Blog Post

Europe’s banking union should learn the right lessons from the US

In revived discussions on European banking union, some have suggested a new regime to deal with failing banks, alongside existing ones, drawn from parts of the United States’ bank resolution framework. This fragmented approach could be counterproductive. Europe should adopt a unitary regime, like the US, that applies to all banks irrespective of size.

By: and Date: October 29, 2020 Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance

In late September, the European Union reiterated its members’ commitment to press on with the ambitious banking reform discussion begun before the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim, Eurogroup president Paschal Donohoe said, would be “to make further concrete progress on the Banking Union by the end of the year”. Several officials, including at the Bank of Italy, the German finance ministry, and the Single Resolution Board (SRB) – the Brussels-based EU agency that acts as a hub for implementation in the euro area of bank resolution rules – have proposed a new EU bank-liquidation regime as a centrepiece of reform. In doing so they have referred implicitly or explicitly to the United States Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) model, with the suggestion that parts of the US regime for dealing with failed banks could be imported into Europe.

EU officials are right to position the banking union as an essential part of their resilience and recovery strategy, and to not let COVID-19 derail necessary debates. However, the reinvigorated discussion has become increasingly confused. The idea of bringing only parts of the US regime for dealing with failed banks into Europe could prove counterproductive. Using the experience of the FDIC to bolster arguments in favour of further fragmenting Europe’s existing fragmented regime is particularly problematic. In fact, a closer look at the FDIC model highlights the value of a single process for resolving all deposit-taking banks, no matter how large or small.

The banking union is an effort to pool the instruments of banking-sector policy at the European level, premised on the generally shared view that linkages between banking policy and national budgets undermine the integrity of the euro area, because they threaten fragmentation along national lines – fragile banks undermining national sovereign creditworthiness and vice versa, distorting the impact of the ECB’s single monetary policy. The first step in this effort, the assumption of bank prudential supervision by the European Central Bank, has been in operation for six years. It has successfully passed the major test posed by COVID-19, swiftly granting banks leeway to absorb pandemic-related losses, while suspending their dividend distributions to preserve their capital. On the other hand, the EU’s bank crisis management framework remains a half-built house. Most of it is enshrined in the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) of 2014. In a number of cases of bank failures since that law went into effect, the crisis framework has fallen short of its principal goal of forestalling taxpayer bailouts. This experience has driven a growing consensus that the European crisis management and resolution regime needs significant reform.

There is an inescapable irony to invoking the FDIC as a model for reform, however. It was the FDIC’s success, after all, that provided much of the inspiration for the bank resolution process established by the BRRD in the first place. But unlike in the US, EU lawmakers decided that the BRRD resolution procedure would only be applicable to those banks deemed of public interest following a “public interest assessment” (PIA), for which the BRRD only outlined the vaguest of criteria. Failing banks that receive a negative PIA would be left to national insolvency regimes. In contrast, the FDIC is the sole resolution authority for all deposit-taking institutions (ie banks) in the United States, irrespective of size, systemic importance, state or federal charter. The FDIC is also responsible for the as-yet untested Orderly Liquidation Authority for systemically important non-bank entities, including large bank holding companies. For banks, the FDIC has no equivalent to the BRRD’s PIA process that might allow it to hand over the failing institution to a less squeamish undertaker.

A closer look at the incentive structure behind recent bank failure controversies reveals the sort of dysfunction that results from maintaining multiple potentially overlapping regimes.

Dealing with a failing bank is a thankless business, especially if one lacks access to unlimited public resources to bail out the various stakeholders. The resolution process under the BRRD severely restricts bail-out options. Some national insolvency regimes are less stringent and leave the door open to generous bail-outs. This puts immense pressure on the authority in charge of conducting public interest assessments to deliver a negative PIA and keep the ailing bank out of EU resolution. In June 2017, the SRB’s negative assessments of two mid-sized banks in the Veneto region of Italy preceded their administrative liquidation under Italian law, in a process managed by the Bank of Italy, with generous financial support from the Italian government. This was in line with the letter of BRRD, but at odds with its spirit: when proposing the BRRD on 6 June 2012, then Commission President José Manuel Barroso stressed that it would “help protect our taxpayers from the impact of any future bank failure”. It defies common sense to declare that a bank is deemed not of public interest, only to have it benefit from more, not less, public financial support than if it was.

