DOCSLIB.ORG

Implementing Volcker, Vickers and Liikanen Comparative Analysis of Bank Structure Reforms

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Implementing Volcker, Vickers and Liikanen Comparative Analysis of Bank Structure Reforms Faculteit Rechtsgeleerdheid Academiejaar 2015-2016 IMPLEMENTING VOLCKER, VICKERS AND LIIKANEN COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF BANK STRUCTURE REFORMS Masterproef van de opleiding ‘Master in de rechten’ Ingediend door Robin De Vogelaere (Studentennummer 01102334) Promotor: Prof. Dr. Michel Tison Commissaris: Dhr. Maarten Cleppe 2 Acknowledgement I would like to thank the following people for their contribution to this work. First of all, I would like to thank my promoter, prof. Michel Tison, for providing me with an interesting topic for my master's dissertation and for his help during the writing process. Secondly, I would like to thank my father for proofreading the entire text and my girlfriend, Wiebke, for her help with the lay-out. Finally, I would like to thank my friends and family for their support; and in particular Karel, Vincent and Bertrand who were always available to run ideas by and to provide feedback. Table of Content INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................1 PART I PURPOSE......................................................................................................................5 I. Purpose of the Volcker rule......................................................................................................7 II. Purpose of retail ring-fencing in the UK................................................................................8 III. Purpose of the separation in the Liikanen Report and its application in continental Europe .....................................................................................................................................................9 IV. Comparison and conclusions...............................................................................................11 PART II SCOPE OF APPLICATION.......................................................................................13 I. United States..........................................................................................................................15 II. United Kingdom...................................................................................................................18 A. Core activities..................................................................................................................18 B. Exemptions......................................................................................................................22 C. Requirement for UK deposit-takers that are not ring-fenced bodies...............................23 III. Continental Europe.............................................................................................................24 A. Liikanen Report...............................................................................................................24 B. France..............................................................................................................................25 C. Germany..........................................................................................................................29 D. Belgium...........................................................................................................................31 IV. Comparison and conclusions...............................................................................................32 PART III PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES....................................................................................35 I. United States..........................................................................................................................37 A. Introduction to the prohibition.........................................................................................37 B. Proprietary Trading..........................................................................................................38 1. Trading account...........................................................................................................38 a. Short-term Intent.....................................................................................................38 b. Market Risk Capital Rule........................................................................................39 c. Dealer, Swap Dealer or Security-based Swap Dealer.............................................41 2. Financial instrument....................................................................................................42 C. Exclusions........................................................................................................................43 D. Exemptions......................................................................................................................46 1. Underwriting activities................................................................................................46 a. Relevant activities...................................................................................................47 b. Assessment basis.....................................................................................................50 c. Other requirements..................................................................................................50 2. Market making activities.............................................................................................51 a. Relevant activities...................................................................................................52 b. Assessment basis.....................................................................................................54 c. Other requirements..................................................................................................55 3. Risk-mitigating hedging activities...............................................................................57 4. Other exemptions.........................................................................................................58 5. Limitations to the permitted activities.........................................................................59 E. Conclusion.......................................................................................................................61 II. United Kingdom...................................................................................................................62 A. Excluded activities...........................................................................................................62 1. Dealing in investments as a principal..........................................................................62 2. Commodities trading...................................................................................................64 3. Exceptions to the excluded activities...........................................................................65 4. Derivatives...................................................................................................................67 B. Prohibitions......................................................................................................................69 C. Conclusion.......................................................................................................................71 III. Continental