If you want to maintain confidence, you simply do not have the luxury of time. But even if you cannot hinder a crisis, addressing it as early as possible and with determination can at least limit its effects. So my second principle of effective crisis management can be summed up as acting swiftly. While this principle is easy to support, crisis management in practice is often characterised by the opposite: taking too little action, too late. Essentially, there are two main reasons for supervisory and other authorities to neglect taking sufficient action in time – they lack either the willingness to act or the ability to act – sometimes both. There are many reasons for supervisory and other authorities to not want to act. Pressure from the industry and politicians is one of the first that springs to mind. Sometimes – consciously or unconsciously – supervisory and other authorities also want to let banks gamble on turning themselves around. And banks and their shareholders are often more than willing to play along – they face a one way bet as they approach the brink of failure. But in the end, the longer you wait, the harder you fall. For that reason, I don’t have a high opinion of regulatory forbearance or other excuses for supervisory inaction. Ability to act may also be constrained. First and foremost, the ability to act is, of course, dependent upon the tools available.
During my years at the IMF, I have seen this pattern repeat itself – and it is not a pretty sight. In Europe, we face a particular and somewhat peculiar cooperation problem. This is sometimes described as the trilemma of banking supervision. A trilemma is similar to a tradeoff, and means that you want to pursue three objectives but you can only achieve two of them. One needs to be given up. The three objectives in this context include, first of all, effective banking supervision and crisis management, secondly, national sovereignty of supervision and crisis management; and, finally, an integrated European market and all the benefits coming from more competition. In the EU, we have chosen the latter two – economic integration and national sovereignty of supervision and crisis management. This national sovereignty is manifested in what is known as the home country principle, meaning that the supervisory authority in the country where a bank is domiciled takes complete responsibility for the supervision of its branches abroad. This home country principle is combined with economic integration and allowing banks to establish operations across Europe. In choosing these two objectives, the third objective – effective supervision and crisis management – has been forsaken. This is clearly manifested in Europe’s current approach towards supervising banks and managing crises. Economic integration and the EU’s pursuit of a single market for financial services have meant that some banks have expanded beyond the means of their home countries.