FantasticSearch

Resolvability dimensions When performing the resolvability assessment, resolution authorities and group-level resolution authorities shall, taking to account the undertaking nature, scale and complexity, examine the following dimensions:

1. Operational continuity (a) the extent to which all relevant internal and external, financial and operational interdependencies have been identified by reference to all relevant services, roles, including staff, and mapped to legal entities, critical functions, core business lines and related contractual arrangements;

(b) the extent to which adequate operational arrangements are in place to ensure the continuity of relevant services that are necessary for preserving critical functions, and the core business lines necessary for the effective implementation of the resolution action and any consequent restructuring, in particular by facilitating possible transfers of assets, rights or liabilities, roles and staff;

(c) the extent to which risks to operational continuity in resolution have been comprehensively assessed, including qualitative and quantitative information that allows to identify the criticality of relevant services, including the impact of interruption or discontinuance of relevant services in resolution and their substitutability;

(d) the extent to which risks to operational continuity have been effectively mitigated and the presence of measures to improve preparedness for resolution, including with regards to the enforcement of continuity arrangements with external third-party providers of relevant services;

2. Access to financial market infrastructures The extent to which undertakings or groups have established the processes and arrangements necessary to maintain access, ahead of, during and after resolution, to financial market infrastructures and to payment, clearing, settlement and custody services provided by intermediaries.

3. Separability (a) the extent to which undertakings or groups have identified, reduced and, where necessary, removed sources of undue complexity in their structure and information systems, which pose a risk to the implementation of the resolution action, in particular with the objective of facilitating the separation and transfer of critical functions and core business lines;

(b) the extent to which a transferee or purchaser are available for the undertaking’s portfolio or business;

4. Loss-absorption and recapitalisation capacity (a) the extent to which a loss-absorption and recapitalisation capacity exists and the assessment whether such capacity is sufficient for the implementation of the resolution plan, including the availability of any insurance guarantee schemes or financing arrangements and the credibility that the holder of loss-absorbing capacity will be able to absorb losses;

(b) the extent to which adequate arrangements exist to ensure the cross-border recognition and effectiveness of resolution actions;

(c) the extent to which adequate governance arrangements, internal processes and management information systems exist to support the operational execution of the write-down or conversion, including to support the transfer of portfolios;

5. Liquidity and funding in resolution (a) the extent to which the business model of the undertaking or of the group may give rise to liquidity needs in resolution;

(b) the extent to which processes and capabilities to (i) estimate the liquidity and funding needs for the implementation of the resolution strategy;

(ii) measure and report the liquidity position in resolution; and (iii) identify and mobilise available collateral exist and can be used to obtain funding during and after resolution.

6. Information systems and data requirements The extent to which undertakings or groups have in place adequate management information systems, valuation capabilities and technological infrastructure to provide the information necessary for (i) the development and maintenance of resolution plans;

(ii) the execution of a fair, prudent and realistic valuation; and (iii) the effective application of resolution actions, also under rapidly changing conditions.

7. Communication The extent to which undertakings or groups have in place communication plans to ensure timely, robust and consistent communication to relevant stakeholders, and to support the implementation of the resolution action, as well as governance arrangements to ensure an effective execution of these plans.

8. Governance The extent to which robust governance processes exist that facilitate the preparation as well as the implementation of the resolution action, including (i) a timely and accurate provision of relevant information on a regular and ad hoc basis;

(ii) effective oversight during resolution planning and in crisis; and (iii) efficient decision-making at the time of resolution.

9. Credibility and impact (a) the extent to which the resolution action meets the resolution objectives and is credible, including the evaluation of likely impacts on policy holder, creditors, counterparties, and employees;

(b) the extent to which the impact of the undertaking’s or group’s resolution on the real economy or financial stability can be adequately evaluated and contagion be contained, taking into account possible actions that third-country authorities may take;

(c) the extent to which any arrangements and means exist that could facilitate resolution in the cases of groups that have subsidiary undertakings established in different jurisdictions.