Failing financial institutions of systemic importance differ from other businesses. Their collapse poses serious risk for the financial system and wider economy requiring a swift and vigorous action. In response, the Financial Stability Board has published principles for dealing with financial institution failures. Jurisdictions are implementing these principles to create a new global standard for the resolution of financial institutions. The Financial Stability Board supervises this process and peer reviews jurisdictions implementation progress. Among these jurisdictions are Hong Kong and Singapore which have reformed laws and introduced resolution mechanisms. The peer review reports form the basis of a critical assessment of bank resolution regimes in Hong Kong and Singapore. This chapter provides an overview of the competent authorities in both jurisdictions, focusing on preparatory measures and resolution tools, resolution funding concepts and bail-in powers.
For a better understanding of the shadow banking issue in Singapore and its financial landscape in general, we must start with the role of the banks. Banks are the key financial institutions and are placed at the top of the financial sector hierarchy in Singapore. Their prominent role results from two factors. First, banks are the most strictly regulated financial institutions, and Singapore complies with (and selectively surpasses) the latest Basel standards. These strict regulatory requirements for banks result in the benefit that a banking licence replaces the need for other financial licences. For example, s 99(1) of the Securities and Futures Act (SFA) provides that banks licensed under the Banking Act do not need a capital markets services licence. Once licensed as banks, these institutions are permitted to engage in the full range of financial services including the typical activities of deposit-taking, lending and payment services that generally define a bank. Also, banks are permitted to manage their customers’ wealth, offer typical investment activities and insurance brokerage.
Stephan W. Schill, Christian J. Tams and Rainer Hofmann
This chapter provides a critical introduction into the state of the art of historical approaches to international investment law. Reviewing the status quo, it traces the use of historical arguments in investor-state dispute settlement and provides an overview of the existing, historically informed scholarship in the field. The chapter then focuses on the blindspots in the historical analysis of international investment law and sketches out how a fuller and more reflective engagement with, and use of, the historical method could benefit the field. To illustrate the potential of historical approaches, the chapter then situates the different contributions to the present book. It concludes by suggesting that historical approaches to international investment law could not only enrich this specialized field of international law, but also stimulate, more generally, the interest of international legal historiography in international economic law and the economic foundations of international law.