In banking, a Living Will is not a medical document. It is a resolution plan that explains how a large financial institution could fail in an orderly way without crashing the financial system, disrupting payments, or depending on taxpayer support. Understanding this term is essential for anyone studying banking regulation, systemic risk, treasury, crisis management, or financial stability.

1. Term Overview

• Official Term: Living Will
• Common Synonyms: Resolution plan, bank living will, orderly resolution plan
• Alternate Spellings / Variants: Living-Will

• Domain / Subdomain: Finance / Banking, Treasury, and Payments

• One-line definition:
  A Living Will is a formal plan showing how a financial institution can be resolved quickly and orderly if it enters severe distress or failure.

• Plain-English definition:
  It is a “failure playbook” for a large bank or financial group. It tells regulators and the firm how critical activities, payments, funding, and operations would continue or be wound down if the firm collapses.

• Why this term matters:
  A good Living Will helps reduce:

• panic in financial markets
• taxpayer-funded rescues
• disruption to payment systems
• contagion across banks and markets
• chaos caused by complex legal structures

Important: In finance and banking, a Living Will usually means a resolution plan. It is not the same as a personal medical advance directive or an estate-planning document.

2. Core Meaning

A Living Will exists because large financial institutions can be so complex that their failure can damage the entire economy. If a major bank cannot be wound down safely, governments may feel forced to rescue it. That creates the “too big to fail” problem.

What it is

A Living Will is a structured document and set of operational playbooks that describe:

• the firm’s legal entities
• critical operations and important business lines
• funding and liquidity sources
• intercompany dependencies
• payment, clearing, and settlement links
• governance in crisis
• the preferred resolution strategy

Why it exists

It exists to answer one practical question:

If this bank fails, how do we handle that failure without causing wider damage?

What problem it solves

It addresses several problems at once:

• Complexity: large groups may have hundreds of entities across countries
• Speed: crises unfold quickly; decisions may need to be made over a weekend
• Interconnectedness: a failed bank can affect payments, lending, derivatives, custody, and settlement
• Moral hazard: markets should not assume government rescue is guaranteed
• Operational continuity: payroll, card payments, clearing, and treasury operations must keep functioning where possible

Who uses it

A Living Will is used by:

• large banks and banking groups
• bank holding companies
• foreign banking organizations operating in major jurisdictions
• regulators and resolution authorities
• central banks
• treasury and liquidity teams
• legal, finance, risk, operations, and technology teams
• boards of directors and senior management

Where it appears in practice

You will see Living Wills in:

• prudential regulation
• bank supervision
• resolution planning
• treasury and liquidity management
• legal entity restructuring
• payment system resilience planning
• board governance and crisis simulations
• public and confidential regulatory disclosures in some jurisdictions

3. Detailed Definition

Formal definition

A Living Will is a plan prepared for regulators and internal decision-makers that explains how a financial institution could be resolved in an orderly manner under applicable insolvency, bankruptcy, or special resolution regimes.

Technical definition

Technically, a Living Will is a resolution planning framework that identifies:

• material legal entities
• critical operations
• core business lines
• financial and operational interdependencies
• governance triggers and escalation protocols
• valuation and information capabilities
• strategies for recapitalization, sale, transfer, bridge operations, or liquidation
• capital and liquidity positioning during resolution

Operational definition

Operationally, a Living Will is a crisis execution manual. It answers practical questions such as:

• Which entity owns the payment platform?
• Which subsidiary employs key staff?
• Which contracts must remain active on day one of resolution?
• Where is the usable liquidity?
• Can regulators separate a viable business from a failing one?
• How fast can management produce accurate legal-entity cash data?

Context-specific definitions

United States

In the U.S., “Living Will” is commonly used for certain resolution plans required for large financial institutions under post-crisis prudential frameworks. The exact filing population and expectations can change over time, so firms must verify current regulatory scope and filing rules.

European Union

In the EU, the same broad idea is usually described as resolution planning, often led by resolution authorities under the bank resolution framework. The term “living will” may be used informally, but “resolution plan” is more common in formal usage.

United Kingdom

In the UK, the concept appears through resolvability and resolution planning. Firms may not always use the phrase “living will” in the same way as in the U.S., but the objective is similar: make failure manageable.

Global usage

Internationally, the term points to a broader recovery and resolution planning discipline shaped by financial stability policy after the global financial crisis.