Europe.............................................................................................................72 A. Liikanen Report...............................................................................................................72 B. France..............................................................................................................................72 C. Germany..........................................................................................................................75 D. Belgium...........................................................................................................................76 E. Conclusion.......................................................................................................................80 IV. Comparison and conclusions...............................................................................................81 A. General remarks..............................................................................................................81 B. Comparison of the prohibited activities...........................................................................82 C. Comparison to the Reports and purpose..........................................................................85 PART IV CONNECTIONS WITH ENTITIES CARRYING ON PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................................................................................87 I. United States..........................................................................................................................89 A. Covered funds..................................................................................................................89 1. Definition of a covered fund........................................................................................89 2. Exclusions....................................................................................................................91 B. Permitted and prohibited relations with covered funds...................................................94 1. Ownership interest in or sponsoring a covered fund...................................................94 2. Permitted investments
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Form 20F (SEC Filing) 2012
    Lloyds Banking Group plc 2012 Annual Report on Form 20-F As filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on 25 March 2013 UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 20-F REGISTRATION STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(b) OR 12(g) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 OR X ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended 31 December 2012 OR TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 OR SHELL COMPANY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 Commission file number 001-15246 LLOYDS BANKING GROUP plc (previously Lloyds TSB Group plc) (Exact name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter) Scotland (Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization) 25 Gresham Street London EC2V 7HN United Kingdom (Address of Principal Executive Offices) Claire Davies, Group Secretary Tel +44 (0) 20 7356 1043, Fax +44 (0) 20 7356 3506 25 Gresham Street London EC2V 7HN United Kingdom (Name, telephone, e-mail and/or facsimile number and address of Company contact person) Securities registered or to be registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Title of each class Name of each exchange on which registered Ordinary shares of nominal value 10 pence each, represented by American Depositary Shares ................................The New York Stock Exchange 7.75% Public Income Notes due 2050 ...................................................................................................................................The
    [Show full text]
  • Building the 'Go-To' Bank
    Building the ‘Go-To’ bank Citizenship Report 2013 About this report CitizenshipC Report 2013 AnnualA Report 2013 BarclaysB Citizenship Report BarclaysB Annual Report providesp a comprehensive includesi the Strategic viewv of performance against report,r the Governance ouro 2015 Citizenship Plan. report,r Risk review and thet Financial report – WeW also release supporting Building the ‘Go-To’ bank Building the ‘Go-To’ bank includingi our audited information,i including our fi nancial statements. reportingr protocol, full independanti assurance statements and GRI index. Citizenship Report Annual Report 2013 2013 Visit: barclays.com/citizenshipreport Visit: barclays.com/annualreport Guide to navigation buttons Go to main contents page Go to next page Where you see this icon it refers you to more information online: barclays.com/citizenshipreport This icon indicates a cross-reference within this document, please Return to last page visited Go to preceding page follow the page number for more information Basis of preparation business strategy, capital, leverage and other regulatory ratios, payment of The Citizenship Report (the Report) gives a comprehensive account of dividends (including dividend pay-out ratios), projected levels of growth in Barclays’ performance in 2013 across a range of social, ethical and thebanking and fi nancial markets, projected costs, original and revised environmental areas. It outlines progress on the priorities and targets commitments and targets in connection with the Transform Programme, identifi ed in our 2015 Citizenship Plan, and how we are addressing issues deleveraging actions, estimates of capital expenditures and plans and identifi ed as important to both our business and stakeholders. objectives for future operations and other statements that are not historical fact.
    [Show full text]
  • Blinded by Volcker, Vickers, Liikanen, Glass Steagall and Narrow Banking
    Randall D. Guynn and Patrick S. Kenadjian Structural Solutions: Blinded by Volcker, Vickers, Liikanen, Glass Steagall and Narrow Banking The phrase “structural solution” is a polite term for breaking up the banks. These “solutions” are presented as the key to solving the problem of “too big to fail” (TBTF).¹ They come in three main varieties, one in the United States (the Volcker Rule), one in the United Kingdom (the Vickers Report) and one in the European Union (the Liikanen Report). The problem they seek to address is real. It is the dilemma faced by public authorities when confronted with the potential failure of a financial institution that could result in destabilizing the financial system in a country or region under conditions of uncertainty and in the absence of appro- priate tools to contain the adverse consequences of failure on the financial sys- tem and the broader economy. Enormous amounts of public resources were de- voted to supporting the financial system in 2008/2009. In some cases this support resulted in increasing public sector debt to levels that make a repeat of public support on a similar level hard to conceive of even if public opinion would tolerate it. Thus, solving TBTF is crucial both to the financial sector and to the common good. But the “structural solutions” proposed are illusory, at best are complementary to other more targeted measures being actively pur- sued, and at worst divert valuable attention and resources away from more tar- geted solutions.² They are perhaps best understood as threats of what could hap- pen to financial institutions if these other measures are not implemented in a timely and credible manner, rather than as real solutions to the TBTF problem.
