Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
18 October 2013
Cover note
Disclaimer
This is a working paper produced by the services of the Commission. It does not represent a formal position of the Commission. The analysis relies on publicly available data but contains a series of assumptions which may or may not hold in practice.
Introduction
In the context of the trilogues on the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD), the European Parliament and Council have asked Commission services to provide a comparative analysis of the bail-in tool and its inter-relationship with resolution funds and state support under the ECON report and the Council General Approach. Requests have also been made to assess how the approaches would fare in a future crisis. This note provides an overview of how they would have worked in the past crisis had they been in place, and how they could fare in a crisis of similar magnitude today. Bail-in is a key resolution tool in the BRRD. It would allow to write-down debt owed by a bank to creditors or to convert it to equity. It could be used in the event of a failure of a systemic bank. By replicating how creditors would incur losses if the bank had gone bankrupt, it reduces the value and amount of liabilities of the failed bank. It thereby avoids taxpayers from having to provide funds to cover these liabilities, while allowing for the critical functions of the bank (e.g. deposit-taking, lending, operation of payment systems) to continue uninterrupted, either in a new entity such as a bridge bank or in the same, albeit significantly restructured franchise. Resolution funds are another key feature of the BRRD framework. They would be newly set-up funds built-up through regular payments by banks based on their size and risk-profile. Their main function would be to provide medium-term support such as loans or guarantees to help the resolved bank regain financial viability. In the Council General Approach, they have also been explicitly given a potential role to contribute funds in lieu of some creditors who would otherwise have been bailed-in. In the Commissions proposal this role is more implicit and available only as a last resort, namely when owners and creditors have already been written down and it would be necessary to help ensure successful resolution in a systemic scenario.
Assessment
Both the ECON and Council approaches protect depositors covered up to 100 000 EUR by Deposit Guarantee Schemes (DGS) from suffering any losses. Both also assume full loss absorption by capital instruments as per the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR). They both reflect the Commissions proposal in this respect. Beyond this, the analysis confirms the strong inter-relationship between: (i) Which other liabilities in banks balance sheets can be bailed in if needed, i.e. are not excluded by way of outright or discretionary exclusions; and (ii) How much funding would be needed from resolution funds or from the public purse to compensate for liabilities excluded from bail-in. 2
In general, the more liabilities are subject to bail-in without exclusion, the less is needed from resolution funds or from the state. However, both the ECON and Council approaches introduce considerable flexibility to depart from comprehensive bail-in. This is intended to allow for contributions from resolution funds or the state to replace some creditors such as bond-holders or uncovered depositors from being bailed-in, notably to prevent and, if necessary, to manage a systemic crisis affecting the banking sector more broadly. The ECON report proposes to allow for state support immediately after loss absorption by capital instruments in such cases. It also gives, in all cases, preference to eligible depositors in the bail-in hierarchy and excludes the DGS from having to contribute at all (which would otherwise contribute an amount equal to what it would have suffered on behalf of covered depositors in a liquidation of the bank). The Council General Approach provides for flexibility to replace loss absorption by some senior creditors and potentially all eligible depositors with a contribution from resolution funds, provided that 8% of liabilities have already been bailed-in, and only up to 5% of total liabilities. It also gives preference to eligible deposits from natural persons and small businesses and, above these, super-preference to the DGS. The corollary of the ECON and Council approaches is the need for a bigger resolution fund (the state support provided for in the ECON report is assimilated here to funding from the resolution fund). Indeed, both approaches provide for bigger resolution funds than in the Commissions proposal, namely 3% and 1.3% of covered deposits in the ECON and Council approaches respectively. By contrast, the Commissions proposal as well as the subsequent choice to opt for preference for eligible depositors in the hierarchy of claims provided minimal flexibility to depart from the comprehensive bail-in of liability-holders. Recourse to resolution funds would also be lower. In the original proposal a comparatively larger share of the losses would have been incurred by eligible depositors and the DGS. With a preferred ranking for eligible depositors, i.e. all who are not excluded from coverage by DGS irrespective of the amount, losses would fall commensurately more on other un-preferred and unsecured senior creditors. The latter would be subordinated to eligible depositors and the DGS, who would only assume the burden of absorbing losses afterwards. When assessed against the aid to cover excessive losses and build capital buffer given to EU banks in the past crisis (473bn EUR from 2008 to 2012), all three approaches would, in the case of an average bank, have ensured sufficient loss-absorbing capacity through the write-down of capital instruments, bail-in and contributions from resolution