4. Etymology / Origin / Historical Background

Origin of the term

The phrase “living will” originally became familiar in personal and medical contexts, where it referred to instructions for decision-making if a person became unable to communicate. Banking borrowed the phrase metaphorically.

The idea in finance is similar in spirit:
before failure happens, write down what should happen if failure occurs.

Historical development

The modern banking use of Living Will grew after the 2008 global financial crisis, when major institutions proved difficult to unwind without extraordinary intervention.

How usage changed over time

Before the crisis:

• banks focused more on going-concern supervision
• failure planning for very large firms was less developed
• cross-border resolution coordination was weaker

After the crisis:

• regulators demanded formal failure planning
• “too big to fail” became a major policy issue
• legal entity mapping and operational separability became central topics
• firms began treating resolvability as an ongoing management discipline, not just a filing exercise

Important milestones

• 2008: Global financial crisis exposes disorderly failure risks
• 2010: Major U.S. post-crisis reform establishes formal resolution planning expectations for certain large firms
• 2011 onward: International financial stability bodies develop key resolution principles
• Mid-2010s onward: EU and UK resolution frameworks mature, including bail-in and loss-absorbing capacity concepts
• Later years: Focus expands from documentation to actual resolvability, data quality, liquidity in resolution, and operational continuity

5. Conceptual Breakdown

Component	Meaning	Role	Interaction with Other Components	Practical Importance
Legal entity structure	The group’s corporate and subsidiary map	Shows where assets, liabilities, staff, and licenses sit	Drives resolution strategy, capital location, and jurisdictional issues	If the structure is too complex, resolution becomes slow and risky
Critical operations	Functions whose disruption could harm the financial system or real economy	Must be preserved or transferred safely	Depend on services, funding, technology, and licenses	Includes payments, custody, clearing, and key banking services
Core business lines	Major revenue-generating business segments	Helps identify what is economically important and potentially saleable	Linked to entity structure and funding models	Useful for separability and valuation
Resolution strategy	The preferred path in failure	Guides execution decisions	Depends on group structure, debt, liquidity, and local laws	Common strategies include single-point-of-entry and multiple-point-of-entry
Capital and liquidity in resolution	Resources needed to stabilize or wind down entities	Supports continuity during crisis	Interacts with treasury, trapped liquidity, and internal debt	A plan fails if liquidity cannot reach the right entity at the right time
Operational continuity	Ability to keep systems, staff, premises, and services running	Keeps critical operations alive during resolution	Relies on contracts, shared services, tech, vendors, and governance	Without it, even a legally sound strategy can collapse operationally
Management information systems (MIS) and data	Timely, accurate firm data at legal-entity level	Supports decisions under stress	Needed for liquidity, valuation, communications, and regulatory actions	Authorities often focus heavily on whether data can be produced quickly
Governance and triggers	Who decides what, and when	Creates a chain of command in crisis	Connected to recovery indicators, board oversight, and escalation	Poor governance delays action and can worsen losses
Cross-border coordination	Alignment between home and host authorities	Reduces conflict between jurisdictions	Tied to entity structure, local regulation, and liquidity transferability	Critical for global banks with subsidiaries in many countries
Communications and stakeholder management	Messaging to regulators, markets, clients, and staff	Limits panic and confusion	Depends on data quality and resolution strategy	Poor communication can trigger runs or operational disruption

6. Related Terms and Distinctions

Related Term	Relationship to Main Term	Key Difference	Common Confusion
Resolution Plan	Often effectively the same concept	“Resolution plan” is the more formal regulatory term in many jurisdictions	People may think a Living Will is something different when it is often just another label
Recovery Plan	Related but earlier-stage tool	Recovery is about saving the firm before failure; resolution is about handling failure after recovery no longer works	Many learners wrongly treat recovery and resolution as identical
Contingency Funding Plan	Supports liquidity stress management	Focuses on funding stress in a going concern; not a full failure-resolution strategy	Treasury teams may overestimate its coverage
Bankruptcy Plan	Related insolvency pathway	Bankruptcy is one legal route; Living Wills often prepare for broader resolution execution	Not all bank failures are resolved through ordinary bankruptcy alone
Bail-in	A resolution tool	Bail-in writes down or converts liabilities; a Living Will explains how and where such tools might fit	Bail-in is a tool, not the whole plan
Bailout	Policy outcome to avoid	A Living Will is designed to reduce the need for public rescue	Some think the plan guarantees no public support ever; that is too absolute
Wind-down Plan	Similar for a specific business or entity	Wind-down may cover an individual unit or product; a Living Will covers the wider group failure strategy	A narrow wind-down plan is not a full group resolution plan
TLAC / MREL	Resource requirements tied to resolution	They are loss-absorbing capacity measures, not the plan itself	People often confuse required debt buffers with the Living Will document
Orderly Liquidation Authority or special resolution regime	Legal framework for resolution	The authority or regime is the legal mechanism; the Living Will is the planning document	Plan and legal power are not the same
Testamentary will / medical living will	Unrelated everyday meanings	Personal legal and medical documents are not banking resolution plans	This is the most common non-financial confusion

