriodicalId":11689,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Commercial Banks (Topic)","volume":"46 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Making Retail Banks Resolvable\",\"authors\":\"Ioannis G. Asimakopoulos\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3471187\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The EU bank resolution framework relies heavily on banks' internal capacity for loss-absorption and recapitalization through the issuance of bail-inable financial instruments (MREL). Meanwhile, the existing collective funding arrangements (resolution and deposit insurance funds) seem inadequate to support other alternatives, such as resolution transfer strategies or administrative liquidation. Based on resolution experience and evidence thus far, such regulatory architecture cannot work effectively on all EU banks regardless of size and business model. Many retail banks – both significant and less significant with deposits higher than 40% of their total liabilities and own funds (TLOF) – struggle to comply with the existing framework due to their funding model and difficulty to tap capital markets. Ultimately, efforts to improve their resolvability could threaten their viability. In order to improve the resolvability of retail banks, regulators need to enhance resolution transfer strategies which would ultimately reduce MREL requirements. Credible transfer strategies though require credible financing arrangements when a buyer is not readily available. Therefore, resolution funds would need to be able to contribute more than the current 5% TLOF in order to credibly supplement bail-in. Otherwise, regulators should incentivize banks to establish voluntary collective industry funds – similar or identical to institutional protection schemes, which would finance transfer-based resolution strategies integrated into the resolution plans. Participation in such voluntary funds would occur in exchange for lower MREL requirements. The use of transfer strategies in conjunction with the establishment of voluntary industry funds would significantly reduce MREL requirements for retail banks.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11689,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ERN: Commercial Banks (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"46 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ERN: Commercial Banks (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3471187\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Commercial Banks (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3471187","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

欧盟银行处置框架在很大程度上依赖于银行通过发行可纾困金融工具(MREL)吸收损失和进行资本重组的内部能力。同时,现有的集体融资安排(决议和存款保险基金)似乎不足以支持其他替代方案,如决议转移战略或行政清算。根据迄今为止的清算经验和证据,这种监管架构无法有效地适用于所有欧盟银行,无论其规模和业务模式如何。由于其融资模式和难以利用资本市场,许多零售银行——无论是大银行还是小银行,存款占其总负债和自有资金(TLOF)的比例都高于40%——都难以遵守现有框架。最终,提高可解决性的努力可能会威胁到它们的生存能力。为了提高零售银行的可解散性,监管机构需要加强决议转移策略,最终降低MREL要求。然而,可信的转移策略需要可靠的融资安排,当买方不容易获得。因此,处置基金需要能够提供超过目前5%的TLOF,才能可靠地补充纾困。否则,监管机构应激励银行建立自愿的行业集体基金——类似或等同于机构保护计划,为整合到处置计划中的基于转移的处置策略提供资金。参与这种自愿基金的条件是降低MREL要求。在设立自愿行业基金的同时使用转移战略将大大减少零售银行的MREL要求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Making Retail Banks Resolvable
The EU bank resolution framework relies heavily on banks' internal capacity for loss-absorption and recapitalization through the issuance of bail-inable financial instruments (MREL). Meanwhile, the existing collective funding arrangements (resolution and deposit insurance funds) seem inadequate to support other alternatives, such as resolution transfer strategies or administrative liquidation. Based on resolution experience and evidence thus far, such regulatory architecture cannot work effectively on all EU banks regardless of size and business model. Many retail banks – both significant and less significant with deposits higher than 40% of their total liabilities and own funds (TLOF) – struggle to comply with the existing framework due to their funding model and difficulty to tap capital markets. Ultimately, efforts to improve their resolvability could threaten their viability. In order to improve the resolvability of retail banks, regulators need to enhance resolution transfer strategies which would ultimately reduce MREL requirements. Credible transfer strategies though require credible financing arrangements when a buyer is not readily available. Therefore, resolution funds would need to be able to contribute more than the current 5% TLOF in order to credibly supplement bail-in. Otherwise, regulators should incentivize banks to establish voluntary collective industry funds – similar or identical to institutional protection schemes, which would finance transfer-based resolution strategies integrated into the resolution plans. Participation in such voluntary funds would occur in exchange for lower MREL requirements. The use of transfer strategies in conjunction with the establishment of voluntary industry funds would significantly reduce MREL requirements for retail banks.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Banks’ Interest Rate Setting and Transitions between Liquidity Surplus and Deficit ECB Monetary Policy and Bank Default Risk Bank Regulation and Market Discipline in the Presence of Risk-Shifting Incentives 'Negative-For-Long' Interest Rates and Customer Deposit Rate Anticipatory effects around proposed regulation: Evidence from Basel III
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1