funds. However, this conclusion rests on some notable assumptions. It assumes fully built-up or operational resolution funds, which will take time. Crucially, it also rests on the mutualisation of national resolution funds which could be deployed where needed in the EU. Otherwise, the results would only be valid for the losses that occur evenly across the EU, whereas clearly this has not been the case. This proposal by the Commission has so far not been endorsed by the Parliament or Council. Equally importantly, it assumes the availability of bail-in as a resolution tool, while this may not be the case until 2018. In the case of the ECON approach, it also assumes the ability of public finances to withstand replacing the resolution fund in a systemic crisis. Finally, differences in banks liability-structures can be decisive in whether the combination of bail-in and resolution funds 3
would suffice or whether exclusions for specific bank-liabilities, for derivatives say, would render the combination inadequate. Therefore, in a future crisis of similar magnitude to the past one, it cannot be foreseen with certainty whether all three approaches would work in all cases. However, what can be said is that most banks today appear to have enough capital and bail-in-able liabilities to withstand losses in non-extreme cases without resorting to resolution funds or state support. To cater for more extreme and asymmetric cases a single fund is instrumental in order to help ensure this. It may also be necessary to circumscribe the flexibility to replace liabilities with contributions from resolution funds or the state as provided in the Council and ECON approaches, as well as to strengthen the need to ensure sufficient bail-in-able liabilities as part of big banks Minimum Requirement for Eligible Liabilities (MREL) at all times. Finally, the calculation basis of MREL matters and it should be neutral as to types of banks. Excluding specific liabilities such as covered bonds and derivatives from counting toward MREL, as the ECON and Council approaches respectively do, could excessively incentivise banks to try to fund themselves via these instruments. For example, the exclusion of derivatives could excessively favour big trading banks and complicate efforts to ensure sufficient MREL for them.
Conclusion
Given the above considerations, co-legislators should aim to ensure adequate bail-in-able capacity at all times, and restrict the flexibility to depart from this to limited cases. It is also important to incentivise investors to exert discipline and improve certainty for them, and avoid unintended consequences such as spurring moral hazard by creating an excessively large resolution fund.
Annex. A comparative analysis of the institutions' approaches to bail-in ...................................... 5 1. Scope and sequence of bail-in................................................................................................. 7 2. Impact on bail-in capacity: assessment of approaches ........................................................... 9 2.1. Methodology used to cluster data for the liability structure of EU Banks ....................... 9 2.2. Overview of bail-in capacity in banks ............................................................................. 11 2.3. Impact of bail-in on a bank type: 25% loss scenario ...................................................... 14 2.4. Impact of bail-in on a bank type: 10% loss scenario ...................................................... 24 3. Back-testing: assessment of approaches .............................................................................. 32 3.1. Summary results from the back-testing exercise ........................................................... 32 3.2. Methodology for the back-testing exercise ................................................................... 33 3.3. The Council General Approach ....................................................................................... 34 3.4. The Commission proposal .............................................................................................. 37 3.5. The European Parliament's approach ............................................................................ 40 3.6. Deviation from the assumption of the symmetric crisis ................................................ 42 4. Minimum Loss Absorption Capacity: definitions and implications ....................................... 43 Appendix 1. Data used in the back-testing analysis .................................................................. 45
In view of trilogue discussions on the proposed Directive on Bank Recovery and Resolution (BRR)1, the European Parliament and Council have asked the Commission to provide a comparative analysis of the bail-in tool under the Commission proposal (COM), under the general approach adopted by the Council (CN) and under the approach put forward by the Parliaments ECON committee (EP). Bail-in is one of the key elements of the BRRD framework. It sets out the key principles and rules that should ensure that in the future, banks will bear the primary responsibility for their failures. This shall send a clear signal that while a bank failure may come as a surprise, dealing with its consequences should however be as clear and predictable as possible. The comparative analysis of the three approaches to bail-in presents: 1) The assessment of bail-in capacity under different approaches, including the impact per type of a bank; 2) The results of the back-testing exercise, i.e. how losses incurred so far during the current crisis would have been absorbed in individual banks by different liabilities' instruments and how much would have been left to absorb by deposit guarantee schemes and resolution funds or in their absence by public finances; 3) Impact of the three definitions on the level of minimum Loss Absorbing Capacity.