7. Where It Is Used

Banking and lending

This is the main context. Living Wills are most relevant for:

• large commercial banks
• universal banks
• bank holding companies
• systemically important institutions
• cross-border banking groups

Treasury and liquidity management

Treasury teams use Living Will analysis to understand:

• where liquidity sits
• what liquidity is actually usable
• whether funds can move across entities and borders
• how collateral, payment flows, and intragroup funding behave in resolution

Payments, clearing, and settlement

Living Wills are highly relevant where institutions participate in:

• payment systems
• clearing houses
• securities settlement systems
• correspondent banking networks
• card and transaction processing

A bank can fail financially, but if its payment operations stop suddenly, the disruption can spread widely.

Policy and regulation

This is one of the most important policy areas in post-crisis banking. It connects to:

• systemic risk regulation
• prudential supervision
• macroprudential policy
• financial stability policy
• crisis management frameworks

Business operations

Within a firm, a Living Will touches:

• operations
• technology
• legal
• finance
• HR
• vendor management
• treasury
• risk management

Investor and market analysis

Investors and analysts use public information and indirect signals from resolution planning to assess:

• complexity
• regulatory risk
• capital structure
• bail-in exposure
• governance quality
• franchise separability

Reporting and disclosures

Some firms publish public sections or disclosures related to their resolution planning. These are typically less detailed than confidential regulatory submissions but still useful for understanding structure and strategy.

Accounting

Living Will is not primarily an accounting term. However, accounting data matter because resolution planning needs:

• legal-entity balance sheets
• asset valuations
• intercompany positions
• cash flow reporting
• reliable financial reporting under stress

Economics and research

Researchers use Living Wills to study:

• too-big-to-fail risk
• market discipline
• systemic contagion
• resolution costs
• financial stability policy effectiveness

8. Use Cases

1. Regulatory submission by a large banking group

• Who is using it: A large bank holding company
• Objective: Meet regulatory resolution-planning requirements
• How the term is applied: The firm prepares a structured Living Will covering legal entities, critical operations, and preferred resolution strategy
• Expected outcome: Regulators can assess whether the bank is resolvable
• Risks / limitations: The filing may become a documentation exercise if not tied to real operational readiness

2. Treasury planning for liquidity in resolution

• Who is using it: Group treasury and liquidity risk teams
• Objective: Ensure liquidity is available where needed during stress and failure
• How the term is applied: Treasury models usable liquidity by legal entity and jurisdiction and identifies trapped cash risks
• Expected outcome: Better pre-positioning of resources and more credible resolution execution
• Risks / limitations: Internal liquidity may not be transferable in real stress conditions

3. Payment continuity planning

• Who is using it: Operations, payments, and technology teams
• Objective: Keep critical payment and transaction services running during resolution
• How the term is applied: The Living Will maps payment flows, service dependencies, and market infrastructure access
• Expected outcome: Reduced risk of payment gridlock and client disruption
• Risks / limitations: Third-party dependencies and legal stays can still create disruptions

4. Legal entity simplification after a merger

• Who is using it: Strategy, legal, finance, and regulatory affairs teams
• Objective: Reduce complexity and improve resolvability
• How the term is applied: The group reviews redundant entities, overlapping licenses, and intragroup service chains highlighted by the Living Will
• Expected outcome: Simpler structure, lower execution risk, clearer governance
• Risks / limitations: Simplification can be expensive and may trigger tax, legal, or operational consequences

5. Board-level crisis governance design

• Who is using it: Board members and senior management
• Objective: Clarify who makes decisions during distress and failure
• How the term is applied: The Living Will defines triggers, escalation points, and decision authorities
• Expected outcome: Faster action under stress, less confusion, stronger accountability
• Risks / limitations: A plan on paper may fail if leaders have not rehearsed it

