2016年-FSB全球金融稳定委员会_Nordic_experience_of_cooperation_on_cross_31页_877kb

Summary of the Nordic Experience of Cooperation on Cross-Border Regulation and Crisis Resolution

Core Content

This report outlines the development of financial integration in the Nordic-Baltic region, focusing on the evolution of cross-border banking, regulatory cooperation, and crisis resolution mechanisms among Nordic and Baltic authorities. It highlights the unique characteristics of the Nordic banking system and the challenges arising from increased cross-border activities.

Main Points

1. Financial Integration in the Nordic-Baltic Area

• Early Integration: Before the late 1990s, financial integration in the Nordic region was limited.
• Banking Crisis: The early 1990s banking crisis in three of the four Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Sweden) was driven by financial liberalisation and a boom-bust cycle.
• Nordea Formation: The establishment of Nordea in 2001 marked a significant step in cross-border integration, with the merger of several national banks.
• Structure: Nordea operates with a subsidiary structure and is one of the largest banks in its host countries. It was designated as a Global Systemically Important Bank (G-SIB) in 2011.
• Cross-Border Activities: Other large Nordic banks have also expanded cross-border, though Nordea's market share is generally larger. The Nordic region is dominated by Nordic banks in terms of cross-border lending.
• EU and EEA Membership: Three of the four Nordic countries are EU members (Finland, Sweden, Denmark), with Finland in the euro area. Norway is not an EU member but is part of the EEA, hence part of the EU single market for financial services.

2. Nordic Experiences of Cross-Border Supervision and Regulation

• Supervisory Colleges: The Nordea College, established in 2001, is considered the first supervisory college in the EU. It facilitates cooperation among supervisors and includes both home and host authorities.
• Home-Host Framework: This framework outlines the division of responsibilities between home (consolidating) and host (local) supervisors. The home supervisor oversees the entire group, while the host supervisor focuses on local subsidiaries.
• Joint Decisions: Supervisory colleges make joint decisions on capital and liquidity requirements, as well as recovery plans, under the CRD IV and BRRD directives.
• Model Approvals: Joint model approvals for IRB models have been conducted under the lead of the home supervisor since 2006. These approvals are critical for ensuring consistency in regulatory capital calculations.
• Nordic Harmonisation: The Nordic Capital Adequacy Working Group (NCAWG) was formed to harmonise national options and reduce regulatory arbitrage. With EU/EEA initiatives, the need for specific Nordic harmonisation has decreased.

3. Crisis Resolution Experiences

• Nordic Central Bank MoU (2003): A Memorandum of Understanding was signed in 2003 to address burden sharing in crisis situations.
• 2008 Financial Crisis: The Nordic countries cooperated extensively during the 2008 crisis, leading to the formation of the Nordic-Baltic Stability Group (NBSG).
• Crisis Management Group Nordea (CMG Nordea): Established to manage crisis resolution for Nordea, this group plays a crucial role in coordinating responses to potential banking crises.

4. Lessons Learned and Remaining Challenges

• Pragmatic Solutions: The Nordic countries have generally found pragmatic solutions for cooperation and regulation.
• Diverging Interests: Some efforts to enhance cooperation have failed due to diverging national interests, particularly in crisis management.
• Challenges: Remaining challenges include the European Banking Union, systemically important branches, and the need for more effective crisis management and resolution mechanisms.

Key Information

• Nordic Banking Characteristics: High household debt, large share of residential mortgages, and relatively large banking sectors compared to EU averages.
• Interconnectedness: The Nordic banking systems are highly interconnected, leading to the inclusion of all four Nordic countries in the IMF's list of 29 jurisdictions with systemically important financial sectors in 2013.
• Regulatory Cooperation: The Nordic countries have developed a strong tradition of cooperation, including regular meetings, staff exchanges, and joint working groups.
• Legal Frameworks: The introduction of CRD IV and BRRD has necessitated more formal and legally binding cooperation mechanisms, moving beyond informal MoUs.
• Reciprocity and Risk Sharing: Reciprocity arrangements are essential for maintaining a level playing field and ensuring that crisis resolution is fair and effective.

Conclusion

The Nordic experience demonstrates the importance of close cooperation among financial authorities in managing cross-border banking integration and financial stability. While there have been successes in fostering cooperation and harmonisation, challenges remain, particularly in aligning national interests and ensuring effective crisis resolution mechanisms. The ongoing evolution of regulatory frameworks, such as Basel III and the European Banking Union, continues to shape the Nordic approach to financial stability.