Autonomus, July 2013: European Banks Bail-in modest progress Source: ECB, DGS 2010 Survey, European Commission elaborations
of banks (20). Big banks in the group of 25 are those that have more than 300 billion EUR of total assets on their balance sheet. The rest of them have been allocated to the group of medium banks. Secondly, we have created two more groups of banks based on whether their source of funding comes from whole-sale markets or from deposits. On the basis of these additional criteria we have created two more groups of banks: Big banks-market and Big banksretail. Market oriented banks (9 out of 25) in our sample are those that whose ratio of derivative liabilities over total assets is higher than 15%. Retail oriented banks (13 out of 25) are then those whose ratio of customer deposits over total assets is higher than 30%. Medium banks in this sample are biased towards those which disclose all the relevant data to pursue the analysis, normally this might mean the more solvent ones. Table 2.1. Liability structure per type of bank (EUR m, 2012YE)
Average Banks Total Assets Total Equity Subordinated Debt Senior Unsecured debt >1 Month Senior Unsecured debt < 1 Month (discret. exempt. COM) Deposits of credit institutions Deposits of credit institutions >7days-CN * Deposits of credit institutions > 1Month-EP, COM* Deposits and borrowings from the public Deposits from public non insured and not SME/retail**,*** DGS** SME/retail deposits*** Derivative Liabilities (discret. exempt.) REPOs-Exempted Senior debt Secured-Exempted Other non fin liabilities-Exempted Total 619,250 27,705 9,490 42,652 12,606 60,790 20,669 9,118 196,689 49,172 98,345 49,172 97,340 35,146 39,598 97,233 619,250 Big Banks 979,564 46,887 16,046 62,706 22,509 94,632 32,175 14,195 342,876 85,719 171,438 85,719 171,579 62,077 57,161 103,091 979,564 Medium Banks 8,457 2,460 27,943 369 33,727 11,467 5,059 45,456 11,364 22,728 11,364 9,757 5,489 26,279 8,920 Big Banks- Big BanksMarket Retail 778,651 45,836 16,347 55,301 21,929 71,298 24,241 10,695 354,508 88,627 177,254 88,627 64,176 34,690 44,099 70,467 778,651 52,848 17,528 64,849 25,724 145,725 49,546 21,859 338,269 84,567 169,134 84,567 362,424 111,507 70,311 178,716 168,857 1,367,900
168,857 1,367,900
Source: see section 2.1 Table 2.2. Liability structure per type of bank (% of Total Assets, 2012YE)
Average Banks Total Assets ( m) Total Equity Subordinated Debt Senior Unsecured debt >1 Month Senior Unsecured debt < 1 Month (discret. exempt. COM) Deposits of credit institutions Deposits of credit institutions >7days-CN * Deposits of credit institutions > 1Month-EP, COM* Deposits and borrowings from the public Deposits from public non insured and not SME/retail**,*** DGS** SME/retail deposits*** Derivative Liabilities (discret. exempt.) REPOs-Exempted Senior debt Secured-Exempted Other non fin liabilities-Exempted Total 619,250 4.5% 1.5% 6.9% 2.0% 9.8% 3.3% 1.5% 31.8% 7.9% 15.9% 7.9% 15.7% 5.7% 6.4% 15.7% 100.0% Big Banks 979,564 4.8% 1.6% 6.4% 2.3% 9.7% 3.3% 1.4% 35.0% 8.8% 17.5% 8.8% 17.5% 6.3% 5.8% 10.5% 100.0% Medium Banks 5.0% 1.5% 16.5% 0.2% 20.0% 6.8% 3.0% 26.9% 6.7% 13.5% 6.7% 5.8% 3.3% 15.6% 5.3% 100.0% Big Banks- Big BanksMarket Retail 778,651 5.9% 2.1% 7.1% 2.8% 9.2% 3.1% 1.4% 45.5% 11.4% 22.8% 11.4% 8.2% 4.5% 5.7% 9.0% 100.0% 3.9% 1.3% 4.7% 1.9% 10.7% 3.6% 1.6% 24.7% 6.2% 12.4% 6.2% 26.5% 8.2% 5.1% 13.1% 100.0%
168,857 1,367,900
11