Unlike the SRB, the FDIC cannot wash its hands of a failing bank – there is no one else to handle the mess. The unitary structure lends itself to formal and informal public accountability, and has led to continual reform and gradual improvement in FDIC’s practice over several cycles of bank failures that now span more than eight decades. For its part, the SRB not only has defended its decision on the two Veneto banks, but has elevated it to a point of general policy, with the SRB Chair emphasising that BRRD resolution was for the few, not the many. This position leaves many significant banks in the banking union beyond the reach of one of its key institutions, contrary to the expressed initial intent of BRRD legislators.

The absence of a common deposit insurance authority in the euro area compounds the regime arbitrage problem. As its name indicates, the FDIC manages deposit insurance for all banks in the United States. By contrast, the 21-country banking union (19 euro-area countries plus Bulgaria and Croatia) has national deposit insurance regimes (or several of them in some countries), national resolution authorities, national institutions in charge of insolvency processes, plus the SRB: countless cooks in the bank-failure kitchen, where the United States has only one.

We used the FDIC as a starting point for our analysis (further detailed in a 2019 paper for the European Parliament). We do not aim here to address all aspects of the technically complex matter. We nevertheless submit three suggestions for the EU reform debate.

First, policymakers should not rush for a piecemeal solution at a time when pandemic-related risks loom large. Pre-pandemic, completing the banking union was arguably the most important priority of the European Commissioner for financial services. But now, the more immediate priority is to address the COVID-19 crisis, including by implementing the Next Generation EU recovery blueprint. Stalling recovery and economic deterioration could lead to bank failures or require bank recapitalisation, probably before any significant banking union reform can be enacted, meaning any crisis management measures will have to be handled with the existing legislation anyway.

Second, EU reformers should consider the trade-offs embedded in the design of the FDIC and its evolution over time, including stronger protection of all deposits, even uninsured ones, but also the lesser implicit protection of other creditors – the FDIC’s track record establishes that its pledge not to bail these out is credible, at least for institutions up to a fairly significant size (Washington Mutual, resolved in 2008, had around $300 billion in assets).

Third, the EU should take away the right lesson from the FDIC’s history, and pursue an integrated approach to the banking union. That is to say: a unitary regime to handle all bank failures, amending and improving the BRRD resolution concept, encompassing reform of mandatory deposit insurance that would integrate it under the SRB. A European system that matches the FDIC’s performance would reduce the future fiscal impact of banking crises. It would still entail financial risk-sharing through the deposit insurance and resolution mechanism and its necessary public backstop, but Next Generation EU will facilitate that by giving the EU its own financial firepower.

Doing so will surely take more than a few months. But adding a third regime to the existing two will also take significant time and waste a lot of reform energy, while making the system even more fragmented and dysfunctional. Instead, policymakers should focus on a comprehensive approach that, when implemented, will be effective and foster predictability. If that requires some more time for careful debate and preparation, it will be time well spent.

Recommended citation:
Gelpern, A. and Veron, N. (2020) ‘Europe’s banking union should learn the right lessons from the US’, Bruegel Blog, 29 October


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

Read about event More on this topic
 

Past Event

Past Event

Completing the banking union in the age of Next Generation EU

Invitation only event to discuss the banking union.

Speakers: Tuomas Saarenheimo and Nicolas Véron Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: October 27, 2020
Read article More by this author
 

Opinion

The EU’s Opportunity to Turn Its Markets Toward the Future

Meeting the fiscal demands of COVID-19 will require the European Union to borrow on capital markets more than ever, and for European pension funds and households to look more widely for ways to build their nest eggs safely. The EU should take the challenges of the pandemic and Brexit as a chance to get its financial infrastructure house in order.

By: Rebecca Christie Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Finance & Financial Regulation Date: July 16, 2020
Read about event More on this topic
 

Past Event

Past Event

Tackling too-big-to-fail banks: have the reforms been effective?

