Unable to Reach Deal, Europe Plans New Talks on Bank Rescues

June 21, 2013

Unable to Reach Deal, Europe Plans New Talks on Bank Rescues

By JAMES KANTER

LUXEMBOURG — European Union finance ministers haggled early into Saturday morning over rules to lessen the chances that taxpayers will bear the burden if banks collapse, but they failed to reach a deal.

“We ran out of time,” Michael Noonan, the Irish finance minister, told reporters as he left the meeting here. “There are still core issues outstanding, so we’ll need a full meeting next week, and there’s no guarantee it will reach conclusion.”Diplomats said the next attempt to reach a deal was scheduled for Wednesday — a day before the leaders of the European Union’s 27 member states gather for a summit Brussels, their last scheduled meeting before the summer. The leaders had been expected to endorse the finance ministers’ decision.

The failure to reach a deal could further unsettle investors who were already jittery about the lingering recession in the euro zone, turbulence on global markets, renewed political instability in Greece, and hints that Cypriot leaders were balking at their bailout agreement.

The marathon effort, involving 18 hours of talks beginning Friday morning, was aimed at breaking the so-called doom loop, in which struggling governments take their states deeper into debt to save their banking systems, only to face sky-high sovereign borrowing costs.

The rules would specify the order in which investors and creditors have to absorb losses so taxpayers do not have to bear the burden.

A deal could also help prevent a recurrence of the chaos that ensued during a bailout for Cyprus in March, when governments and international lenders argued over how to impose losses on investors in the country’s troubled banks.

The tools would become important building blocks in the future for a possible banking union, which includes a single supervisor under the European Central Bank overseeing about 150 of the bloc’s largest lenders. It is supposed to go into force in the middle of next year.

A day earlier, as part of the effort to address the banking issue, the 17 ministers from the euro area agreed to allow a rescue fund, the European Stability Mechanism, or E.S.M., to pump money directly into failing banks during the second half of next year.

But on the second day of talks, as ministers from the 10 remaining non-euro countries in the European Union joined the meeting, there was a deadlock over how to stop disorderly bank bailouts from turning into national fiascos.

One of the most sensitive issues was a divide between countries using the euro, and those remaining outside the single currency, was where losses should fall when banks fail, said Mr. Noonan. “Those countries which aren’t in the euro need greater flexibility because they haven’t access” to the shared rescue fund.

France and Germany, which are both members of the euro group of countries, were also divided on that issue. France sought more leeway to access the shared European mechanism while Germany resisted, said diplomats who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The German stance, which was shared by the Dutch, underlined how some northern European countries want to ensure that bank bailouts remain a national responsibility as much as possible, and how they remain determined to resist creating a lender of last resort that could expose them to losses incurred by other parts of the bloc.

For much of the day, ministers were divided over how, and whether, to allow countries discretion to protect certain classes of creditors.

The worry among some countries like Britain was that automatic losses for some creditors could set off fears of losses at other institutions, which could start bank runs. But countries like Spain wanted to ensure that bank investors do not flee to more prosperous countries like Germany, where mechanisms for resolving bank problems might be better capitalized and could be used to shield creditors from losses.

A proposal put forward by the Irish delegation during the negotiations would have given countries the flexibility to choose where losses would fall, as long as 8 percent of a failing bank’s total liabilities were wiped out first.

But that proposal failed to gain sufficient traction. Sweden protested that the figure was too high. The Dutch and the Germans said the Irish figure was too low, and they complained it still could induce risky behavior if bankers were overly confident of relying on mechanisms like national bailout funds to come to their rescue.