COM preferred deposits CN preferred deposits (SMEs, retail) Prefered deposits CN preferred DGS EP preferred deposits Total bail-in-able liabilities COM Total capacity incl Preferred CN Total capacity incl Preferred including preferred EP1 Total capacity incl Preferred deposits COM exclusions CN exclusions EP exclusions EP(systemic) exclusions
Source: Based on average liability structure of banks presented in Tables 2.1 and 2.2
12
CONFIDENTIAL 13
14
Table 2.4. 25% loss absorption in an average big bank (% of total assets)
6
Commission proposal
NO depositor preference WITH depositor preference
0% flexibility
Capital Subordinated debt Senior debt7 RFs Senior debt Uncovered customer deposits8 Covered deposits / DGS RFs Total
Table 2.5. 25% loss absorption in an average big bank (EUR, bn) Commission proposal
NO depositor preference WITH depositor preference
Capital Subordinated debt Senior debt RFs Senior debt Uncovered customer deposits Covered deposits / DGS RFs Total
6
Under CN 5% and >5% flexibility it has been assumed that intervention from RF excluded non-preferred eligible customer deposits from bail-in.
7
Including also bail-inable deposits of credit institutions The ratio between uncovered and covered customer deposits has been assumed to be 1
15
Table 2.6. 25% loss absorption in an average medium size bank (% of total assets) Commission proposal
NO depositor preference WITH depositor preference
Capital Subordinated debt Senior debt RFs Senior debt Uncovered customer deposits Covered deposits / DGS RFs Total
Table 2.7. 25% loss absorption in an average medium size bank (EUR, bn) Commission proposal
NO depositor preference WITH depositor preference
Capital Subordinated debt Senior debt RFs Senior debt Uncovered customer deposits Covered deposits / DGS RFs Total
16
2.3.2 Bail-in: big retail vs big wholesale banks Big retail banks have on average more capital, more subordinated debt as well as more senior unsecured debt (around 50% more) than big wholesale banks. In addition, there are considerable differences as to the share of derivatives and deposits they have on the balance sheet which then considerably impact the sequence in which individual classes of liabilities would absorb losses for each approach given 25% loss scenario. Under all three CN approaches big retail banks have already 8% of loss absorption covered by capital and subordinated debt, whereas big wholesale banks would need in addition to bail-in part of the senior unsecured debt before the resolution fund can be used. For big retail banks 5% of flexibility would be sufficient not to reach deposits. On the contrary, for big wholesale banks the contribution of 8.5% of total assets from resolution fund would be required (see Figure 2.8 and 2.10). Under EP systemic crisis scenario, the difference as regards the use of the resolution fund is material 2% of total assets more in big wholesale banks. Moreover, in EPs non-systemic crisis scenario, the contribution to bail-in by uncovered depositors at big retail banks would on average be a half of the contribution in big wholesale banks (6.7% vs 11.7%). The difference in total assets for these two types of big banks (retail bank: 780 EUR billion vs wholesale bank: 1.37 EUR trillion) translates into rather big absolute amounts of loss-absorption. In CN general approach, the resolution fund would need to contribute to a resolution of a big wholesale bank up to 117 EUR billion (8.5% of total assets), depending on the flexibility pursued. For big retail banks this would amount to 39 EUR billion. In the same vein, uncovered depositors in a big retail bank would under both CN approaches that allow for flexibility to use RF (5% or above 5% of banks total assets) not suffer any losses but uncovered deposits in big wholesale bank would be haircut between 14 EU billion and 63 EUR billion depending on the flexibility pursued. 