Publication: Understanding Bank Recovery and Resolution in the EU: A Guidebook to the BRRD
Loading...
Files in English
3,133 downloads
Published
2016-11
ISSN
Date
2017-01-31
Author(s)
Editor(s)
Abstract
The 2007 financial crisis has exposed major weaknesses in global financial systems, including the threat to financial stability posed by banks that were too big, interconnected and complex to be closed or go bankrupt. As a result, many banks have been rescued using public support, allowing for an uninterrupted provision of their services, but effectively shifting (most) of their losses to taxpayers instead of banksā owners or investors. The political realities following the bail-out of banks called for game-changing regulation to reduce both the likelihood and the impact of failure.The Banking Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) became one of the most important building blocks of the Banking Union. The BRRD is the outcome of a long negotiation process. The new bank recovery and resolution framework has wide reaching implications, both within the EU but also for countries with banking relationships with the EU. This Guidebook aims to explain the scope, the principles, and the rationale of the BRRD and related secondary legislation and guidance. Expert contributors, including lawyers and academics, share in this Guidebook their experience of and insights to the BRRD negotiation process, recovery and resolution planning, adoption of resolution decisions and the negotiation of bail-in. The Guidebook also raises awareness of discretionary or non-regulated areas and provides some initial thoughts for further development and possible implementation challenges. These challenges include but are not limited to the management of potential conflict of interests, the application of the public interest test, the choice of resolution tools, and the interaction between cross-border regulations. The Guidebook, together with the accompanying case studies, should help FinSAC client countries understand the resolution process and identify the impact that the BRRD will have on their own financial systems.
Link to Data Set
Citation
āWorld Bank Group. 2016. Understanding Bank Recovery and Resolution in the EU: A Guidebook to the BRRD. Ā© World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/25974 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO.ā
Digital Object Identifier
Associated URLs
Associated content
Other publications in this report series
Journal
Journal Volume
Journal Issue
Collections
Related items
Showing items related by metadata.
Publication European and Best Practice Bank Resolution Mechanisms : An Assessment and Recommendations for Policy and Legal Reforms(Washington, DC, 2012-03-20)The process of bank resolution, or the procedure for handling insolvency of banks using a range of tools, including alternatives to standard bankruptcy processes, has gained major traction since the experience of the 2008-09 financial crisis. In this context, this report reviews models for bank resolution that provide increased flexibility and describes several of the supervisory, legal and instrumental tools that can be used under modernized bank resolution procedures. As well, it looks at the recent European Commission proposals on this matter which take into account international best practices experiences. It also highlights areas of reform and areas where further regulatory considerations and priorities should be considered. The report reviews the bank resolution regimes of a group of European countries as well as those of two non-EU countries to highlight advantages as well as gaps in the legal and regulatory frameworks. This report surveys the banking and deposit insurance laws of six European countries : Poland, the Czech Republic, Germany, Spain, the U.K., and Croatia. Remedial enforcement measures for distressed banks and for bank resolution reveals that adoption of the EU legislative proposals, as described in the EC Communication, would require significant changes in legislation in four of the six countries. The report also reviews the laws of Canada and the U.S. for comparison, as implementation of their laws has already utilized several of the resolution instruments and mechanisms being considered.Publication Practical Guidelines for Effective Bank Resolution(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2007-11)This study adopts a practical approach in developing a set of guidelines on designing a bank resolution framework and implementing efficient bank resolution methods in Latin America. It identifies six pillars that are useful for establishing a bank resolution framework. The study aims to guide policymakers choose from a set of bank resolution methods, by outlining their advantages and disadvantages and establishing efficiency requirements. The focus is on the good-bank/bad-bank approach, which is a type of purchase and assumption mechanism that has increasingly become part of the newer legal frameworks in Latin America. The good-bank/bad-bank approach is an effective bank resolution method because it can be very successful in meeting certain efficiency criteria, including the minimization of contagion costs and preservation of business.Publication Lithuania : Banking System Assessment(Washington, DC, 2009-12)The Bank of Lithuania (BoL), the Central Bank, was established in 1990. BoL has the exclusive right to grant and revoke licenses to local and foreign banks and to supervise their activities. Private commercial banking boomed from 1991 to 1994 while bank regulation was lax. In late 1995, a bank crisis caused failures of most of the Lithuanian banks, and the remaining banks resulted in better managed and supervised institutions. BoL also applied tougher regulation on the banking sector. All commercial banks now need to have their financial records audited every year by an international auditing firm. This report includes the following headings: risks and contingency crisis management in the Lithuanian banking system; credit risk and regulatory issues; and description of corporate debt restructuring procedures in Lithuania.Publication Bank Resolution and 'Bail-In' in the EU(World Bank, Vienna, 2016-12-12)In the aftermath of the 2007/08 financial crisis, and lacking sufficient coordinated guidelines or legislation, measures to address failing financial institutions in European Union (EU) Member States were taken at national level. In an effort to improve cross border coordination as well as to reduce future dependence on public money, the European framework for managing the failure of financial institutions was reformed, building upon the financial stability Boardās key attributes. From January 1, 2015, all EU Member States were required to transpose the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) into their national law. A key element of the new powers is the bail-in tool, requiring banks to recapitalize and absorb losses from within, which was made mandatory as of January 1, 2016. These case studies have been selected as examples of how some EU countries tackled the resolution of several failing European banks. The focus of the case studies is on the application of bail-in features, i.e. statutory private loss absorption outside liquidation. Most cases studies also describe other measures used to deal with distressed financial institutions, including but not limited to government guarantees, capital injections, liquidity supports, and the creation of asset management vehicles to put the bail-in into perspective. The authors hope that, nevertheless, these real life examples of European banksā resolutions provide a useful and interesting source of reference. For more details on resolution under the BRRD, the authors invite the readers to refer to the FinSAC Guidebook Understanding Bank Recovery and Resolution in the EU: a Guidebook to the BRRD.Publication Bank Financing of SMEs in Five Sub-Saharan African Countries : The Role of Competition, Innovation, and the Government(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2013-08)This paper provides an overview of the state of access to bank financing for SMEs in five Sub-Saharan African countries and analyzes the drivers behind banks' involvement with SMEs. The paper builds on data collected through five in-depth studies in Kenya, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, and Tanzania between 2010 and 2012. The paper shows that the share of SME lending in the overall loan portfolios of banks varies between 5 and 20 percent. Reasons for this finding vary, but key contributing factors are the structure and size of the economy and the extent of Government borrowing, the degree of innovation mainly as introduced by foreign entrants to financial sectors, and the state of the financial sector infrastructure and enabling environment.