    [Show full text]
  • Ring Fencing Volcker's Rule? : the Liikanen Report and Justifications
    Munich Personal RePEc Archive Ring fencing Volcker’s Rule? : The Liikanen Report and justifications for ring fencing and separate legal entities revisited Marianne, Ojo North-West University, South Africa 22 January 2016 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/70894/ MPRA Paper No. 70894, posted 28 Apr 2016 13:42 UTC 1 ABSTRACT The predecessor paper to this publication, “Volcker/Vickers Hybrid”: The Liikanen Report and Justifications For Ring Fencing and Separate Legal Entities, considered the merits, objectives and cost-benefit attributes of respective models associated with the Vickers Report, Liikanen Report and Volckers Rule – by way of reference to the degree of separation of legal entities or banking activities involved, as well as whether an outright ban or prohibition on proprietary trading is involved. This paper is aimed at highlighting why ring fencing not only presents a more feasible and cost effective option to other models, but also why its degree of flexibility provides the more appropriate balance in a financial environment whose trend is increasingly inclined towards conglomeration. Key Words: Vickers Report, Volcker’s Rule, Liikanen Report, ring fencing, cross-sector services’ risks, liquidity risks, systemic risks, capital requirements, leverage ratios 2 Ring Fencing Volcker’s Rule? : The Liikanen Report and Justifications for Ring Fencing and Separate Legal Entities Revisited Marianne Ojo Professor, North-West University, Faculty of Commerce and Administration, School of Economic and Decision Sciences, Private Bag
    [Show full text]
  • Seven Deadly Sins 359
    2017-2018 THE SEVEN DEADLY SINS 359 THE SEVEN DEADLY SINS OF THE CONTEMPORARY FINANCIAL SYSTEM CHENG-YUN TSANG* Abstract This paper identifies and analyzes the fundamental deficiencies, or “Seven Deadly Sins” of the contemporary financial system. The “Sins” are: dominance of an excessive risk-taking culture and behavior, over-reliance on short-term funding, inevitable deficiencies in hedging tools, ignorance of the sources and feedback loops of shadow banking activities, failure to address cognitive bias, over- emphasis on the use of complex regulations, and failure to promote moral restraint and professional standards. An understanding of these sins, together with a brief review of post-crisis reforms, enables policymakers to identify areas where more regulatory effort is needed, or to channel greater market power into the remediation of these fundamental deficiencies. * Assistant Professor, College of Law, National Chengchi University; former Research Fellow, Faculty of Law, UNSW Sydney. This paper draws from a chapter of my doctoral dissertation and therefore special thanks goes to my doctoral supervisor, Professor Lawrence Baxter and other committee members. I would like to express my thanks to the Australian Research Council for their support of the preparation of this paper by the Linkage Grant Project entitled “Regulating a Revolution: A New Regulatory Model for Digital Finance,” to Professor Ross Buckley of UNSW for his mentorship throughout the preparation and submission of this paper, and to Cliff Gadd and Jessica Chapman for exceptional editing assistance. I am also very grateful for the editorial support of this journal. All responsibility is mine. 360 REVIEW OF BANKING & FINANCIAL LAW VOL.
    [Show full text]
  • Does Volcker + Vickers = Liikanen? EU PROPOSAL for a REGULATION on STRUCTURAL MEASURES IMPROVING the RESILIENCE of EU CREDIT INSTITUTIONS
    Article Does Volcker + Vickers = Liikanen? EU PROPOSAL FOR A REGULATION ON STRUCTURAL MEASURES IMPROVING THE RESILIENCE OF EU CREDIT INSTITUTIONS By Francois-Regis Gonon, David R. Sahr, Andreas Lange, Mark Compton, Charles-Albert Helleputte1 1) On 29 January 2014 the European Commission deemed as ‘socially less important’, by reducing published a proposal for a regulation of the the risk of contagion spreading from trading European Parliament and of the Council “on activities to traditional retail banking and structural measures improving the resilience of protecting the deposits of individuals and small EU credit institutions.”2 This proposed businesses in the case of bank failure. In legislation is the EU’s equivalent of Volcker3 and addition, bank structural changes are intended Vickers.4 It was initiated by the Liikanen report5 to reduce complexity and so improve the published on 2 October 2012 but the legislative resolvability of banking groups. The EU has proposal departs in a number of ways from the been concerned about banks which it terms “too report’s conclusions. There are two significant big to fail,” “too big to save” and “too complex to departures: the legislative proposal contains a manage, supervise and resolve.” It has been Volcker-style prohibition, which also departs concerned that failure of these banks would be from the individual EU Member States’ detrimental to the financial system in the EU as approach and, although the proposal contains a whole. The EU also believes that these banks provisions which mirror the Vickers ‘ring- have an unfair advantage over smaller banks: it fencing’ approach, they are not, in direct believes that the presumption that they would contradiction to Liikanen’s recommendation, be bailed out rather than be allowed to fail mandatory.