0% flexibility scenario would double the contribution by uncovered deposits further to 131 EUR billion, but would avoid the use of resolution funds for loss absorption in big wholesale banks. Under the EP systemic crisis scenario, depositors would not be impacted. However, resolution funds would need to contribute on average 289 EUR billion in a wholesale bank, in comparison to 149 EUR billion in a big retail bank. The EP non-systemic crisis scenario is very similar to CN 0% flexibility scenario. Both would likely avoid the use of RFs and DGSs and contributions of senior unsecured debt and uncovered deposits would not differ substantially between these two types of banks up to 2%. Under the EP approach uncovered depositors would need to contribute to loss absorption on average 160 EUR billion in a big wholesale bank and 52 EUR billion in a big retail bank.
17
Table 2.8. 25% loss absorption in an average big wholesale bank (% of total assets) Commission proposal
NO depositor preference WITH depositor preference
Capital Subordinated debt Senior debt RFs Senior debt Uncovered customer deposits Covered deposits / DGS RFs Total
Table 2.9. 25% loss absorption in an average big wholesale bank (EUR bn) Commission proposal
NO depositor preference WITH depositor preference
Capital Subordinated debt Senior debt RFs Senior debt Uncovered customer deposits Covered deposits / DGS RFs Total
18
Table 2.10. 25% loss absorption in an average big retail bank (% of total assets) Commission proposal
NO depositor preference WITH depositor preference
Capital Subordinated debt Senior debt RFs Senior debt Uncovered customer deposits Covered deposits / DGS RFs Total
Table 2.11. 25% loss absorption in an average big retail bank (EUR bn) Commission proposal
NO depositor preference WITH depositor preference
Capital Subordinated debt Senior debt RFs Senior debt Uncovered customer deposits Covered deposits / DGS RFs Total
19
Figure 2.2. 25% loss absorption under the Commission's approach (no depositor preference).
Figure 2.3. 25% loss absorption under the Commission's approach (WITH depositor preference).
20
Figure 2.4. 25% loss absorption under the Council approach (MORE THAN 5% flexibility).
Figure 2.5. 25% loss absorption under the Council approach (5% flexibility).
21
Figure 2.6. 25% loss absorption under the Council approach (0% flexibility).
Figure 2.7. 25% loss absorption under the European Parliament's approach (systemic crisis scenario).
22
Figure 2.8. 25% loss absorption under the European Parliament's approach (NON-systemic crisis scenario).
23
Commission proposal
NO depositor preference WITH depositor preference
Capital Subordinated debt Senior debt10 RFs Senior debt Uncovered customer deposits11 Covered deposits / DGS RFs
Total 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% Table 2.13. 10% loss absorption in an average big bank (EUR, bn) Commission proposal
NO depositor preference WITH depositor preference
Capital Subordinated debt Senior debt RFs Senior debt Uncovered customer deposits Covered deposits / DGS RFs Total
Under CN 5% and >5% flexibility it has been assumed that intervention from RF excluded non-preferred eligible customer deposits from bail-in.
