EBA欧洲银行-BSG-response-to-Consultation-Paper-28EBA-CP-2015-1129203-July-2015_3页_680kb

EBA Banking Stakeholder Group Summary on Consultation Paper EBA/CP/2015/11

Core Content

The EBA Banking Stakeholder Group (BSG) has provided feedback on the Consultation Paper EBA/CP/2015/11, which outlines Draft Guidelines on Passport Notifications for Credit Intermediaries under the Mortgage Credit Directive (MCD). The document focuses on the notification procedures for credit intermediaries operating across EU Member States, aiming to harmonize supervisory practices and ensure consistent information sharing between home and host states.

Main Views

The BSG supports the overall objective of the guidelines, which is to promote fair competition and efficiency in cross-border operations by ensuring consistent information exchange. They emphasize the importance of harmonization of supervisory rules and the avoidance of reporting duplication for financial institutions.

However, the BSG has raised a general caveat regarding the current draft requirements. They argue that the guidelines should include additional information to enhance transparency and regulatory oversight. Specifically, the BSG proposes that the notification form should require the disclosure of:

• Past disciplinary records of the credit intermediary
• Complaints recorded and held by the intermediary
• Former trading names (where appropriate)
• Past and current enforcement actions
• Details of any pending actions or matters reported to the competent authority of the Member State

Additionally, the BSG suggests that details of proposed joint ventures in the Member State that are related to the credit intermediary's activities should be included in the notification form.

Key Information

• Consultation Paper: EBA/CP/2015/11
• Focus: Passport notifications for credit intermediaries under the MCD
• Objective: Harmonize supervisory practices and ensure consistent information exchange
• BSG Position: Supports the draft guidelines but calls for amendments to include additional information
• Proposed Additions:
  • Past disciplinary records
  • Complaints held by the intermediary
  • Former trading names
  • Enforcement actions (past and current)
  • Pending actions or reports
  • Proposed joint ventures

Replies to Questions

Question 1: Agreement with the Draft Guidelines

• BSG's Response: Agrees with the draft guidelines subject to a general caveat regarding the need for additional information.

Question 2: Agreement with the Notification Form (Annex 1)

• BSG's Response: Agrees with the draft requirements for the freedom to provide services, subject to the same caveat.

Question 3: Agreement with the Notification Form (Annex 2)

• BSG's Response: Agrees with the draft requirements for the freedom of establishment, subject to the same caveat.

Conclusion

The BSG's feedback underscores the importance of transparency and comprehensive data sharing in cross-border credit intermediary operations. While they endorse the general direction of the guidelines, they advocate for enhancements to the notification forms to include more detailed historical and current information about the intermediary. These amendments are expected to support better regulatory oversight, fair competition, and efficiency in the European banking sector.