EBA欧洲银行-Report-on-the-implementation-of-the-EBA-Guidelines-on-methods-for-calculating-contributions-to-DGS_104页_1mb

Summary of the EBA Report on the Implementation of the Guidelines on Methods for Calculating Contributions to DGSs

Core Content

This report evaluates the implementation of the EBA Guidelines on methods for calculating contributions to Deposit Guarantee Schemes (DGSs), focusing on the adequacy of risk differentiation, consistency with historical data, and the balance between harmonisation and national flexibility.

Main Objectives

1. Assess if the risk-based method ensures adequate differentiation between institutions based on their risk profile and is consistent with historical data.
2. Evaluate the balance between consistent application of the Guidelines across Member States and flexibility to accommodate national specificities.
3. Determine if the methodology is objective, transparent, and does not impose excessive reporting requirements.
4. Identify practical obstacles in applying the current framework.

Key Findings

5.1 Adequate Differentiation Between Institutions and Consistency with Historical Data

• The risk-based method outlined in the Guidelines has generally met the objective of ensuring differentiation between institutions based on their risk.
• The level of differentiation observed among DGSs aligns with the inherent riskiness in their respective sectors.
• Some DGSs have shown flexibility in designing systems that provide less differentiation than what the core indicator data suggest.
• Certain elements of the methodology, especially the translation of raw indicator data into the contribution formula, may require further review.

5.2 Balance Between Consistent Application and National Flexibility

• There is a need for greater consistency in how institutions' riskiness is translated into the risk-based calculation formula across Member States.
• The use of core indicators has been generally consistent, with limited evidence suggesting the removal of any specific core indicator.
• The level of flexibility allowed by the Guidelines in the use of additional indicators does not seem to require further increase.

5.3 Objectivity, Transparency, Reporting Burden, and Confidentiality

• The methodology is perceived as objective and transparent, with no immediate need for amendments to enhance transparency.
• It does not lead to excessive additional reporting requirements.
• Confidentiality of information is adequately protected.
• The EBA will continue to monitor information disclosure and may consider further specifying what information should be disclosed in the future.

5.4 Practical and Potential Obstacles

• Some practical issues were identified, such as the need for simplification of the risk-based methodology.
• There is a call for further guidance at the EU level for the development, implementation, and review of the calculation methods.
• The report acknowledges the need for more data and a longer time series to better assess the performance of the risk-based system.

Key Information

• The DGSD, published on 12 June 2014, mandates the use of risk-based contributions (RBCs) by DGSs.
• Article 13(3) of the DGSD required the EBA to issue Guidelines by 3 July 2015, which were published on 28 May 2015.
• The deadline for implementation was 31 May 2016, and the EBA had to review the Guidelines by 3 July 2017.
• The review was interpreted as an assessment of the application of the Guidelines, with recommendations for future improvements to be considered during the DGSD review in 2019.

Calculation Methodology

• DGSs are required to collect contributions regularly until a target fund level is reached by 3 July 2024.
• The contribution formula is:

$$
C _ {i} = \mathrm {CR} \times \mathrm {ARW} _ {i} \times \mathrm {CD} _ {i} \times \mu
$$

Where:

• $C_i$ = annual contribution from member institution $i$

• CR = contribution rate (same for all institutions in a given year)

• ARW$_i$ = aggregate risk weight for institution $i$

• CD$_i$ = covered deposits for institution $i$

• μ = adjustment coefficient (same for all institutions in a given year)

• The process involves defining the target level, contribution rate, calculating risk indicators, assigning individual risk scores (IRSs), calculating aggregate risk scores (ARSs), assigning aggregate risk weights (ARWs), and applying the adjustment coefficient to determine the final contribution.

Methodology and Data Sources

• The EBA used data from mandatory notifications and bank-level data submitted in anticipation of the 2017 review.
• The methodology included both qualitative and quantitative analyses.
• An Excel tool and a survey were used to assess the impact of the GL RBC method compared to a non-risk-based method (nRBC).

Recommendations

• The EBA recommends revisiting certain elements of the methodology, particularly the translation of raw indicators into the formula.
• It suggests that further guidance at the EU level may be necessary for the development and implementation of the calculation methods.
• The EBA will continue to monitor information disclosure and may consider specifying what information should be disclosed in the future.

Conclusion

The report concludes that the risk-based method outlined in the Guidelines has broadly met the objective of ensuring differentiation between institutions based on their risk profile and is consistent with historical data. However, further analysis and improvements may be necessary as more data and experience become available.