2018年-EBA欧洲银行管理局_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) in the context of the Deposit Guarantee Schemes Directive (DGSD). The EBA was mandated to issue these Guidelines by 3 July 2015, and Member States were required to implement them by 31 May 2016. The EBA conducted a review of the Guidelines by 3 July 2017, which was interpreted as an assessment of their application, with recommendations for future improvements.

The report outlines four main objectives:

1. Assess if the risk-based method ensures adequate differentiation between institutions based on their risk 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, while protecting confidential information.
4. Identify practical issues or obstacles in applying the current framework.

Main Points and Key Findings

1. Risk-Based Contributions and Differentiation

• 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 across DGSs is in line with the inherent riskiness of their respective sectors.
• However, the analysis indicates that some DGSs have designed systems that provide less differentiation than what the core indicator data would suggest.
• The way raw indicator data are translated into the contribution formula may need further refinement.

2. Consistency and National Flexibility

• There is a need for more consistency in how institutions' riskiness is translated into components of the risk-based calculation formula.
• At this stage, there is limited evidence suggesting the removal of any core indicator.
• The use of additional indicators does not indicate a need for increased flexibility in the Guidelines.

3. Transparency and Reporting Burden

• The methodology is considered objective and transparent.
• It does not lead to excessive additional reporting requirements.
• The EBA will continue to monitor the disclosure of information and may consider specifying what information should be disclosed in future versions of the Guidelines.

4. Practical Obstacles

• Some practical issues have been identified, such as the complexity of the model and the need for further guidance at the EU level.
• Suggestions from DGSs and designated authorities have been noted and may be considered in future updates to the Guidelines.

Key Information and Recommendations

5.1.1 Differentiation Between Institutions' Contributions

• The report compares the GL RBC (risk-based contributions) with nRBC (non-risk-based contributions) to assess the degree of differentiation.
• Tables and figures show that the differentiation is generally adequate, but there are instances where it is less than expected.

5.1.2 Core and Additional Indicators

• The Guidelines specify five categories of core risk indicators, including capital adequacy, asset quality, liquidity, business model and management.
• Core indicators are compulsory, but competent authorities may exclude them if they are legally unavailable or not applicable.
• Additional indicators can be introduced to reflect specific national circumstances or the presence of an Institutional Protection Scheme (IPS).

5.1.3 Comparison with Previous Methods

• The analysis shows that the GL RBC method is generally consistent with previous RBC methods.
• Some DGSs have reported that the method may not fully reflect the riskiness of their institutions, which suggests the need for further analysis.

5.1.4 Comparison with SREP Scores

• The GL RBC method's risk assessment appears to align with the Supervisory Review and Evaluation Process (SREP) scores.
• However, the report highlights the need for further validation of this alignment.

5.1.5 Consistency with Historical Data

• The current GL RBC method is consistent with historical data.
• More data and experience are needed to fully evaluate its effectiveness over time.

5.2.1 Use of Indicators and Indicator Weights

• Core indicators are assigned minimum weights, with the sum of all minimum weights equaling 75% of the total aggregate weight.
• Authorities can adjust the remaining 25% by increasing core indicator weights or introducing additional indicators.
• The weight of any additional indicator or increased core indicator weight cannot exceed 15%, except for qualitative indicators in the 'Business model and management' category.

5.3.1 Transparency and Reporting

• The methodology does not require significant additional reporting.
• The EBA will continue to monitor the disclosure of information and may specify further disclosure requirements in future versions of the Guidelines.

5.4.1 Practical Issues and Obstacles

• The report identifies some practical issues, including the complexity of the model and the need for more guidance at the EU level.
• Some DGSs have raised suggestions, which may be considered in future updates.

Conclusion and Recommendations

• The initial conclusions of the report are based on limited data and experience.
• The risk-based method has broadly met the objective of ensuring differentiation between institutions based on their risk.
• The methodology is considered objective, transparent, and does not impose excessive reporting requirements.
• The report recommends further analysis and possible improvements to the Guidelines, which may be considered alongside the broader DGSD review in 2019.

The EBA will continue to monitor the implementation and consider future refinements based on additional data and stakeholder feedback.