Summary
Situation Overview: A U.S. bank regulator signaled potential relaxation of resolution planning requirements for banks, while the Financial Stability Board (FSB) reiterated its support and focus on enhancing resolution planning capabilities.
What: There are differing perspectives between U.S. and international regulators on the future of resolution planning requirements.
Who: U.S. banks and the U.S. operations of foreign banks subject to Resolution Planning requirements.
When: Now.
In Depth
Comptroller of the Currency and FDIC Board Member Gould Signals Potential Additional Relaxation of Resolution Planning Requirements
In January 2026, Jonathan Gould, the Comptroller of the Currency and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) Board Member, shared his views on Covered Insured Depository Institution (CIDI) Plans and 165(d) Plans, questioning the value and legality of many requirements. In summary, he made the following points:
- There are legal and conceptual issues with requiring CIDI plans;
- CIDI Plans have created a significant “backdoor” through which the FDIC can influence the BAU activities and structures of CIDIs;
- While 165(d) Plans are statutorily mandated, associated guidance has in the past been enforced as binding, with a result of significant impact on firms; and
- The value and usability of these plans relative to the resources involved in them is questionable.
FSB Focuses on Resolution Operational Readiness
In contrast, in January 2026 the FSB, whose stated mandate is to “promote international financial stability”, published its annual Resolution Report for 2025. As in previous years, the Report emphasizes that effective resolution frameworks, supported by global collaboration, are essential to maintaining financial stability.
The Report highlights that the FSB is prioritizing the implementation and operationalization of existing resolution standards, focusing on funding in resolution and effective bail-in execution, particularly in a cross-border context. To facilitate this work, the FSB plans to conduct “peer reviews, practice-sharing and targeted workshops to drive consistent and effective operationalization across sectors and jurisdictions”. [1] It is unclear to what extent the FSB and associated Crisis Management Groups will request participation from regulated entities.
How Should Banks Subject to Resolution Planning Requirements Respond?
Despite the uncertainty in the U.S. regulatory environment, 165(d) and CIDI plans [2] are still required, and Banks will need to comply with these requirements as documented, pending any further changes in rules and/or guidance.
Patomak recommends assessing the aspects of Resolution Planning that have the highest value for your institution and your stakeholders, as well as the components which impact cross-border resolvability. For example, there are outcomes of Resolution Planning, such as legal entity rationalization, that can create capital and operational benefits. There are components of Resolution Planning, such as operational continuity, that practitioners have found useful in strengthening business continuity strategies. Finally, the discipline of resolution planning has helped to promote improved data capabilities, i.e., timeliness, completeness, and quality, which can positively impact almost all of the day-to-day running of a bank. These aspects, and others which you can self-identify, can continue to create value for your organization, and are likely to maintain their importance as U.S. requirements evolve.
[1] 2025 Resolution Report, p. 7.
[2] For the latest CIDI guidance, see FDIC Provides Update on IDI Resolution Planning for Large Banks | FDIC.gov.
[View source.]
