Your email address will be used for Wildy’s marketing materials only. We will never give your email address to any third party.
Special Discounts for Pupils, Newly Called & Students
Browse Secondhand Online
While the pace of new rulemaking affecting banking groups has slowed somewhat in Europe and the United States in the past year, the debate about the future of global banking rages on, not least because implementation of the vast body of rules made since the financial crisis continues.
Questions about ‘too big to fail’ remain, but with gradually increasing realism among regulators, some governments and banks ask themselves about how this issue might best be managed in the long term. There is now greater recognition that painstaking recovery and resolution planning was not just an urgent post-crisis task but must remain a critical feature of banking supervision in perpetuity.
Return on equity continues to be a significant challenge in the banking sector, with signs of increasing shareholder pressure on some banks. This may add a further dimension to structural reform in addition to the existing regulatory one.
In some cases, particularly where activist investors are concerned, all involved would do well to remember that shareholder activism lay behind some of the more disastrous mergers and acquisitions in the banking sector before the financial crisis.
Governance of banking groups continues to be high on the agendas of many regulators around the world. A cynical bystander would, however, say that in a global bank with tens of thousands of employees worldwide, good governance structures will only ever play a limited role in reducing the risk of a calamity on, for example, a trading desk, and that good luck (or bad luck) is more likely to determine success or failure in global compliance.
That is surely too cynical a view in light of the significant strides that many banks have made to improve their governance and oversight in recent years.