6. Investor assessment of bank complexity

• Who is using it: Equity analysts, credit analysts, and bond investors
• Objective: Understand downside risk in failure scenarios
• How the term is applied: The analyst reviews public disclosures, capital structure, and resolution strategy implications
• Expected outcome: Better pricing of bail-in debt, equity risk, and structural subordination
• Risks / limitations: Public information may be incomplete or too high-level

9. Real-World Scenarios

A. Beginner Scenario

• Background: A student hears that a bank must file a “living will.”
• Problem: The student thinks it means an estate-planning document.
• Application of the term: The instructor explains that in banking, a Living Will is a failure-resolution plan for a financial institution.
• Decision taken: The student separates the banking meaning from the medical/legal personal meaning.
• Result: The student can now correctly discuss bank regulation and systemic risk.
• Lesson learned: Always identify the domain before interpreting the term.

B. Business Scenario

• Background: A mid-sized banking group expands into payments and securities services.
• Problem: Critical client services are spread across many subsidiaries with unclear service contracts.
• Application of the term: The group uses its Living Will work to map legal entities, systems, staffing, and contracts supporting those services.
• Decision taken: Management centralizes some operations, updates intragroup service agreements, and identifies critical entities for priority support.
• Result: The group improves operational continuity and reduces failure-management complexity.
• Lesson learned: Living Will work often reveals hidden operational weaknesses before a crisis occurs.

C. Investor / Market Scenario

• Background: A credit analyst evaluates a large bank’s holding company debt.
• Problem: The analyst wants to know whether losses are likely to be absorbed at the parent or spread chaotically through subsidiaries.
• Application of the term: The analyst studies the public resolution strategy, legal structure, and location of loss-absorbing debt.
• Decision taken: The analyst revises expected recovery assumptions and re-prices risk.
• Result: The bond valuation changes because the resolution path appears clearer and more credible.
• Lesson learned: Living Wills influence market perceptions of bail-in risk and structural subordination.

D. Policy / Government / Regulatory Scenario

• Background: A regulator reviews a global bank’s Living Will.
• Problem: The regulator finds weak data capabilities and no clear way to keep payment operations running if the parent fails.
• Application of the term: The Living Will review identifies deficiencies in liquidity mapping, governance, and service continuity.
• Decision taken: The regulator requires remediation, improved playbooks, and clearer legal arrangements.
• Result: The bank invests in data infrastructure and revises its resolution strategy.
• Lesson learned: Resolution planning is not a one-time filing; it is an ongoing supervisory process.

E. Advanced Professional Scenario

• Background: A global banking group conducts a weekend resolution simulation.
• Problem: During the exercise, the firm cannot produce entity-level cash positions quickly enough, and key vendors ask whether contracts remain enforceable after parent distress.
• Application of the term: The Living Will playbook is used to test governance triggers, service continuity arrangements, and communication templates.
• Decision taken: The firm redesigns data reporting, strengthens service contracts, and increases pre-positioned liquidity at critical subsidiaries.
• Result: The revised plan becomes more executable under severe time pressure.
• Lesson learned: The credibility of a Living Will depends on execution capability, not just document quality.

10. Worked Examples

Simple conceptual example

Suppose a bank group has:

• one parent holding company
• one retail bank subsidiary
• one broker-dealer
• one shared technology and operations company

The Living Will asks:

1. Which entities are essential?
2. Which business lines are critical?
3. Can the group be stabilized through the parent, or must local entities be resolved separately?
4. Can staff, systems, and payment operations continue over the first few days of resolution?

If the group’s capital and debt are concentrated at the parent and operating subsidiaries are heavily interconnected, a single-point-of-entry approach may be preferred.

Practical business example

A bank processes payroll and supplier payments for thousands of corporate clients.

• The payments engine is owned by a technology affiliate.
• Staff are employed by a service company.
• The customer contracts sit in the banking subsidiary.
• Liquidity is managed centrally by group treasury.

The Living Will identifies a key risk:
if the parent fails and intercompany contracts are interrupted, the payment service could stop even if the bank subsidiary is still open.