10
Including also bail-inable deposits of credit institutions The ratio between uncovered and covered customer deposits has been assumed to be 1
11
24
Table 2.14. 10% loss absorption in an average medium size bank (% of total assets) Commission proposal
NO depositor preference WITH depositor preference
Capital Subordinated debt Senior debt RFs Senior debt Uncovered customer deposits Covered deposits / DGS RFs Total
Table 2.15. 10% loss absorption in an average medium size bank (EUR, bn) Commission proposal
NO depositor preference WITH depositor preference
Capital Subordinated debt Senior debt RFs Senior debt Uncovered customer deposits Covered deposits / DGS RFs Total
25
Table 2.16. 10% loss absorption in an average big wholesale bank (% of total assets) European Parliament (ECON) report
Systemic crisis NO systemic crisis
Commission proposal
NO depositor preference WITH depositor preference
Capital Subordinated debt Senior debt RFs Senior debt Uncovered customer deposits Covered deposits / DGS RFs Total
Table 2.17. 10% loss absorption in an average big wholesale bank (EUR bn) Commission proposal
NO depositor preference WITH depositor preference
Capital Subordinated debt Senior debt RFs Senior debt Uncovered customer deposits Covered deposits / DGS RFs Total
26
Table 2.18. 10% loss absorption in an average big retail bank (% of total assets) Commission proposal
NO depositor preference WITH depositor preference
Capital Subordinated debt Senior debt RFs Senior debt Uncovered customer deposits Covered deposits / DGS RFs Total
Table 2.19. 10% loss absorption in an average big retail bank (EUR bn) Commission proposal
NO depositor preference WITH depositor preference
Capital Subordinated debt Senior debt RFs Senior debt Uncovered customer deposits Covered deposits / DGS RFs Total
27
Figure 2.9. 10% loss absorption under the Commission's approach (no depositor preference).
Figure 2.10. 10% loss absorption under the Commission's approach (WITH depositor preference).
28
Figure 2.11. 10% loss absorption under the Council approach (MORE THAN 5% flexibility).
Figure 2.12. 10% loss absorption under the Council approach (5% flexibility).
29
Figure 2.13. 10% loss absorption under the Council approach (0% flexibility).
Figure 2.14. 10% loss absorption under the European Parliament's approach (systemic crisis scenario).
30
Figure 2.15. 10% loss absorption under the European Parliament's approach (NON-systemic crisis scenario).
31
Capital; EUR bn (% of total losses) Subordinated debt; EUR bn (% of total losses) Senior unsecured debt12; EUR bn (% of total losses) Uncovered eligible deposits13 14; EUR bn (% of total losses) Covered deposits / DGSs; EUR bn (% of total losses) RFs; EUR bn (% of total losses) TOTAL state aid (recapitalisation and asset relief measures) Minimum DGSs with full bail-in (% covered deposits) Minimum RFs with full bail-in (% covered deposits) Minimum RFs + DGSs with full bail-in (% covered deposits) Minimum RFs + DGSs with partial bail-in (% covered deposits) Minimum DGSs + RFs foreseen in the approach
316 (67%) 56 (12%) 21 (4%) 40 (8%) 40 (8%) 0.06 (0.01%) 473 40 (0.6%) 0.06 (0.001%) 40 (0.6%) 101 (1.45%) 1%
316 (67%) 56 (12%) 60 (13%) 20 (4%) 20 (4%) 0.06 (0.01%) 473 20 (0.3%) 0.06 (0.001%) 20 (0.3%) 101 (1.45%) 1%
316 (67%) 56 (12%) 33 (7%) 36 (7%) 2 (0.4%) 29 (6%) 473 2 (0.02%) 29 (0.42%) 31 (0.45%) 101 (1.45%) 1.3%
316 (67%) 56 (12%) 52 (11%) 47 (10%) 2 (0.4%) 0 473 2 (0.02%) 0 2 (0.02%) 101 (1.45%) 1.3%
12 13
Including also bail-in able deposits of credit institutions including EIB loans to banks (in CN approach), being parri passu with non-preferred customer deposits; on the basis the available data, EIB loans to banks were assumed to be equal to 0.43% of total assets in each bank included in the analysis 14 Non-preferred eligible deposits under the CN approach are pari passu with the deposits of credit institutions and other senior unsecured debt.