    [Show full text]
  • Banking and the Limits of Professionalism I
    2017 Thematic: Banking and the Limits of Professionalism 411 17 BANKING AND THE LIMITS OF PROFESSIONALISM DIMITY KINGSFORD SMITH,* THOMAS CLARKE** AND JUSTINE ROGERS*** I INTRODUCTION Few other occupations that aspire to professional status have the influence, both beneficial and destructive, or the raw power to resist regulation and political constraint, that banking has. The global financial crisis (‘GFC’) and revelations of bank manipulation of the benchmark London Inter-bank Offering Rate (‘LIBOR’),1 which followed quickly afterwards, showed devastatingly the worst of this influence and power. These failings have been diagnosed as stemming from a foundational collapse in the values of individuals and in the governance of banking entities.2 The critique has concentrated on demands for better decisions and conduct from individuals, as well as changes in the entities for which they work, to better support those individuals. This post-GFC prescription for banking has turned attention to the professions as a possible framework for promoting individual ethical conduct in banking.3 Indeed, since the LIBOR revelations, even banking itself has expressed a desire to professionalise.4 * Professor and Director of the Centre for Law, Markets and Regulation (‘CLMR’) University of New South Wales (‘UNSW’); LLM (London School of Economics, London) LLB (Sydney) BA (Sydney). Correspondence to Professor Kingsford Smith <[email protected]>. ** Professor of Management and Director of the Key University Research Centre for Corporate Governance, University of Technology Sydney; PhD (Warwick) BSocSc (Birm). *** Lecturer, UNSW Law; DPhil (Oxford) MSc (Oxford). The authors acknowledge the support of the Australian Research Council and the Professional Standards Councils for this work and particularly the comments of the anonymous referees and of fellow researcher, Hugh Breakey, on an earlier version of this paper and the work of Senior Research Fellow, John Chellew.
    [Show full text]
  • Rabobank Nederland
    Rabobank Nederland Coöperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A. (a cooperative (coöperatie) formed under the laws of the Netherlands with its statutory seat in Amsterdam) Coöperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A. (Rabobank Nederland) Australia Branch (Australian Business Number 70 003 917 655) (a cooperative (coöperatie) formed under the laws of the Netherlands with its statutory seat in Amsterdam) Coöperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A. (Rabobank Nederland) Singapore Branch (Singapore Company Registration Number S86FC3634A) (a cooperative (coöperatie) formed under the laws of the Netherlands with its statutory seat in Amsterdam) EUR 160,000,000,000 Global Medium-Term Note Programme Due from seven days to perpetuity Under the Global Medium-Term Note Programme described in this Base Prospectus (the “Programme”), Coöperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A. (Rabobank Nederland) (“Rabobank Nederland”, the “Bank” or the “Issuer”) may, through its head office or through its branches listed above, subject to compliance with all relevant laws, regulations and directives, from time to time, issue Global Medium-Term Notes (the “Notes”). References herein to the “Issuer” shall mean Rabobank Nederland, whether issuing Notes through its head office or through its branches listed above. The branches through which Rabobank Nederland may issue Notes are Coöperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A. (Rabobank Nederland) Australia Branch (“Rabobank Australia Branch”) and Coöperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A. (Rabobank Nederland) Singapore Branch (“Rabobank Singapore Branch”). The aggregate nominal amount of Notes outstanding will not at any time exceed EUR 160,000,000,000 (or the equivalent in other currencies). The Programme is, and Notes issued under it may be, denominated in euro, which means the lawful currency of the member states of the European Union (“Member States”) that have adopted the single currency pursuant to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as amended.
    [Show full text]
  • Basel 4 – Emerging from the Mist? | 1
    Basel 4 – Emerging from the mist? | 1 FINANCIAL SERVICES Basel 4 – Emerging from the mist? September 2013 kpmg.com 2 | Basel 4 – Emerging from the mist? Executive Summary Basel 4 – Emerging from the mist Even before Basel 3 is supporting higher minimum leverage of banks’ internal models (perhaps ratios and reduced reliance with greater complexity allowed only fully implemented, ‘Basel on models; in the assessment of Pillar 2 capital 4’ may be emerging from requirements). • A corresponding flurry of papers the mist. Developments from the Basel Committee that Second, requiring banks to meet a in recent months lay the look beyond Basel 3, including on higher minimum leverage ratio. A groundwork: the regulatory approach to banks’ minimum leverage ratio of substantially treatment of trading books, on above 3 percent would act more as a • Some countries are already the variability across banks of risk ‘front stop’ for Pillar 1 minimum capital beginning to impose requirements weights generated by banks’ internal requirements than the ‘back stop’ role it that go beyond Basel 3. The US and models, and on the balance between plays in Basel 3. Europe are requiring banks to meet risk sensitivity, simplicity and minimum capital ratios even after the Third, greater disclosure by banks. To comparability; and impact of severe stress; Switzerland, the extent that banks are allowed to the US and UK have set a minimum • For euro area banks, the prospective use complex models, this would require leverage ratio at above 3 percent; actions of the European Central banks to explain and justify why their others (Australia and UK) are insisting Bank (ECB) as supervisor, regulator risk weightings based on internal models that ‘Pillar 2’ capital add-ons are met and macro-prudential authority – the differed from the standardised approach through highest quality capital; and emergence of ‘Frankfurt 1’.
