Contents

Resolution RegimeEdit

Resolution Regime refers to the set of rules, authorities, and tools designed to manage the orderly failure of a financial institution without triggering broad economic disruption. Emerging from the lessons of the late 2000s crisis, these regimes aim to contain risk within the financial sector, preserve critical services, and avoid placing taxpayers on the line to rescue failed banks. They rest on the premise that losses should be borne by shareholders and creditors, while the public sector remains available only to provide backstops to liquidity for core payments systems and other essential functions during a transition. For readers tracing the evolution of modern financial governance, the regime sits at the intersection of prudential regulation, crisis management, and market discipline. See, for example, the development of Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive in the European Union and the related Single Resolution Mechanism, the United Kingdom’s evolution of its own resolution framework under the Bank of England and its Prudential Regulation Authority, and the U.S. approach under the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the framework for orderly liquidation.

The idea behind a resolution regime is not merely to avoid failures but to ensure that failures, when they occur, are contained—so that financial stability is protected, the continuity of essential services is preserved, and market participants face a predictable path back to normal functioning. In practice, that means credible resolution planning, a credible resolution authority, and a toolkit calibrated to preserve essential financial services while imposing losses on those who contributed to the risk build-up. For readers interested in the policy architecture, key concepts include the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities, commonly known as Minimum Requirement for Own Funds and Eligible Liabilities, which forces banks to fund themselves with instruments that can be absorbed in a failure without taxpayers funding the write-down or recapitalization.

Core principles

  • Preserve critical functions and continuity of payments

    • Resolution regimes seek to keep core services—payments, clearing, settlement, and access to basic banking services—intact during a bank’s wind-down or restructuring. This is intended to avoid a broader economic freeze that would accompany a disorderly collapse. See Payments and Financial infrastructure for related concepts.

  • Impose losses on private creditors first

    • A core feature is the prompt, credible write-down or recapitalization that falls primarily on shareholders and certain senior creditors, before any public expenditure is contemplated. The aim is to restore market discipline and reduce the moral hazard that comes from implicit guarantees. See MREL and Bail-in for tools used to achieve this.

  • Minimize taxpayer exposure

    • The doctrine is to shield the public fisc from the cost of bank failures, except in narrowly constrained circumstances where public support is unavoidable to maintain stability.

  • Provide a predictable, legally and procedurally clear process

    • Resolution regimes rely on pre-arranged powers, time-limited processes, and independent authorities to avoid ad hoc interventions. See Resolution authority and Rule of law in crisis management.

  • Encourage private sector resilience and competition

    • By requiring credible failure resolution, regimes aim to level the playing field between well‑capitalized, well‑governed institutions and those that rely on explicit or implicit guarantees. See MREL and Too big to fail debates.

Instruments and processes

  • Write-downs and bail-in

    • The instrument most associated with modern regimes is the ability to write down or convert liabilities to absorb losses while maintaining essential functions. See Bail-in and Write-down.

  • Sale of business or transfer to a private purchaser

    • A failing institution can be sold in whole or in part to another, more solvent institution, preserving core activities and staff where feasible. See Bank resolution for related mechanisms.

  • Creation of a bridge institution or good bank

    • A temporary bridge institution may take over critical operations and assets, separating the viable franchise from the failing elements, so that private value can be retained and reallocated.

  • Asset separation and asset management

    • Non-core or underperforming assets can be isolated and managed separately to protect ongoing operations and facilitate orderly liquidation of residual value. See Good bank–bad bank concepts.

  • Public backstops narrowly focused on liquidity, not solvency

    • Where necessary, authorities may provide liquidity support to ensure the payments system remains functional, but they avoid injecting capital that would restructure the bank’s solvency unless legally required for other purposes.

  • Cross-border resolution tools

    • In multinational banking groups, cross-border cooperation and harmonized cooperation agreements are essential to avoid fragmentation and contagion. See Cross-border resolution and SRM concepts in Europe or FDIC in the United States as comparative references.

Institutions and governance

  • Resolution authorities

    • Independent bodies empowered to decide on the appropriate resolution action, guided by statutory objectives and timelines. In the U.K., the PRA and the Bank of England play central roles; in the EU, theSRM and national authorities coordinate under BRRD; in the United States, the FDIC leads orderly liquidation planning and execution.

  • Legislative and regulatory backbone

    • The regimes rest on enacted statutes and regulations that prescribe triggers, tools, priorities, and protections for stakeholders, including insured deposits and essential services. See Banking Act variants and Dodd-Frank Act for U.S. precedent in crisis management.

  • Cooperation and coordination

    • Domestic and cross-border coordination with other regulators, central banks, and resolution authorities is essential to ensure efficiency and minimize spillovers. See Cross-border resolution.

Cross-border and international aspects

  • Harmonization vs. national specificity

    • Regions with integrated financial markets pursue harmonization of resolution standards (for example, the BRRD framework and its link to the SRM) while retaining national control over operational decisions and local banking structures.

  • Contagion concerns

    • The spread of distress across a banking group or financial system is a central reason for a robust resolution regime. The tools are designed to prevent fire sales, liquidity runs, and confidence shocks that could ripple through the economy.

  • Practical challenges

    • Differences in accounting standards, creditor rights, and intergroup liabilities can complicate cross-border resolution. Ongoing dialogue and joint exercises are part of maintaining preparedness.

Controversies and debates

  • Moral hazard and private risk-taking

    • Proponents argue that credible resolution regimes discipline risk-taking by making private investors bear losses, thereby reducing the expectation of taxpayer-funded rescues. Critics contend that some arrangements still shield too much of the upside for shareholders while imposing losses on smaller creditors. Supporters respond that the regime is designed to target the losers who contributed to risk, not ordinary savers protected by deposit guarantees.

  • Deposits and guarantees

    • Some argue that resolution regimes undermine the sense of deposit protection by shifting some burden onto creditors. Supporters counter that insured deposits remain shielded within legal limits, and that the costs of maintaining “too-big-to-fail” guarantees are better allocated to those who funded the risk.

  • Implementation costs and complexity

    • Creating credible resolution tools and the related MREL requirements can be costly for banks and may influence funding strategies and lending behavior. The counterargument is that the costs of failure—economic disruption, lost confidence, and potential taxpayer exposure—are far higher if reform is delayed.

  • Cross-border coordination risks

    • Multinational banks create expectations of coordinated action, but divergent national laws can create gaps or timing mismatches. Advocates push for stronger, faster cooperation mechanisms, while skeptics warn about sovereignty and legal complexity.

  • Critiques of the regime’s effectiveness

    • Detractors may claim that resolution regimes are more theory than practice and rely on idealized assumptions about private sector behavior. Advocates emphasize practical precedents, backstopped frameworks, and the stabilizing track record of disciplined resolution during stress events.

See also