How in the world did central banks miss this?

An interesting story has been developing over the past couple of weeks and has been flying under the radar somewhat, though Alex Barker over at the FT has covered this story very well, here, here and here.

The issue is that the Bank of England has found wording in the details of the EU’s Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (the bank bail-in plans) which could prohibit governments from protecting central banks against losses when they  provide emergency lending to banks in a crisis. Quite a surprising find given that the final text has just been passed (the error was found with only weeks to spare).

This is the Emergency Liquidity Assistance (ELA), which we have covered here and here. As a recap, this is the lending which a central bank takes on in a crisis and offers to banks at less favourable rates if they have no other choice to avoid a liquidity crisis. As might be expected it was used heavily by the UK and many eurozone countries during the crisis.

Essentially, the concern is that it could expose the BoE to greater risk since it will not have the backing of the UK treasury when extending liquidity assistance, which is risky and can be very large when a financial sector the size of the UK’s is in crisis.

In fact the story now seems to have run through its full lifecycle:

• The BoE located the problem and alerted the European Parliament (EP) and other member states, while requesting to reopen the text of the legislation to amend the wording.
• The EP accepted and even published a revised text to take account of the concerns - see article 27 (2).
• In the end, however, the move was formally vetoed by the Netherlands, Finland and the Czech Republic due to concerns that reopening the text would lead to a raft of other demands, notably by France, Italy, Sweden and Portugal who were seeking further assurances that they could issue guarantees for bank bonds without requiring bank bail-ins first.

This may potentially be a very big deal - but there could also be ways around it. Ultimately, ELA can still be extended it just cannot have a blanket guarantee from the government. The central bank balance sheet should be strong enough to deal with this, although if losses were taken it could become an issue – would bail-ins be required, say, before the central bank was recapitalised? Furthermore, this doesn't just impact the UK, ELA was heavily used in the eurozone and is arguably more important for the eurozone than the UK since the ECB still struggles to act as a real lender of last resort.

However, this episode also speaks volumes about how EU rules are decided and assessed - and, in this instances, doesn't necessarily reflect well on the Treasury and the BoE:

• That the deal isn't now re-opened despite an obvious flaw in the legislation is symptomatic of EU law - the constant fear of  reopening deals or reassessing them due to uncertainty over what countries might begin to demand. This too often used as an argument against reform, when in fact it should be one in favour of reform. It highlights the need for a broader overhaul of the legislative approach and the need for a clearer structure and mechanism to reassess legislation. All too often this fear paralyses the process of improving or changing the EU.

• That said, looking at the revised EP text, there do seem to be a huge amount of changes (the text in bold and italics). This seems to highlight some severe concerns with the original agreement and again brings home concerns over the level of uncertainty - what is a precautionary recapitalisation? - that continues to dog the agreement.

• The alliances that built up on this issue are also interesting and somewhat unusual. The UK had the support of the European Parliament and even France and Italy, although they seemingly wanted to reopen the text for other reasons. However, Netherlands and the Czech Republic were firmly against, while Germany was very hesitant. The UK should take comfort in this. On this particular issue, the divide wasn't eurozone versus non-eurozone - that potential divide remains one of the biggest liabilities in the UK-EU relations, particularly in financial services. 

Most importantly though, how in the world did finance ministries and central banks - including the Treasury and BoE effectively - miss a provision which governs fundamental central bank actions? Admittedly, we didn't spot it either and it is a very technical clause but these are exactly the types of things that central banks should be on the look out for. It certainly raises some serious questions about the level of oversight and analysis of EU legislation both at the EU and national level. How did everyone miss this the first time around? If the central banks weren’t involved earlier, should they be on important financial legislation such as this?

Credit to the Bank of England for at least detecting it. Better late than never (well, sort of, in this case). 

As discussions stall, leaked docs show divergent plans for bank bail-in and resolution from EU institutions

The Times’ Juliet Samuel has an interesting story today looking at the progress on bank bail-in rules and resolution funds at the EU level (via some leaked docs relating to the EU's Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive).

Despite another round of meetings little progress seems to have been made in finalising the format of the resolution authority or the fund it would use to aid banks, i.e. the creation of the second pillar of the banking union – although there does seem to be a move to increasing the direct involvement of national authorities. Germany also looks to have conceded somewhat on using the ESM, the eurozone bailout fund, to aid banks as agreed over the summer. But given that this will still require a change in German law and approval in the Bundestag to activate it, the hurdles remain very high.

See here for a recap of the country differences on bail-in plans, here for a recap of our take on the plans as they stand and here for our view of the banking union so far.

With this in mind the internal Commission assessment (which can be found in full here) raises some interesting points (it's worth keeping in mind the the bail-in plans and banking union are separate but very closely related when it comes to questions of aiding banks). The paper essentially provides a comparison of the different bail-in approaches favoured by the European Commission (EC), the Council and the European Parliament (EP). The EC proposal sees a very strict bail-in structure with all levels of investors and uninsured depositors facing losses before resolution funds are tapped. The Council waters this down slightly, with some use of resolution funds at different stages. The EP goes further with greater protection of depositors and therefore more use of resolution funds (see graph below for a useful graphic on all this).