    [Show full text]
  • Ten Years After: Back to Business As Usual
    Ten Years After: Back to Business as Usual The Pit and the Pendulum – Post-Crisis Financial Regulation in Europe 15th September 2018 ‘Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it’ George Santayana Author: Christian M. Stiefmueller © Finance Watch 2018. The contents of this report may be freely used or reproduced without permission provided the original meaning and context are not altered in any way. Where third party copyright has been acknowledged, permission must be sought from the third party directly. For enquiries relating to this report, please email [email protected] Finance Watch has received funding from the European Union to implement its work programme. There is no implied endorsement by the EU or the European Commission of Finance Watch’s work, which remains the sole responsibility of Finance Watch. Table of contents Summary 5 Chronicle of a Death Foretold: The crisis of 2008 and its causes 7 Thanks to the banks: A lost decade for Europe 10 Monetary Policy: A Decade of No Interest (and its Legacy) 11 Credit growth: The return of debt 14 ‘Financial innovation’: Philosophers and quants 16 Derivatives markets: Still churning after all these years 18 Adolph and Rudolph: The challenges of bank structural reform 21 Bank capital: Blinded by science 23 Bank resolution: Don’t bank on it 26 Shadow banking: Those in darkness drop from sight 27 The regulatory response: A game of two halves 30 Misconduct: No time for remorse 32 Abbreviations and Glossary 34 Footnotes 37 Ten Years After: Back to Business as Usual Summary In his seminal 1842 short story, “The Pit and the Pendulum”, American novelist Edgar Allan Poe describes the plight of a prisoner of the Inquisition, strapped to a wooden frame in his cell, who is facing certain death from a razor-sharp pendulum suspended above him, which is swinging back and forth, slowly descending with each swing.
    [Show full text]
  • Will Better Regulation and Better Supervision Contribute to a More Stable Banking Sector? 1
    Will better regulation and better supervision contribute to a more stable banking sector? 1 Wim Boonstra and Bouke de Vries Economic Research Department, Rabobank Nederland Abstract In this paper we highlight the roles of banks in the economy, banking risks and developments in regulation and supervision of banks. We pay particular attention to systemic risks, ways to minimize tax payer risks and to determine preconditions for effective supervision. We also discuss the main policy responses to the crisis in the Dutch banking sector, of which many have their origin in international reforms. We conclude that they will increase stability, though certain provisos are in our view necessary. The main point we make is that it is important to strike the right balance between a preventive and a curative approach in the reforms, and between regulation and own banks measures in response to the crisis. We furthermore argue in favor of cross-sectoral approaches in regulation, integrated impact studies and more global coordination, as many financial institutions have multiple business lines and are active in different jurisdictions. This would also limit the risk of shifts to less regulated shadow banking sectors. 1. Introduction The Dutch banking sector’s structure and mode of operation changed significantly between 2007 and 2013. Within a timeframe of less than six years, two large financial institutions had to be nationalised (Fortis/ABN Amro and SNS Bank), a large bank-insurer (ING) was able to survive only with state aid, as was the insurance company Aegon, two small banks collapsed (DSB Bank and IceSave), another small bank (Friesland Bank) was saved from toppling over by being taken over by a large bank (Rabobank) and that same large bank was forced into an extensive settlement owing to the undesirable conduct of some of its employees.
    [Show full text]
  • Banking After Regulatory Reforms - Business As Usual?
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Quintana, Javier Arribas et al. Proceedings Banking After Regulatory Reforms - Business as Usual? SUERF Studies, No. 2014/3 Provided in Cooperation with: SUERF – The European Money and Finance Forum, Vienna Suggested Citation: Quintana, Javier Arribas et al. (2014) : Banking After Regulatory Reforms - Business as Usual?, SUERF Studies, No. 2014/3, ISBN 978-3-902109-74-3, SUERF - The European Money and Finance Forum, Vienna This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/163512 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative
    [Show full text]