2010年-ECB欧洲央行_Recent_developments_in_supervisory_structures_in_the_EU_Member_States_2007-10_24页_451kb

Summary of Recent Developments in Supervisory Structures in EU Member States (2007-10)

Core Content

The financial crisis of 2007-10 prompted significant changes in financial supervisory structures across EU Member States. These changes reflect both the need to enhance the effectiveness of financial supervision and the increasing role of national central banks (NCBs) in overseeing financial stability. The reforms are aligned with the De Larosière Report and include the establishment of new EU-level institutions and the evolution of national supervisory models.

Main Institutional Arrangements

EU-Level Reforms

• The European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) was established to oversee macroprudential supervision of the EU financial system, with the ECB providing secretariat support.
• The European System of Financial Supervisors includes three new European Supervisory Agencies for banking, securities, and insurance, replacing the previous level 3 committees.
• These reforms were agreed upon by EU Member States and approved by the European Parliament.

National-Level Reforms

• Sectoral model: Still in use in six countries (Greece, Spain, Cyprus, Lithuania, Slovenia, and Romania), with some variations in Bulgaria and Luxembourg.
• Twin peaks model: Adopted in France, and planned for Belgium, Portugal, and the UK. In this model, prudential supervision is handled by the central bank, while conduct of business regulation is managed by a separate authority.
• Single supervisor model: Dominant in 15 countries, including Germany, Ireland, and the UK. Some of these countries are moving towards the twin peaks model.

Key Developments

Enhancing Specific Elements of Supervisory Frameworks

• Austria and Germany: Clarified the roles and responsibilities between NCBs and supervisory authorities.
• Finland: Established a new authority that operates in conjunction with the central bank and oversees the entire financial system.
• Luxembourg: Expanded the central bank's oversight to include market liquidity and payment systems.
• United Kingdom: Introduced a Special Resolution Regime to handle failing banks and building societies, protecting depositors and financial stability.

Wide-Ranging Institutional Changes (2009 onwards)

• Belgium: Planned to adopt the twin peaks model, with the NCB (NBB) taking over prudential supervision.
• France: Established the Autorité de contrôle prudential (ACP), integrated with the Banque de France, to oversee banking, payment, and investment services, as well as the insurance sector.
• Germany: Concentrated banking supervision under the Deutsche Bundesbank.
• Ireland: Re-integrated financial regulation into a unitary central bank.
• Lithuania: Proposed merging three sectoral authorities into one under the central bank.
• Portugal: Launched a public hearing to establish the twin peaks model.
• Greece: Planned to entrust the Bank of Greece with supervision of the private insurance sector.
• United Kingdom: Planning to create a Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) and a Consumer Protection and Markets Authority (CPMA), with the PRA being a subsidiary of the Bank of England.

Macroprudential Supervision Implementation

• France: Created the Financial Regulation and Systemic Risk Council, chaired by the Minister for Finance, to coordinate macroprudential supervision.
• Greece: Established the Systemic Stability Council (SSC) within the Ministry of Economy and Finance.
• Hungary: Set up a Financial Stability Council.
• United Kingdom: Planning to create a Financial Policy Committee (FPC) within the Bank of England for macroprudential regulation.

Main Findings

• There is a trend towards consolidation of supervisory authorities.
• NCBs are increasingly involved in financial supervision, particularly in macroprudential roles.
• The twin peaks model is being adopted or planned in several Member States, with the NCB or its affiliated bodies taking on prudential supervision.
• The sectoral model is still present in many countries, though some are moving away from it.
• No single supervisory model is universally optimal; structures vary significantly based on national characteristics, including historical, political, and cultural factors.

Involvement of National Central Banks

• In 16 EU countries, NCBs have supervisory responsibilities.
• In 6 EU countries, NCBs or affiliated bodies are planning to take on new supervisory roles, including full responsibility for the entire financial sector in four cases.
• In the remaining countries, NCBs are closely involved in financial supervision through formal cooperation mechanisms, staff sharing, and information exchange.

Conclusion

The financial crisis has led to a re-evaluation of financial supervision across the EU. Member States are moving towards more integrated and consolidated supervisory frameworks, with a notable increase in the involvement of NCBs in both prudential and macroprudential supervision. The twin peaks model is gaining traction, and the establishment of the ESRB and the three European Supervisory Agencies represents a significant step in enhancing EU-level financial stability. However, national differences in financial systems and political structures continue to shape the diversity of supervisory models.