2011年-ECB欧洲央行_European_Commissions_public_consultation_on_the_technical_details_of_a_possible_EU_framework_for_bank_recovery_and_resolution_–_ESCB_contribution_30页_459kb

Summary of the ESCB Contribution to the European Commission's Public Consultation on a Possible EU Framework for Bank Recovery and Resolution

Core Content

The European Central Bank (ECB) and the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) have contributed to the European Commission's public consultation on a potential EU framework for bank recovery and resolution. The consultation aims to develop a comprehensive legislative proposal by Summer 2011, building upon previous communications on "An EU Framework for Crisis Management in the Financial Sector" (October 2010) and "Bank Resolution Funds" (May 2010).

The ESCB supports the Commission's objective of creating a framework that allows for the orderly resolution of failing banks while safeguarding the stability of the EU financial system, minimising public costs, and ensuring the continuity of essential financial services.

Main Views

1. Overall Stance

• The ESCB endorses the Commission's initiative to develop a crisis management and resolution framework.
• The framework should be based on three pillars:
  • Improved and harmonised preventative and resolution tools.
  • Clearly defined roles for national authorities with balanced EU-level coordination.
  • Financing arrangements that limit reliance on public budgets.
• The ESCB stresses the importance of international coordination, particularly with the Financial Stability Board (FSB), to ensure a globally consistent approach to bank recovery and resolution.

2. Preventative and Resolution Tools

• Stress tests are seen as a key element for improved preparedness. They should be conducted independently of institutions providing recapitalisation support.
• Recovery and Resolution Plans (RRPs) must be based on a group-level perspective, with group authorities having a strong mandate to coordinate the preparation of these plans.
• The macroprudential perspective should complement the microprudential view of RRPs, ensuring a holistic assessment of potential impacts on the financial system.
• The intra-group financial support agreement is considered a step forward, but its legal design must be precise and clear, including trigger conditions, to avoid ambiguity and ensure stakeholder protection.
• The bail-in tool should be used as an alternative to liquidation, aiming to restore financial health and avoid systemic disruption. However, it requires a clear legal framework, including transparent trigger conditions and equal treatment of creditors.

3. Role of Authorities

• The decision on which authorities are responsible for resolution should be left to national discretion, but harmonised procedures at the EU level are essential for cross-border coordination.
• Central banks have a key role in the assessment of RRPs, given their macroprudential responsibilities and expertise in financial stability.
• The European Banking Authority (EBA) and European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) should have enhanced roles in coordination, especially if investment firms are included in the framework.
• The ESCB raises concerns about the binding role of EBA in resolving disputes between resolution authorities, particularly when such decisions could lead to significant fiscal implications for member states.

4. Financing Arrangements

• Resolution funds should be ex ante-accumulated and ex post-supported, with clear conditions to avoid bail-outs of previous shareholders.
• The implementation should take into account the Basel III framework to ensure it does not jeopardise economic recovery.
• The ESCB supports the idea of temporary delay of close-out netting rights during the resolution process to facilitate asset transfers.

5. Scope of Application

• The ESCB supports the broad scope of the framework, including all credit institutions and investment firms.
• The systemic nature of financial firms should be assessed using both quantitative and qualitative criteria.
• A regular re-assessment mechanism is needed to adapt to changing market conditions.
• The scope should be extended to bank holding companies if resolution tools are necessary for subsidiaries or the group as a whole.

Key Information

• The framework should be credible, with clear intentions to intervene early and avoid regulatory forbearance or bail-outs.
• Cross-border coordination is essential, and the single point of contact mechanism is crucial for effective implementation.
• The ECB's role in systemic risk assessment and resolution planning is highlighted.
• The bail-in tool is seen as a critical part of the resolution toolkit but requires careful legal design and operational testing.
• The ECB's contribution is made without prejudice to its future opinion on the Commission's legislative proposals.

Conclusion

The ESCB's contribution underscores the need for a harmonised, credible, and legally robust EU framework for bank recovery and resolution. It highlights the importance of preventative measures, clear legal definitions, and international alignment to ensure the stability of the financial system and the effective management of crises.