Abstract
While international policy makers are making good progress on the important work of global resolution mechanism and the preparation of recovery and resolution plans, a growing number of supervisors, home as well as hosts, are resorting to territorial approaches. Higher capital ratios, dividend restrictions, restrictions on liquidity flows and even forced subsidiarisation are gaining renewed popularity. Their objective is to protect the interests of the domestic stakeholders of a foreign bank and to limit the effects of cross border contagion. This type of “ring-fencing” comes with a negative connotation as it comes at a cost for banks and the efficiency of the overall global financial system. But why do prudential supervisors ring-fence and what makes them more likely to ring-fence? And do all forms of ring-fencing really deserve this bad reputation? What are the risks these measures are addressing and which instruments have been used? Finally, what are the implications of ring-fencing for the banking group, financial stability in the home and host country, as well as global financial stability?
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