Practical fix:

• strengthen service agreements
• document continuity rights
• identify critical staff
• ensure access to systems and funding at the operating entity level

Numerical example: simplified resolution liquidity gap

A bank estimates the following for the first resolution window:

• Projected stressed outflows: 24 billion
• Operational continuity cash needs: 5 billion
• Trapped liquidity buffer: 4 billion
• Usable liquid resources: 26 billion

Step 1: Set up the planning metric

Resolution Liquidity Gap = Stressed Outflows + Operational Continuity Needs + Trapped Liquidity Buffer – Usable Liquid Resources

Step 2: Insert values

Resolution Liquidity Gap = 24 + 5 + 4 – 26

Step 3: Calculate

Resolution Liquidity Gap = 7 billion

Interpretation

The firm has a 7 billion gap in resources needed for an orderly resolution window.

Possible responses

• pre-position more liquidity in critical entities
• reduce reliance on intragroup transfers
• simplify payment flows
• reduce trapped liquidity risk
• improve collateral mobilization

Advanced example: choosing between SPOE and MPOE

Assume a banking group has these features:

Factor	Observation
Treasury	Highly centralized
Shared services	Centralized across the group
Parent debt	Large and structurally available
Foreign subsidiaries	Important but not highly self-sufficient
Host-country restrictions	Moderate

Analysis:
These features often support Single Point of Entry (SPOE) because losses can be absorbed at the parent while critical subsidiaries continue operating.

Now change the facts:

Factor	Observation
Treasury	Mostly local
Shared services	Largely regional
Parent debt	Limited
Foreign subsidiaries	Strongly capitalized and self-contained
Host-country restrictions	High

Analysis:
These conditions may support Multiple Point of Entry (MPOE) or a more regional resolution strategy.

11. Formula / Model / Methodology

A Living Will does not have one universal formula like EPS, NPV, or ROE. It is mainly a planning framework. Still, firms often use internal analytical models to support resolution planning.

Model 1: Resolution Liquidity Gap

Formula name: Resolution Liquidity Gap (planning metric)

Formula:

RLG = SO + OC + TLB - ULR

Where:

• RLG = Resolution Liquidity Gap
• SO = projected stressed outflows during the resolution window
• OC = operational continuity cash needs
• TLB = trapped liquidity buffer or transferability restriction buffer
• ULR = usable liquid resources immediately available to the relevant entities

Meaning of each variable

• Stressed outflows: deposit runoff, margin calls, collateral demands, maturing obligations
• Operational continuity needs: payroll, technology, premises, critical vendors, payment operations
• Trapped liquidity buffer: cash or assets that may not be freely movable across entities or borders
• Usable liquid resources: cash and near-cash resources actually available under stress

Interpretation

• RLG > 0 means the firm has a funding shortfall in resolution
• RLG = 0 means the plan is balanced on this simple measure
• RLG < 0 means resources exceed estimated need

Sample calculation

Assume:

• SO = 18
• OC = 6
• TLB = 4
• ULR = 20

Then:

RLG = 18 + 6 + 4 - 20 = 8

So the firm faces an 8-unit liquidity gap.

Common mistakes

• counting all HQLA as usable without testing transferability
• ignoring ring-fencing risk
• assuming intragroup funding remains available automatically
• underestimating operational continuity spending
• double-counting the same liquidity in multiple entities

Limitations

This is a simplified internal planning metric. It is not a universal legal or regulatory formula.

---

Model 2: Recapitalization Need

Formula name: Recapitalization Need (planning metric)

Formula:

RN = max(0, TC - AC + EB)

Where:

• RN = recapitalization need
• TC = target capital required after resolution
• AC = available capital after losses are absorbed
• EB = execution buffer for uncertainty

Interpretation

This estimate helps determine how much capital support or loss absorption may be needed to keep critical entities viable during or after resolution.

Sample calculation

Assume:

• TC = 15
• AC = 11
• EB = 2

Then:

RN = max(0, 15 - 11 + 2) = 6

The estimated recapitalization need is 6 units.

Common mistakes

• confusing book capital with regulatory capital
• ignoring losses that materialize only in resolution
• excluding valuation uncertainty
• assuming parent support is legally transferable

Limitations

Real recapitalization analysis is much more complex and depends on regulatory standards, valuation, legal hierarchy, and the chosen resolution strategy.

---

Model 3: Criticality Score

Formula name: Criticality Score (internal prioritization model)

Formula:

CS = SI × TS × SG

Where:

• CS = Criticality Score
• SI = systemic impact score
• TS = time sensitivity score
• SG = substitutability gap score

Each factor may be scored, for example, from 1 to 5.

