The decision to pursue a commercial transaction (the acquisition by UBS) instead of a formal resolution (which would likely have involved bail-in) raised questions about the consistent application of the international resolution framework. The framework is designed to provide a set of tools and principles for managing bank failures, but the Credit Suisse case showed that national authorities may choose alternative approaches based on specific circumstances and perceived risks to financial stability, potentially leading to inconsistencies in implementation.

A is incorrect. Significant public sector support, including liquidity backstops and guarantees from the Swiss government, was crucial in facilitating the transaction. The government’s role was essential to making the deal viable and preventing further market turmoil.

C is incorrect. The commercial transaction meant a full bail-in was not implemented. Therefore, the effectiveness of bail-in in this specific situation was not directly tested or demonstrated.

D is incorrect. While the resolution required coordination, it was primarily driven by Swiss authorities focusing on domestic stability. The approach did not notably strengthen broader international cooperation.