1:10 PM
alphaadvisory
Implementation of Single Supervisory Mechanism
and Single Resolution Mechanism would be of crucial importance in the
progress towards financial union, according to Mario Draghi, President
of European Central Bank.
Addressing the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs of the European Parliament on Monday, Draghi said that there are four main reasons for a Single Resolution Mechanism with a Single Resolution Authority at its centre.
The first reason is that only a Single Resolution Authority will ensure timely and impartial decision-making focused on the European dimension. In a situation where a cross-border resolution is required, the Single Resolution Authority would avoid national focus and pursue the optimal resolution strategy, thus mitigating coordination problems.
The second reason is that the Single Resolution Authority would credibly pursue the least cost resolution strategy, assessing possible cross-border spillover effects and systemic concerns, and ensuring that resolution costs are first and foremost borne by the private sector. It would thereby minimise resolution costs without recourse to taxpayer money.
The third reason is that the Single Resolution Authority is an essential complement to the Single Supervisory Mechanism. The Single Supervisory Mechanism will provide a timely and unbiased assessment of the need for resolution, while the Single Resolution Authority will ensure prompt and efficient action once the trigger is reached. This will avoid misaligned incentives that could arise with supervision moved to the European level while resolution responsibility remained national.
The fourth reason is that a Single Resolution Authority would help to break the vicious bank-sovereign nexus.
The Single Resolution Authority naturally needs to be strong and effective to deliver what is needed. This requires three features to be fulfilled:
First, the Single Resolution Authority needs to dispose of a robust resolution framework, one that provides it with enforceable resolution tools and powers. In this respect, the proposed bank recovery and resolution directive is key. Adoption of the directive, ideally by June, is an urgently needed step towards a strong European resolution framework.
Second, the Single Resolution Authority needs access to resolution financing. It should therefore have a European Resolution Fund at its disposal, which should be financed by the private sector via risk-based ex ante levies. The European Resolution Fund should be backed by a public backstop mechanism, the support of which would need to be recouped via special ex post levies on the private sector. This means that it would be fiscally neutral over the medium term.
Third, the Single Resolution Authority should have an institutional set-up that allows for independence, sufficient operational capacity and a robust accountability framework with effective judicial protection against resolution decisions ex post.
Addressing the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs of the European Parliament on Monday, Draghi said that there are four main reasons for a Single Resolution Mechanism with a Single Resolution Authority at its centre.
The first reason is that only a Single Resolution Authority will ensure timely and impartial decision-making focused on the European dimension. In a situation where a cross-border resolution is required, the Single Resolution Authority would avoid national focus and pursue the optimal resolution strategy, thus mitigating coordination problems.
The second reason is that the Single Resolution Authority would credibly pursue the least cost resolution strategy, assessing possible cross-border spillover effects and systemic concerns, and ensuring that resolution costs are first and foremost borne by the private sector. It would thereby minimise resolution costs without recourse to taxpayer money.
The third reason is that the Single Resolution Authority is an essential complement to the Single Supervisory Mechanism. The Single Supervisory Mechanism will provide a timely and unbiased assessment of the need for resolution, while the Single Resolution Authority will ensure prompt and efficient action once the trigger is reached. This will avoid misaligned incentives that could arise with supervision moved to the European level while resolution responsibility remained national.
The fourth reason is that a Single Resolution Authority would help to break the vicious bank-sovereign nexus.
The Single Resolution Authority naturally needs to be strong and effective to deliver what is needed. This requires three features to be fulfilled:
First, the Single Resolution Authority needs to dispose of a robust resolution framework, one that provides it with enforceable resolution tools and powers. In this respect, the proposed bank recovery and resolution directive is key. Adoption of the directive, ideally by June, is an urgently needed step towards a strong European resolution framework.
Second, the Single Resolution Authority needs access to resolution financing. It should therefore have a European Resolution Fund at its disposal, which should be financed by the private sector via risk-based ex ante levies. The European Resolution Fund should be backed by a public backstop mechanism, the support of which would need to be recouped via special ex post levies on the private sector. This means that it would be fiscally neutral over the medium term.
Third, the Single Resolution Authority should have an institutional set-up that allows for independence, sufficient operational capacity and a robust accountability framework with effective judicial protection against resolution decisions ex post.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment