2016年-IMF国际货币组织全球_Republic_of_Slovenia_Technical_Assistance_Report_19页_588kb

Summary of the Technical Assistance Report on Contingency Planning and Crisis Management for the Republic of Slovenia

Core Content

This report is a continuation of the IMF's technical assistance (TA) missions to Slovenia, aimed at improving the country's contingency planning and crisis management (CPCM) framework, particularly in the context of bank resolution and deposit insurance. The mission, led by David Parker and Atilla Arda, took place in February and March 2016 and focused on assessing progress made since the previous TA missions in 2014 and 2015, and providing further guidance on strengthening the CPCM framework.

Main Findings and Recommendations

I. Contingency Planning

1. Crisis Management Team (CMT) Revival

   • The CMT, which oversees the BOS's contingency planning, has not been active since end-2013. The mission recommended reviving the CMT with a dedicated Crisis Preparedness Unit.
   • The CMT should meet monthly and develop a work program, including a comprehensive contingency plan and simulation exercises.

2. Inter-Agency Coordination

   • The authorities are considering merging the dormant Coordination Group (CG) with the Financial Stability Board (FSB), which is responsible for macroprudential policies (MaPP).
   • The CG/FSB should actively oversee contingency planning and crisis management. Two technical working groups—on MaPP and CPCM—should be established under the merged body.

3. Role Definition in Crisis

   • Responsibilities should be defined in terms of functional roles rather than individuals to ensure continuity and efficiency during staff changes.

4. Information Sharing and Documentation

   • A subcommittee of the CG/FSB should be formed to review data requests, standardize reporting formats, and ensure secure and confidential information sharing.
   • All competent authorities should maintain detailed documentation, including manuals, checklists, and templates, to ensure legal defensibility and consistency in crisis response.

5. Systemic Risk Dashboard (SRD)

   • The BOS has developed an SRD with 17 indicators and 5 intermediate objectives. It is working to expand the dashboard and automate it, in collaboration with the Insurance Supervision Agency and the Securities Market Agency.

6. Early Warning System (EWS)

   • The BOS is developing an EWS that is forward-looking and based on quantitative assessments. The ESRB is responsible for issuing early warnings to Slovenia, which are then implemented by the FSB.

7. Resolution Planning

   • Recovery and resolution planning (RRP) is underway for all Slovenian D-SIBs. The BOS expects to finalize resolution plans for all nine SSM D-SIBs by mid-2016.
   • The BOS has also joined crisis management groups for five foreign-owned SSM D-SIBs and anticipates joining the sixth soon.

8. Communication Strategy

   • A unified communication strategy and plan should be developed for both the BOS and the national level to ensure consistent messaging during financial crises.
   • The mission recommended that one spokesperson manage the communication process and that public statements should emphasize the authorities' actions in the best interest of depositors and banking stability.

II. Crisis Management

1. Legal Framework

   • The Slovenian authorities are transposing the EU Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) and the Deposit Guarantee Scheme Directive (DGSD) into national legislation.
   • The BRRD will introduce a special bank resolution regime, and the DGSD will establish a separate deposit guarantee scheme.

2. Resolution Funding Mechanism

   • A three-pronged resolution funding mechanism is being introduced, including:
     • Deposit Guarantee Fund (DGF): Administered by the BOS as an ex ante account.
     • National Resolution Fund (NRF): Funded by banks and earmarked assets, with a total capacity of EUR 337 million.
     • EU Single Resolution Fund (SRF): An ongoing EU initiative to mutualize resolution costs.

3. Bridge Bank Tool

   • The BRRD allows the BOS to create a bridge bank, which is a temporary measure to resolve failing systemic banks.
   • The mission recommended that the bridge bank tool be used only for systemically important banks or systemic situations, and that it be clearly restricted in its application.

4. Government Role in Crisis

   • The Ministry of Finance (MoF) should lead the use of public funds in crisis situations, with strong safeguards in place.
   • The government should guarantee uninsured depositors and other creditors during systemic crises, but only as a last resort, with reasonable fees and restrictions on dividend payments.

5. Emergency Liquidity Assistance (ELA)

   • The BOS has an ELA framework in place, with detailed rules on acceptable collateral, pricing, and haircuts. It includes loan agreement templates.

Key Information

• The mission emphasized the importance of operational readiness and legal preparedness to ensure timely and less costly interventions.
• The BOS has made progress in establishing a Bank Resolution Unit (BRU) and drafting resolution plans.
• The Deposit Guarantee Scheme (DGS) is in the process of being formalized, with the draft law expected to be submitted to parliament shortly.
• The Crisis Management Team (CMT) and national crisis management plan are still to be fully established.
• The Communication Strategy is a key component to maintain public confidence during crises.
• The Bridge Bank Tool should be used cautiously and only for systemic risks.
• The resolution funding mechanism is being developed to support both domestic and cross-border resolution efforts.

Implementation Status

Conclusion

The mission concluded that Slovenia has made significant progress in aligning its legal and operational frameworks with EU standards, particularly the BRRD and DGSD. However, further work is needed to ensure full implementation of the CPCM framework, including the establishment of a national crisis management plan, communication strategy, and the development of resolution tools. The BOS and Slovenian authorities should continue to implement the outstanding recommendations and ensure that crisis preparedness is institutionalized and supported by adequate resources and procedures.