Developments in the value of implicit guarantees for bank debt: The role of resolution regimes and practices.

High values of implicit guarantees for bank debt can be taken as signalling the market's expectation that public authorities will rescue the institution in question in times of severe financial distress. By the same token, declines in the measure would suggest a drop in the perceived likelihood of such a bailout, perhaps reflecting the availability of more effective failure resolution tools (although they could also reflect other factors such an improvement in the asset quality of banks). The observed decline in the value of implicit guarantees over the past few years is at least consistent with the view that current efforts to establish more effective resolution regimes have been credible. The difficulty with this interpretation is that, as shown in previous CMF work, observed declines in the value of implicit guarantees tend primarily to reflect declining credit strength of the sovereign. The present report suggests, however, that the recently observed reduction in the value of implicit guarantees is in some cases beyond what would be expected on the basis of declining credit strength of the sovereign alone. Rather, part of the drop in value reflects the effects of changes in resolution regimes and related practices. In particular, holders of unsecured bank debt in some countries have actually incurred losses, although these events have tended to be rare and have occurred typically in the context of the failures of rather small banks. And where such losses occurred, however, there is clear evidence of a decline in implicit bank debt guarantees, especially but not exclusively in the case of smaller banks. In fact, in countries where legal changes were made to establish more effective resolution regimes and where, subsequently, actual failure resolutions involved losses of the part of at least some holders of unsecured bank debt, noticeable declines in the value of implicit guarantees were observed. Such cases remain isolated, however, among other things because there is the perception that no first-mover advantage exists from being tougher on creditors than other jurisdictions. Such course of action would put domestic banks at a finding disadvantage compared to international peers from jurisdictions where no such stance was adopted. This situation puts a premium on internationally co-ordinated efforts to reign in implicit guarantees, including those pursued within the European Union to develop an effective cross-border bank failure resolution framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]