EBA欧洲银行-CP41_CECA_4页_153kb

CECA's Contribution to CEBS Consultation Paper 41

Core Content

CECA, the Spanish Confederation of Savings Banks, submitted a position paper in response to the CEBS Draft Guidelines on Revised Article 3 of Directive 2006/48/EC. The paper outlines CECA's views on the applicability of the guidelines to Institutional Protection Schemes (IPS) in Spain, emphasizing the unique characteristics of Spanish Cajas de Ahorros and their role in the financial system.

Key Information

• CECA Overview:
  CECA was established in 1928 to represent the Spanish Savings Banks Sector, which consists of 45 institutions. These banks hold significant assets, with €1,269 billion in total assets, 24,985 branches, and 134,867 employees as of 2008.
• Legal Status:
  Spanish Cajas are credit institutions with private enterprise status. They are independent and compete directly with other financial institutions.
• Main Objectives:
  Cajas aim to provide universal financial services, ensure economic efficiency, promote competition and regional development, and contribute to welfare through their "Obra Social" scheme.
• Applicability of Revised Article 3:
  CECA believes the guidelines should be further developed, particularly regarding their application to IPS in Spain and other countries with similar structures.

Main Points and Comments

A. Clarification of "Permanently affiliated to a central body"

CECA suggests that the definition of "permanently affiliated" needs to be more precise. Key questions raised include:

• Should the contractual agreement specify a minimum number of years for permanence?
• Is a fixed duration sufficient, or should supervisors have the authority to block exits based on solvency or liquidity concerns?
• Should specific penalties be imposed for exits, or are the organizational costs (e.g., IT systems, treasury functions) enough to discourage them?

B. Clarification of "Commitments/Guarantees required"

CECA emphasizes the need for clarity on the level of commitment and guarantees required for compliance with Article 3. Specifically:

• Should guarantees cover 100% of capital and profits, or can they be limited to a certain percentage?
• What is the minimum percentage considered adequate?
• If there is a limit, would it still be acceptable if the commitment covers 100% of the excess above solvency or liquidity ratios?

C. Clarification of the "relationship between requirements and exemptions"

CECA agrees that compliance with Article 3 (2) requires adherence to Article 3 (1). This ensures that affiliated institutions meet both the requirements and the exemptions set forth in the directive.

D. Clarification of the interpretation of "consolidated accounts"

CECA supports the prudential interpretation of "consolidated accounts," which aligns with the risk-based approach of financial regulation.

E. Clarification of "instructions issued by the management of the central body"

CECA finds the minimum coverage requirements in the guidelines to be exhaustive but consistent with the exemptions granted under Article 3. Therefore, they do not have significant comments on this aspect.

F. Clarification of the use of the EU Passport

CECA disagrees with the CEBS interpretation of the EU Passport. They argue that an affiliated institution authorized as a credit institution in an EU country should be allowed to operate in other EU countries, provided that it meets the requirements of Article 24 of Directive 2006/48/EC.

Conclusion

CECA highlights the importance of clarifying the application of Revised Article 3 to IPS, especially in the context of Spanish Cajas. They stress the need for a balanced regulatory framework that supports the unique structure and objectives of these institutions while ensuring financial stability and competition.