Users also downloaded
Showing related downloaded files
Publication Breaking the Conflict Trap : Civil War and Development Policy(Washington, DC: World Bank and Oxford University Press, 2003)Most wars are now civil wars. Even though international wars attract enormous global attention, they have become infrequent and brief. Civil wars usually attract less attention, but they have become increasingly common and typically go on for years. This report argues that civil war is now an important issue for development. War retards development, but conversely, development retards war. This double causation gives rise to virtuous and vicious circles. Where development succeeds, countries become progressively safer from violent conflict, making subsequent development easier. Where development fails, countries are at high risk of becoming caught in a conflict trap in which war wrecks the economy and increases the risk of further war. The global incidence of civil war is high because the international community has done little to avert it. Inertia is rooted in two beliefs: that we can safely 'let them fight it out among themselves' and that 'nothing can be done' because civil war is driven by ancestral ethnic and religious hatreds. The purpose of this report is to challenge these beliefs.Publication Design Thinking for Social Innovation(2010-07)Designers have traditionally focused on enchancing the look and functionality of products.Publication Governance Matters IV : Governance Indicators for 1996-2004(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2005-06)The authors present the latest update of their aggregate governance indicators, together with new analysis of several issues related to the use of these measures. The governance indicators measure the following six dimensions of governance: (1) voice and accountability; (2) political instability and violence; (3) government effectiveness; (4) regulatory quality; (5) rule of law, and (6) control of corruption. They cover 209 countries and territories for 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004. They are based on several hundred individual variables measuring perceptions of governance, drawn from 37 separate data sources constructed by 31 organizations. The authors present estimates of the six dimensions of governance for each period, as well as margins of error capturing the range of likely values for each country. These margins of error are not unique to perceptions-based measures of governance, but are an important feature of all efforts to measure governance, including objective indicators. In fact, the authors give examples of how individual objective measures provide an incomplete picture of even the quite particular dimensions of governance that they are intended to measure. The authors also analyze in detail changes over time in their estimates of governance; provide a framework for assessing the statistical significance of changes in governance; and suggest a simple rule of thumb for identifying statistically significant changes in country governance over time. The ability to identify significant changes in governance over time is much higher for aggregate indicators than for any individual indicator. While the authors find that the quality of governance in a number of countries has changed significantly (in both directions), they also provide evidence suggesting that there are no trends, for better or worse, in global averages of governance. Finally, they interpret the strong observed correlation between income and governance, and argue against recent efforts to apply a discount to governance performance in low-income countries.Publication Governance Matters VIII : Aggregate and Individual Governance Indicators 1996ā2008(2009-06-01)This paper reports on the 2009 update of the Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) research project, covering 212 countries and territories and measuring six dimensions of governance between 1996 and 2008: Voice and Accountability, Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism, Government Effectiveness, Regulatory Quality, Rule of Law, and Control of Corruption. These aggregate indicators are based on hundreds of specific and disaggregated individual variables measuring various dimensions of governance, taken from 35 data sources provided by 33 different organizations. The data reflect the views on governance of public sector, private sector and NGO experts, as well as thousands of citizen and firm survey respondents worldwide. The authors also explicitly report the margins of error accompanying each country estimate. These reflect the inherent difficulties in measuring governance using any kind of data. They find that even after taking margins of error into account, the WGI permit meaningful cross-country comparisons as well as monitoring progress over time. The aggregate indicators, together with the disaggregated underlying indicators, are available at www.govindicators.org.Publication Government Matters III : Governance Indicators for 1996-2002(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2003-08)The authors present estimates of six dimensions of governance covering 199 countries and territories for four time periods: 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2002. These indicators are based on several hundred individual variables measuring perceptions of governance, drawn from 25 separate data sources constructed by 18 different organizations. The authors assign these individual measures of governance to categories capturing key dimensions of governance and use an unobserved components model to construct six aggregate governance indicators in each of the four periods. They present the point estimates of the dimensions of governance as well as the margins of errors for each country for the four periods. The governance indicators reported here are an update and expansion of previous research work on indicators initiated in 1998 (Kaufmann, Kraay, and Zoido-Lobat 1999a,b and 2002). The authors also address various methodological issues, including the interpretation and use of the data given the estimated margins of errors.