2018年-EBA欧洲银行管理局_Report_on_colleges_functioning_2017_33页_1mb

EBA Report on the Functioning of Supervisory Colleges in 2017 Summary

Core Content

The European Banking Authority (EBA) conducted a comprehensive monitoring activity in 2017, focusing on the functioning of supervisory colleges for large cross-border banking groups across the European Economic Area (EEA). The report highlights both the progress made and the areas needing improvement in the supervision process.

Main Groups of Colleges

• Closely monitored colleges: 20 colleges were selected for close monitoring.
• Thematic or selected basis: 54 colleges were monitored on a thematic or selected basis, including 7 from third-country banking groups.

Overall Improvements

Significant progress was noted in the following areas:

• College interactions: Most colleges maintained frequent and meaningful interactions, with 84% exceeding the expected minimum of quarterly meetings.
• Responsiveness: 84% of colleges had active and responsive engagement with EBA staff.
• Quality of joint decision (JD) documents: The quality and reasoning of JD documents improved, with more colleges providing clear references to the SREP conclusions.
• SEP (Supervisory Examination Programme) development: More colleges conducted joint onsite or offsite supervisory activities, and the process of compiling SEPs became more structured.

Key Topics for Supervisory Attention

The EBA identified four key areas requiring supervisory focus in 2017:

1. Non-performing loans (NPLs) and balance sheet cleaning
2. Business model sustainability
3. Operational risk, including conduct risk and IT risk
4. Comparability of risk-weighted assets (RWAs) and use of EBA benchmarks in SREP

Organisational Aspects

Mapping of Group Entities

• The EBA used a harmonised mapping template to update the cross-border presence of EU banking groups.
• Most colleges followed the format, but some lacked completeness in reporting non-EEA entities or criteria for assessing significance.

Written Coordination and Cooperation Arrangements (WCCA)

• 15 of the 20 closely monitored colleges completed WCCA by the end of 2017.
• 4 colleges were close to agreement but had not finalised WCCA.
• 79% of colleges still did not meet the requirements for exchanging quantitative information on key risk indicators, which is essential for identifying early warning signs.

College Supervisory Examination Programme (SEP)

• The SEP was prepared and circulated in most colleges, with 84% completing it in time.
• 17 colleges had timely finalised SEPs, while a few were delayed or not prepared at all.
• More joint activities were observed in 2017, but most colleges still did not identify joint areas of work.

College Interactions

• The EBA recommended two physical meetings per quarter to promote effective cooperation.
• 84% of closely monitored colleges met or exceeded this recommendation.
• A dedicated 'model college' was observed as a good practice, where experts discussed model validation and changes.

Quality of College Meetings

• The quality of meetings was assessed as 'good' in most colleges.
• Late distribution of presentations was the main reason for some colleges being rated as 'satisfactory'.
• Consolidating supervisors were praised for using in-person meetings to enhance understanding of risk profiles.

Responsiveness of Colleges

• EBA staff provided feedback on various aspects of college functioning.
• 84% of colleges had active and responsive engagement with EBA staff.
• Two colleges did not share the year-end assessment scorecard with other members, indicating a lack of transparency.

Group Risk/Liquidity Risk Assessments

• Risk/liquidity assessments were shared in most colleges, but some failed to meet the requirements of Regulation 710/2014.
• 26% of colleges were rated 'good' for group risk assessments, and 16% 'satisfactory'.
• 63% were rated 'good' for group liquidity assessments, with 26% 'satisfactory'.
• Issues included late sharing of mandatory annexes and unclear links between risk assessments and liquidity measures.

Joint Decisions on Capital and Liquidity

• The process for reaching joint decisions on capital and liquidity improved, with 47% of colleges rated 'good'.
• The statutory timeframe for liquidity joint decisions (1 month) was stricter than for capital (4 months), with only 28% meeting it.
• Some colleges failed to share draft JDs or final JDs in the college framework, instead relying on bilateral interactions.

Areas for Improvement

• Timely distribution of mandatory annexes: Several colleges still failed to meet this requirement.
• Joint decision on group recovery plans (GRPs): In around half of the colleges, joint decisions could not be reached due to requests for individual plans.
• Use of mediation: Not all tools for resolving disagreements were used, including mediation.
• Completeness of risk assessments: More detail was needed on economic capital calculation, business model assessment, and liquidity stress testing.

EBA Tools and Training

• The EBA used tools like the online training program and the Colleges Newsletter to support college functioning.
• These tools helped in setting expectations and improving the quality of interactions and decision-making.

Conclusion

The EBA's monitoring activity in 2017 revealed positive trends in the functioning of supervisory colleges, particularly in terms of interactions, responsiveness, and the quality of joint decisions. However, there are still areas requiring attention, such as the timely sharing of information and the use of mediation. The EBA continues to support colleges through training and guidance, aiming to improve the overall effectiveness of cross-border banking supervision in the EU.