Bank structural reform: too big to fail, too big to save and too complex to manage, supervise and resolve?
Mayer Brown Legal Update
In a paper that will be published as a separate chapter in Matthias Haentjens & Bob Wessels (eds.), Research Handbook on Crisis Management in the Banking Sector Alexandria Carr compares the different approaches to bank structural reform in the UK, US, EU, Belgium, France and Germany. She queries which approach, if any, is able to strike the required balance between the costs and benefits of separating retail banking services and taxpayers from what have been perceived as the risks arising from wholesale and investment banking. She asks whether the forthcoming EU legislation is necessary given the measures that other jurisdictions have already taken and the large amount of regulatory measures that have been adopted in Europe over the last 5 years. She also questions whether the possibility of duplicative and conflicting requirements could increase the cost of banking and bank lending, increase the possibility of distortions of capital movements and investment decisions, make the structure and operation of cross-border banks more complex and increase fragmentation thus impacting negatively on the real economy and adversely affecting the very people bank structural reform is designed to protect.