EBA欧洲银行-CP21_ESBG_5页_186kb

ESBG Response to CEBS Consultation on Operational Risk Compendium

Core Content

The European Savings Banks Group (ESBG) has responded to the CEBS consultation on the Compendium of Supplementary Guidelines on implementation issues of operational risk, issued on 31 March 2009. The ESBG generally supports the document but proposes several improvements to enhance clarity and practicality for credit institutions.

Main Points of the Response

1. Introduction (Section A, Paragraph 5)

• Support: ESBG welcomes the opportunity to comment on the document.
• Recommendation: It suggests that the introduction should explicitly mention the importance of public consultation for any updates to the Operational Risk Compendium.
• Proposal: A sentence should be added to paragraph 5 stating that each update will first be published for consultation by all stakeholders.

2. Published Guidance Papers (Section C, Subsection 1, Paragraph 1)

• Concern: The first sentence of the paragraph wrongly assumes that operational risk is mainly triggered by internal drivers.
• Observation: ESBG members' data indicates that more than half of operational risk losses are caused by external events.
• Suggestion: The paragraph should be removed due to its misleading nature and lack of connection to subsequent content.

3. Published Guidance Papers (Section C, Subsection 1, Paragraph 7)

• Clarification Request: ESBG believes the scope of operational risk loss is at least partially addressed in the CRD, specifically in Annex X, Part 3, paragraphs 15 and 16.
• Recommendation: These references should be included in the document to clarify the scope.

4. Published Guidance Papers (Section C, Subsection 3.1, Paragraph 17)

• Definition Clarification: ESBG emphasizes the need to clarify what is meant by "the whole amount of the loss incurred".
• Viewpoint: Losses that occur after an event but are not closed due to a deliberate decision should be attributed to market risk, not operational risk.
• Example Concern: The example provided regarding pricing models and "mark-to-market" transactions is ambiguous and should be clarified.

5. Published Guidance Papers (Section C, Subsection 3.2, Paragraph 18)

• Formatting Issue: Two subparagraphs begin with the letter "A", which may cause confusion.
• Recommendation: This should be corrected for better readability.

6. Published Guidance Papers (Section C, Subsection 4, Paragraph 21)

• Scope of Elements: CEBS proposes that elements 1 to 4 from the indicative table be included in the scope of operational risk loss for management and measurement purposes.
• ESBG Suggestion: Elements 5 to 7 should be explicitly stated as being for management purposes only and not for measurement.

7. Published Guidance Papers (Section C, Subsection 4, Paragraph 23)

• Bullet Point Concern: The first bullet point goes beyond the CRD by suggesting that credit institutions should collect "opportunity costs / lost revenues".
• Clarification Request: ESBG questions whether "near misses" and "gains/profits" should be considered as losses or if loss thresholds should be negative.
• Recommendation: These elements should only be considered as recommendations for scenario analysis, not as mandatory data collection items.
• Proportionality Principle: ESBG suggests that the proportionality principle should be explicitly mentioned to ensure that institutions are not overburdened with data collection.

Key Information

• ESBG's Role: ESBG represents a significant portion of the European retail banking market, with total assets of €5215 billion as of 1 January 2006.
• Member Composition: Members are typically savings and retail banks, often organized in decentralized networks.
• Focus on CSR: ESBG members are recognized for their responsible reinvestment and commitment to corporate social responsibility.

Conclusion

The ESBG supports the CEBS consultation on operational risk but highlights the need for improvements in clarity, proportionality, and alignment with existing regulations such as the CRD. Their recommendations aim to ensure that the guidelines are practical, accurate, and do not impose unnecessary burdens on credit institutions.