32
33
Table 3.2. The size of average liabilities items found currently in European banks and relevant for the back-testing exercise Over total assets 2012YE Total Equity Subordinated Debt Senior Unsecured debt >1 Month Senior Unsecured debt <=1 Month (relevant for EP and Council approaches only) Deposits of credit institutions >7 days (relevant for the Council approach)
Of which EIB loans
Deposits of credit institutions >1 Month (relevant for the EP and Commission approaches) Eligible customer deposits: Uncovered non-preferred deposits Uncovered deposits from SME/retail Deposits covered by DGS Source: see Table 2.2 in section 2.1
1.47%
It has been assumed that, given one of the approaches had been in place at the time the resolution decisions on these banks had to be taken, banks would have had the liabilities structure similar to the one currently observed in existing banks, which already, at least partially, takes into account the future application of the bail-in tools. Table 3.2 indicates the estimated size of liabilities' items relevant for the assessment of the different approaches. Since, under all three approaches, derivatives would be bailed in on a net basis when subject to a netting agreement, and due to the ability to only observe gross positions in banks balance sheets, for the moment we assume that derivatives are excluded from bail-in. This assumption represents a lower bound on the loss absorption capacity of derivatives, which however would be normally small when considering net exposure as compared to gross exposures. Given that the analysis covers EU-27 banks, the assessment and comparison of approaches (in sections 3.3 3.5) focuses on the amount to be absorbed by all national financial arrangements jointly. Looking at financing arrangements in each Member State would have led to different results (see section 3.6 below).
34
banks themselves in 2/3 of banks under the Council 5% or more flexibility scenarios in all except 1 bank under the Council 0% scenario, where DGS would have been required to intervene. Table 3.3 indicated that the contribution from the resolution financing arrangements (RF) increases with the flexibility provided. 0% flexibility scenario would have not required the use of resolution funds. 5% RF contribution would have been used to further absorb 29 EUR billion (6% of total losses) in the EU. The allocation of remaining losses in 6 banks would have depended on resolution authorities' decisions to exclude or not customer deposits from bail-in, which would have had repercussions also on the use of deposit guarantee schemes (DGSs) (table 3.3 and figures 3.2 3.4). Table 3.3. Back-testing: loss absorption under the Council General Approach Scenario > 5% flexibility; 5% flexibility; Loss absorption by instruments in EUR bn (% of total EUR bn (% of total EUR bn (% of state aid) losses) losses) 372 372 Capital and subordinated debt (79%) (79%) Senior unsecured debt15 before 15 15 5% contribution (3%) (3%) Non-preferred eligible deposits 10 10 before 5% contribution (2%) (2%) 29 29 RF 5% contribution (6%) (6%) Senior unsecured debt after 5% 18 18 contribution (4%) (4%) 15 Non-preferred eligible deposits16 0 (3%) Preferred deposits of SMEs and 11 0 natural persons (2%) 2 Covered deposits / DGSs 0 (0.4%) 27 RFs for remaining losses 0 (6%) TOTAL state aid (recapitalisation 473 473 and asset relief measures) (100%) (100%) Minimum DGSs (% covered 2 0 deposits) (0.02%) Minimum RFs (% covered 57 29 deposits) (0.82%) (0.42%) Minimum RFs + DGSs (% covered 57 31 deposits) (0.82%) (0.45%) Minimum DGSs + RFs foreseen in 1.3% 1.3% the approach (% cov. Dep.)
15
0% flexibility; EUR bn (% of total losses) 372 (79%) 52 (11%) 0 0 0 37 (8%) 10 (2%) 2 (0.4%) 0 473 (100%) 2 (0.02%) 0 2 (0.02%) 1.3%
16
Non-preferred eligible deposits under the CN approach are pari passu with the deposits of credit institutions and other senior unsecured debt.