Evaluation of the global reforms implemented to deal with "too-big-to-fail banks".

Speakers: Alexandre Birry, Claudia M. Buch and Nicolas Véron Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: July 9, 2020
Read article Download PDF More on this topic
 

Policy Contribution

Should Denmark and Sweden join the banking Union?

Though outside the euro area, Denmark and Sweden could benefit from joining the European Union’s banking union. It would provide protection in case of any need to resolve at national level a large bank with a Scandinavian footprint, and would mark a choice in favour of more cross-border banking. But joining the banking union would also involve some loss of decision-making power.

By: Dirk Schoenmaker and Svend E. Hougaard Jensen Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Date: June 24, 2020
Read article More by this author
 

Podcast

Podcast

Rebooting Europe: a framework for post COVID-19 economic recovery

COVID-19 has triggered a severe recession and policymakers in European Union countries are providing generous, largely indiscriminate, support to companies. As the recession gets deeper, a more comprehensive strategy is needed. This should be based on four principles: viability of supported entities, fairness, achieving societal goals, and giving society a share in future profits. The effort should be structured around equity and recovery funds with borrowing at EU level.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Finance & Financial Regulation Date: May 15, 2020
Read article More by this author
 

Opinion

Save markets to save the single market

It’s time for the EU to make quick and indispensable progress in forming a capital markets union.

By: Maria Demertzis Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Finance & Financial Regulation Date: May 15, 2020
Read about event More on this topic
 

Past Event

Past Event

The Sound of Economics Live: Banks and Loan Losses in the Pandemic Turmoil

At this online event we will record an episode of the Sound of Economics, Bruegel's podcast series. In this episode, we discuss the implications of the coronavirus crisis on financial stability and credit availability.

Speakers: Giuseppe Porcaro, Nicolas Véron and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Date: March 25, 2020
Read article More on this topic
 

Podcast

Podcast

Can the European Green Deal kill the single market?

The European Green Deal is one of the landmarks of Ursula von der Leyen's Commission. But, without an ambitious investment behind it, what could be its potential implications for the EU? Could it go as far as to threaten the EU's single market? This week, Renew Europe's vice-president, MEP Luis Garicano, joins Guntram Wolff and Maria Demertzis to discuss not only the European Green Deal but also the EU Budget and the Banking Union. Disclaimer: this episode was recorded on the 20th of February, before Bruegel hosted the event "The Ressurection of the European Banking Union".

By: The Sound of Economics and Bruegel Topic: Energy & Climate Date: February 25, 2020
Read about event More on this topic
 

Past Event

Past Event

The resurrection of the European Banking Union

At this event, Luis Garicano, member of the European Parliament, presented his two proposals to resurrect the European Banking Union: "a Safe Portfolio" and "a Single Resolution Board +".

Speakers: Tom Dechaene, Luis Garicano, Michala Marcussen and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: February 20, 2020
Read about event More on this topic
 

Past Event

Past Event

Take a chance on me: Sweden considers the Banking Union

This event will discuss if Sweden should join the European banking union and the general state of the union.

Speakers: Fredrik Bystedt, Elena Carletti, Maria Demertzis and Pawel Gąsiorowski Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: January 29, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

European capital markets union, by rule and by choice

While the euro is now a leading global currency and the European Central Bank has become a comprehensive banking supervisor, Europe’s markets have been treading water.

By: Rebecca Christie Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Date: January 23, 2020
Read article Download PDF More on this topic
 

External Publication

European Parliament

Impediments to resolvability of banks

This paper gives an overview of the seven aspects of resolvability defined in 2019 by the Single Resolution Board, and then assesses progress in two key areas, based on evidence gathered from public disclosures made by the 20 largest euro-area banks. The largest banks have made good progress in raising bail-in capital. Changes to banks’ legal and operational structures that will facilitate resolution will take more time. Greater transparency would make it easier to achieve the policy objective of making banks resolvable.

By: Alexander Lehmann and Bruegel Topic: European Parliament Date: December 18, 2019
Load more posts