Interpretation

• higher score = more critical function
• lower score = less critical in a resolution context

Sample calculation

Suppose a wholesale payment service is scored as:

• SI = 5
• TS = 5
• SG = 4

Then:

CS = 5 × 5 × 4 = 100

A back-office marketing support function might score:

• SI = 1
• TS = 2
• SG = 1

Then:

CS = 1 × 2 × 1 = 2

The payment service deserves far more attention in the Living Will.

Common mistakes

• scoring based only on revenue, not systemic importance
• ignoring customer harm and market dependence
• treating qualitative judgments as if they were perfectly precise

Limitations

This is an internal decision tool, not a universal supervisory formula.

12. Algorithms / Analytical Patterns / Decision Logic

1. SPOE vs MPOE decision framework

What it is:
A structured way to decide whether resolution should occur primarily at the parent level or at multiple local entry points.

Why it matters:
The wrong strategy can fail operationally or legally.

When to use it:
For groups with multiple subsidiaries, especially cross-border structures.

Limitations:
Legal and political realities may override the preferred theoretical structure.

Typical decision logic:

• If debt is concentrated at the parent, services are centralized, and subsidiaries are operationally dependent, SPOE may be more suitable.
• If major subsidiaries are self-contained and host regulators require local protection, MPOE may be more suitable.

2. Critical operation identification matrix

What it is:
A ranking process for functions such as payments, custody, deposit access, clearing, or settlement.

Why it matters:
Not every business activity must be preserved. Critical ones must be prioritized.

When to use it:
During scoping, business mapping, and recovery-resolution integration.

Limitations:
Criticality can change with market conditions.

3. Service dependency mapping

What it is:
A map showing which entities, teams, systems, vendors, and contracts support each critical operation.

Why it matters:
A business may appear resolvable financially but fail operationally if a service company or technology platform collapses.

When to use it:
For shared service models, centralized technology, and outsourced activities.

Limitations:
Dependency maps quickly become outdated if not maintained.

4. Legal entity rationalization screening

What it is:
A review to identify redundant or overly complex subsidiaries and booking chains.

Why it matters:
Complexity is one of the biggest barriers to orderly resolution.

When to use it:
Post-merger integration, strategic restructuring, or regulatory remediation.

Limitations:
Simplification can conflict with tax, business, or local licensing objectives.

5. Resolution weekend playbook logic

What it is:
An execution sequence for the first hours and days of failure.

Why it matters:
In practice, authorities and management need timed actions, not abstract ideas.

When to use it:
Simulation exercises and operational testing.

Limitations:
Real crises often differ from playbook assumptions.

13. Regulatory / Government / Policy Context

United States

The U.S. is one of the jurisdictions where the term Living Will is most widely used in formal banking regulation.

Relevant features commonly include:

• resolution planning expectations for certain large and systemically important firms
• supervisory involvement by banking regulators
• separate resolution planning concepts for some insured depository institutions
• focus on how a firm could be resolved under applicable insolvency or resolution regimes
• public policy aim of reducing too-big-to-fail and protecting financial stability

Key practical points:

• scope and filing cycles can change over time
• firms should verify current rules, categories, and deadlines
• public and confidential sections may differ significantly
• failure strategies may interact with bankruptcy law and special resolution powers

European Union

In the EU, the language is often resolution plan rather than Living Will.

Common features:

• resolution authorities prepare or require extensive planning inputs
• banks may also prepare recovery plans under separate but related prudential frameworks
• the framework strongly emphasizes resolvability, loss absorption, and continuity of critical functions
• MREL is a major element in making a resolution strategy credible

Practical point:
In the EU, a bank may discuss “resolution planning” without using the phrase “living will,” even though the core concept is similar.

United Kingdom

In the UK, the concept is tied to:

• bank resolvability
• resolution planning
• continuity of critical functions
• operational readiness for resolution
• loss-absorbing capacity expectations

The UK approach places strong emphasis on whether resolution can actually be executed, not just described.

India

In India, the exact phrase Living Will is less common in mainstream domestic banking discussion than in the U.S. However, the underlying issues are very relevant:

• orderly failure of financial institutions
• financial stability
• depositor protection
• resolution frameworks
• payment system continuity
• prudential oversight

Readers should verify the current position under:

• central bank guidance
• financial sector resolution frameworks
• deposit insurance arrangements
• insolvency and company law where relevant
• any institution-specific recovery or resolution