The United States has given its financial regulators broad powers to wind down or restructure failing systemically significant institutions. The hope is to avoid another fiasco like the collapse of Lehman Brothers, which helped trigger financial industry chaos in 2008. Major European nations have signed onto the idea in theory. But making cross-border bank resolution work in practice is proving complicated.
One formidable challenge is ensuring financial market players don't panic. Investors everywhere will naturally scramble to distance themselves from a collapsing financial behemoth. Watchdogs have some powers to prevent traditional bank runs. But derivatives present a different obstacle. If swap counterparties fear liquidation won't treat them kindly, they may invoke their rights to terminate the contracts early. That would further undermine an already stressed bank.
To fix the problem, regulators have asked the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) to change its master agreements that govern global swaps. If the industry group folds in some language to force counterparties to hold tight for a few days before cashing in their contracts, then watchdogs would have more time to dismantle or recapitalise the bleeding bank.
Yet, investors might not be thrilled to lose that liberty. Portfolio managers have a fiduciary duty to their clients, which includes redeeming swaps as quickly as possible in dire circumstances. ISDA would have to overrule that concern.
If the trade association doesn't heed regulators, all is not necessarily lost. Another way to tackle the problem would be for all nations to pass laws that force counterparties to exercise restraint on swap redemption during resolution. But that would take years, and it would be hard to ensure rules remain consistent across borders.
That such a relatively small wrinkle could derail bank liquidation planning shows how far regulators still are from being able to wind down a big cross-border lender. If these sorts of technical tweaks still need implementation, then finalising tougher issues - like deciding on the best bail-in regime - seems far off.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
