2014年-EBA欧洲银行管理局_CEBS-response-SRB_58页_586kb

CEBS Analysis on the Scope of Full Harmonisation in the CRD

Core Content

The CEBS report outlines its perspective on the European Commission's initiative to develop a single EU rule book for banking regulation under the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD). It emphasizes the importance of harmonization while acknowledging the need for flexibility in certain areas to accommodate national financial stability and market-specific needs. CEBS supports the Commission's goal but notes that some national members believe that full harmonization can only be achieved if no flexibility is allowed in key prudential areas, such as the definition of own funds and liquidity requirements.

CEBS conducted an analysis to identify areas where national rules, referred to as 'gold-plating', are currently applied and where they should be retained. The report highlights that while a fully harmonized rule book is desirable, it does not completely eliminate issues related to the application of EU legislation across Member States due to differences in legal interpretation and implementation.

Main Points and Key Information

1. Support for Single Rule Book

• CEBS fully supports the Commission's initiative to develop a single rule book in the EU banking sector.
• It acknowledges the flexibility allowed in the Commission's statement, recognizing that differences in national treatment may be necessary in limited cases.
• However, some members argue that flexibility in key prudential areas is not compatible with achieving a single rule book.

2. 'Gold-Plating' and Its Rationale

• 'Gold-plating' refers to the implementation of stricter national rules than those required by the CRD.
• It is considered a bad practice unless it addresses significant risks or market/product specificities.
• CEBS developed a narrow definition of 'gold-plating' based on the Commission's own definition, which includes:
  • Changes to content, scope, or eligibility criteria of CRD requirements.
  • Non-transposition of CRD requirements into national law.
  • Additional supervisory procedures that act as a barrier to using a given CRD requirement.

3. Areas of 'Gold-Plating'

CEBS identified the following areas in the CRD and CRD IV where 'gold-plating' is currently practiced or considered necessary:

• Own Funds / Capital Definition (Art. 56 to 67 (2006/48), Art. 4 to 10 (2006/49))
• Minimum Level of Own Funds (Art. 75 (2006/48), Art. 18 to 27 (2006/49))
• Minimum Own Funds Requirements for Credit Risk (Art. 76 to 77 (2006/48), Annexes II, III, IV)
• Standardised Approach (Art. 78 to 83 (2006/48), Annex VI)
• Internal Ratings Based Approach (Art. 84 to 89 (2006/48), Annex VII)
• Credit Risk Mitigation (Art. 90 to 93 (2006/48))
• Securitisation (Art. 94 to 101 (2006/48), Annex IX)
• Operational Risk (Art. 102 to 105 (2006/48), Annex X)
• Market Risk (Art. 11 (2006/49), Annexes I to V and VII)
• Large Exposures (Art. 106 to 118 (2006/48), Art. 28 to 32, Annex VI (2006/49))
• Qualifying holdings outside the financial sector (Art. 120 to 122 (2006/48))
• Pillar 3 (Art. 145 to 149 (2006/48), Annex XII (2006/48), Art. 39 (2006/49))

4. Reasons for 'Gold-Plating'

• Risk assessment: Competent authorities may believe that certain CRD provisions do not adequately address risks and thus implement more stringent requirements.
• Market/product specificities: Local markets or products may require different treatment, such as lower quantitative limits for smaller markets.
• Legal framework: National legal systems may require additional provisions to fit CRD requirements into their legal structures or to ensure legal continuity.

5. Costs and Impact of 'Gold-Plating'

• 'Gold-plating' is considered problematic when it leads to significant cross-border costs or impedes the functioning of the single market.
• Some national rules that do not impose barriers or costs are not included in the analysis.
• The necessity of 'gold-plating' depends on the final calibration of quantitative limits in CRD IV.

6. Scope of the Exercise

• The exercise focused on areas where CRD requirements exist and where national rules are implemented beyond them.
• Cases where there is no CRD requirement, either because the issue is local or not yet addressed in CRD IV, were excluded.
• CEBS regrets that the new concepts in CRD IV, such as leverage and liquidity ratios, were not analyzed due to the lack of specific requirements or national experience.

7. Further Issues

• Scope of application & Pillar 3: Some Member States require institutions to disclose Pillar 3 information even if they are not subject to the requirement.
• Deduction of breach of large exposures limit: Some Member States, such as HU, apply stricter rules on the deduction of excess large exposures from own funds.
• Use of call options in synthetic securitisation: France limits the use of call options to those defined in classic securitisation.
• Specific limits on real estate and country risk: Some Member States apply stricter limits on real estate investments and country risk.
• Related party lending: Ireland imposes more stringent limits on exposures to entities where the bank or its significant shareholders have a significant shareholding.

Conclusion

CEBS emphasizes the need for a thorough assessment of whether the current rules in the CRD adequately address risks across all Member States before considering the removal of 'gold-plating' possibilities. The report also highlights the importance of developing binding technical standards to ensure consistency in the interpretation and application of the CRD. CEBS acknowledges that the current analysis is limited due to time constraints and that further work is necessary to evaluate the usefulness of national approaches for the single European market.