Although the analysis is significantly limited by numerous assumptions and data constraints, some interesting points can be gleaned, which we outline below:

Greater flexibility, leads to greater use of funds: The key point seems to be that any flexibility introduced into the bail-in system will significantly increase the level of resolution funds needed. Broadly, under the Council proposal this could reach €70bn under a 25% loss scenario. Under the EP structure the figure could top €200bn if there was a systemic crisis. These are rough figures gleaned from the numerous scenarios, but the message is a clear warning to the Council and Parliament about allowing too much flexibility from the planned bail-in rules.

Where would these funds come from? This is the obvious follow up. No plan is presented in the paper and the general idea is that they would be built up over time from taxes on the financial sector. But under the current plans this could take up to 10 years, from a start in 2018. What happens in between? There seems little choice but to infer that national taxpayer funds would be tapped if another crisis hit.

Bank investors and even depositors lined up to take big hits under bail-in: Another key feature of this paper is that, for the first time, it highlights the type of losses investors and depositors will face if a crisis hit under the bail-in rules. In nearly all scenarios, albeit to varying degrees, even senior debtors and uninsured depositors take large hits. As these discussions develop and the final structure becomes clearer the market will begin to reassess the pricing of different instruments – whether deposits, debt or other instruments are favoured could well affect bank funding structures.

Beyond these points there is little more significant to draw from the paper. It debatably raises as many questions as it answers – what will the final format be? When will it be introduced? How will any resolution funds be funded? Will this be done at the EU or eurozone level?

The motivation behind the paper is also worth considering. It’s clear the Commission is trying to send a bit of a message here, warning the Council and EP against watering down the bail-in plans too much – at least if they don’t want to put up significant resolution funds. Whether or not this will be taken to heart remains to be seen.

Bank bail-in plans finally agreed, but its only a small step towards banking union

Despite some sizeable differences, EU finance ministers finally managed to reach an agreement on the bank bail-in plans last night (after only 25 hours of talks in the past few days). As always with this type of EU deals, it is a compromise and often an imperfect one. The agreement was much as expected in the end, given the drafts circulating over the past week. Below, we lay out the key points and the positives and negatives of the deal as we see them.

Key points

• Some more flexibility included, with government allowed to inject funds but only after minimum bail-in of 8% of the total liabilities of the failing bank – although such intervention is capped at 5% of the bank’s liabilities.
• The ESM, the eurozone's bailout fund, can also inject funds but only after all unsecured bondholders wiped out.
• The UK secured wording which allows it to avoid setting up an ex-ante resolution fund, as long as it is already receiving funds from the bank levy and/or stamp duty. Sweden also secured an adjustment to the text which allows for it to maintain its current model to a large extent.
• The agreement sees the bail-in plans coming into force in 2018, while the directive as a whole still needs approval from the European Parliament - so it could yet change.
• Certain creditors are excluded: insured deposits, secured liabilities, employee liabilities, interbank and payment liabilities with maturities of less than seven days. National resolution authorities can also exclude other creditors in exceptional circumstances.
• As in earlier drafts, insured deposits are completely protected, and the preference given to SMEs and individuals deposits (see here) has been retained as well.

Positives

• Reaching a deal is positive in itself, as it adds some much needed certainty following the Cypriot crisis. It also keeps the progress towards banking union inching along.
• The burden has been shifted away from taxpayers towards bank creditors.
• The added flexibility is important between eurozone and non-eurozone countries, with the UK and Sweden scoring some important caveats. The deal highlights that non-eurozone countries can still have influence on such rules and the acceptance of the need for flexibility between the two groups.

Negatives

• From a eurozone point of view, the flexibility could be counterproductive, particularly the use of exemptions in exceptional circumstances. How exactly will this be defined and determined? If at national level, then there could be clear political pressure in a crisis to invoke this. For example, it is hard to imagine that the crises in Greece, Portugal, Ireland and Spain would not have triggered this in some way.
• Could see cost of bank funding rise, particularly in terms of unsecured credit due to fairly strong depositor preference.
• Lots of unanswered questions – not least, when and how will these rules apply? It’s not clear in exactly what situation and at what time the new rules would kick in. Does it rely on a request for aid from the bank or the national government?
• Furthermore, there are questions over how this will work practically in different circumstances – for example, the difference between a bank which has almost completely failed and one which is simply struggling to recapitalise.
• The timeline also still seems very long, with the actual bail-in rules not in force until 2018, even though the directive is due to be in place by 2015. That said, the broad template may well still apply, particularly where banking union is involved.

In the end, this seems to be a reasonable compromise - not least because all sides seem fairly happy. It’s clear than a new set of rules was needed with the focus on creditors rather than taxpayers. That said, though, this is in the end only a very small part of banking union and the pace at which the eurozone is proceeding towards it remains fairly limited.

The key remains the single resolution mechanism and/or authority. As we have argued before, until this is in place it is hard to see how the poisonous sovereign-banking-loop will be broken or how cross border lending will begin flowing freely again. Until that is settled, the effectiveness of other factors such as the bail-in plans will remain unclear at best.