EBA欧洲银行-CP18_ABI_20页_239kb

Summary of ABI's Position Paper on CP 18 - CEBS's Technical Advice to the European Commission on Options and National Discretions

Introduction

The Italian Banking Association (ABI) supports CEBS's initiative to provide technical advice on the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD) and is in favor of initiatives that promote market integration and supervisory convergence. ABI has compiled the views of its member banks and proposed adjustments to the national discretions included in the CRD. The position paper outlines specific remarks and drafting proposals for several provisions, with a focus on ensuring consistency and fairness across the EU banking sector.

Core Content and Key Issues

ABI’s position paper addresses several key provisions in the CRD related to the Standardised Approach and the Internal Ratings-Based (IRB) approach, specifically:

• Annex VI Part 1 Points 64 and 67
• Annex VII Part 1 Points 6 and 13
• Annex VII Part 2 Points 5, 7, 12, 13, 15
• Annex VIII Part 1 Point 26

These provisions involve national discretions that allow for different risk weightings and supervisory flexibility, which ABI believes may create level playing field issues and regulatory inconsistencies.

Main Views and Proposals

Point 31 - Standardised Approach, Annex VI Part 1 Point 64

• Objective: Allow lower risk weights for past due exposures secured by residential mortgages.
• Impact: 9 members believe it has an impact; 6 consider it important.
• ABI's View: Supports retaining the national discretion with binding mutual recognition, as the competent authority of the Member State where the property is located is best suited to make such decisions.

Point 32 - Standardised Approach, Annex VI Part 1 Point 66

• Objective: Permit higher risk weights for high-risk investments such as venture capital and private equity.
• Impact: 7 members consider it has no impact; 7 consider it has some impact.
• ABI's View: Advocates for the deletion of this discretion to avoid competitive distortions and ensure a level playing field.

Point 33 - Standardised Approach, Annex VI Part 1 Point 67

• Objective: Allow lower risk weights for non-past due items with significant value adjustments.
• Impact: 9 members consider it has an impact.
• ABI's View: Supports deletion of the discretion, unless further justification is provided.

Point 37 - IRB, Article 84.2

• Objective: Allow supervisory flexibility for EU parent institutions to meet minimum requirements on a group basis.
• Impact: Perceived as low to medium impact.
• ABI's View: Proposes transforming this into a general rule to reduce regulatory discussions and ensure consistency.

Point 38 - IRB, Annex VII Part 1 Point 6

• Objective: Allow preferential risk weights for exposures in certain categories based on strong underwriting characteristics.
• Impact: Considered fairly important, especially for project finance and in relation to the US.
• ABI's View: Supports incorporating this into the model approval process as a general rule.

Point 39 - IRB, Annex VII Part 1 Point 13

• Objective: Waive the unsecured requirement for collateralised credit facilities linked to wage accounts.
• Impact: Perceived as not particularly significant.
• ABI's View: Supports transforming this into a general rule to avoid burden on cross-border banking groups.

Point 40 - IRB, Annex VII Part 1 Point 18

• Objective: Allow a less risk-sensitive treatment for equity exposures to ancillary services undertakings.
• Impact: Perceived as fairly important.
• ABI's View: Supports deleting the discretionary part of the provision to avoid inconsistencies.

Point 41 - IRB, Annex VII Part 2 Points 5, 7 and Annex VIII Part 1 Point 26

• Objective: Allow credit institutions to use alternative eligible providers of unfunded credit protection.
• Impact: Unclear at this stage.
• ABI's View: Supports maintaining national discretion, but emphasizes the need to include insurance policies as an acceptable risk mitigation technique.

Point 42 - IRB, Annex VII Part 2 Point 12

• Objective: Allow for more risk-sensitive maturity (M) calculations.
• Impact: Perceived as having some impact.
• ABI's View: Supports keeping the discretion as it is, due to its risk-sensitive nature.

Point 43 - IRB, Annex VII Part 2 Point 15

• Objective: Allow a higher asset threshold for corporates primarily investing in real estate.
• Impact: Perceived as low.
• ABI's View: Supports a transition period of 5 years for deletion, to avoid disruption to SME financing.

Point 44 - IRB, Annex VII Part 2 Point 15

• Objective: Same as Point 43.
• Impact: Perceived as low.
• ABI's View: Supports a transition period of 5 years for deletion, to avoid disruption to SME financing.

Point 45 - IRB, Annex VII Part 2 Point 20 & Annex VIII Part 1 Point 26

• Objective: Allow adjustments to PDs for unfunded credit protection.
• Impact: Not specified.
• ABI's View: Supports retaining the discretion but advocates for more transparency and consistency in the application of risk mitigation techniques.

Key Recommendations

• Consistency and Level Playing Field: ABI emphasizes the importance of ensuring a consistent application of rules across the EU to avoid competitive distortions.
• Binding Mutual Recognition: Where possible, ABI supports the inclusion of binding mutual recognition clauses to harmonize national discretions.
• Transition Periods: For provisions that may have significant impact on SME financing, ABI advocates for shorter transition periods to minimize disruption.
• Deletion of Discretions: In several cases, ABI proposes the deletion of national discretions to align with a risk-based and harmonized approach.

Conclusion

ABI's position paper calls for a balance between regulatory flexibility and market consistency. While it acknowledges the necessity of some national discretions in certain contexts, it advocates for their removal or transformation into general rules to ensure a level playing field and reduce supervisory burden for cross-border banks. The paper also highlights the need for transparency and harmonization in the application of risk mitigation techniques and risk weightings.