Sweden’s Approach to Bank Resolution: Have We Learned the Right Lessons?
By Ajai Chopra
Resolving any financial crisis is no easy matter. Resolving the ongoing international crisis—with many institutions, countries, and regulators involved—is unusually challenging, both intellectually and in terms of practical policymaking.
Progress has been made thanks to the slew of measures adopted by global policymakers. But a stabilized patient is not a cured patient, particularly when stabilization largely reflects significant shifts of risk from the private financial sector to the public sector. And the early reappearance of practices thought to have played a part in fueling the crisis—sizeable bonuses, for example—is troubling.
Miguel Segoviano is Denmark Mission Chief and co-leader of the financial sector analytical working group of the IMF’s European Department. He has over 18 years of experience in the international public and private sectors in various countries, focusing on macroeconomic and financial stability policy and developing quantitative methodologies for assessments of financial stability, systemic and institutional risks and macro-financial linkages with a focus on the use of quantitative measures for policy-making. Miguel has worked at the IMF for 13 years and has been responsible for stress testing and quantitative systemic risk assessments in major Financial Sector Assessment Programs (FSAPs), including the U.S., U.K., Canada, Mexico, Denmark, and Switzerland. He has contributed to various IMF Global Financial Stability Reports (GFSRs), and has led technical cooperation and assistance projects with central banks in Germany, France, Italy, Norway, Sweden, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Korea, Israel, Ireland, Chile, and the European Central Bank.