35
Figure 3.2. Back-testing: loss absorption implied by the Council General Approach with more than 5% of flexibility (assuming the exclusion of customer deposits from the bail-in)
Figure 3.3. Back-testing: loss absorption implied by the Council General Approach with 5% flexibility (no exclusion of customer deposits from the bail-in)
36
Figure 3.4. Back-testing: loss absorption implied by the Council General Approach with 0% of flexibility (no use of RF until all bail-inable liabilities including uncovered depositors have been bail-ed in)
37
Table 3.4. Back-testing: loss absorption under the Commission approach Scenario Initial Commission proposal (no Commission proposal assuming Loss absorption by instruments in EUR bn (% of state aid) Capital and subordinated debt Senior unsecured debt17 Uncovered eligible deposits Covered deposits / DGSs RFs TOTAL state aid (recapitalisation and asset relief measures) The use of DGSs and RFs in the back-testing exercise The minimum amount of financial arrangements (DGSs + RFs) foreseen in the approach depositor preference); EUR bn (% of total losses) 372 (79%) 21 (4%) 40 (8%) 40 (8%) 0.06 (0.01%) 473 (100%) 40 (0.6%) 1% depositor preference; EUR bn (% of total losses) 372 (79%) 60 (13%) 20 (4%) 20 (4%) 0.06 (0.01%) 473 (100%) 20 (0.3%) 1%
Figures 3.5 and 3.6 below present the graphical illustration of loss absorption under two scenarios of the Commission proposal.
17
38
Figure 3.5. Back-testing: loss absorption under the Commission proposal: NO depositor preference
Figure 3.6. Back-testing: loss absorption under the Commission proposal: WITH depositor preference
39
40
Figure 3.7. Back-testing: loss absorption under European Parliament's approach: systemic crisis scenario
Figure 3.8. Back-testing: loss absorption under European Parliament's approach: no systemic crisis scenario
41
19
Where bank losses are distributed evenly between Member States in proportion to the size of their respective banking sectors.
20
State aid, in terms of recapitalisation and asset relief measures, used between 2008 and 2011. Source: Commission services.
21
Source: European Commission, ECB, DGS Survey 2010, European Commission elaborations
42
- EP approach creates similar result however for different types of banks. Excluding covered bonds from the basis that should be used to determine loss absorbing capacity of a bank creates incentives for unlimited asset encumbrance. Total assets is the most appropriate basis on which to determine the LAC for a bank. Losses arise and impact the whole of the asset side of a bank, regardless of what is being assumed is one or the other banks perceived riskiness. CN approach would be preferred if derivatives were not excluded from the baseline or COM approach should the basis include own funds. Table 2.6 shows the level of min LAC levels different types of banks would have under the three approaches to calculate the minimum level thereof. If the 8% of eligible liabilities over total assets is taken as a benchmark, it is evident that depending on the varying levels of denominator due to exclusions some banks would need to hold much less LAC in absolute value than others. Table 4.1. Comparison of the MREL (minimum LAC) under the three approaches
European Banks (45) 8% Big Banks (25) 8% Medium Big Banks - Big Banks banks market retail (20) (9) (13) 8% 8% 8%
2012YE COM: LAC = own funds + eligible liabilities / (total assets - own funds) CN: LAC = own funds + eligible liabilities / (total assets - derivative liabilities) EP: LAC = own funds + eligible liabilities / (total assets - own funds - covered bonds).
44
Bank Kommunalkredit VAG BAWAG Ethias KBC Group Fortis WestLB Hypo Real Estate HSH BayernLB LBBW Commerzbank NordLB ATEBank CAM Banco Valencia UNIMM Catalunya Banc NCG Banco BFA Dexia INBS Anglo Irish Bank Bank of Ireland Parex ABN Amro/Fortis Netherlands AEGON ING SNS Reaal RBS Lloyds Northern Rock
Country AT AT AT BE BE BE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE EL ES ES ES ES ES ES FR/BE IE IE IE LV NL NL NL NL UK UK UK
22
45