EBA欧洲银行-BSG-response-to-Consulation-paper-28EBA-CP-2014-46292018-March-2015_4页_389kb

EBA Banking Stakeholder Group Summary on EBA/CP/2014/46

Core Content

The EBA Banking Stakeholder Group (BSG) has provided detailed comments on the Consultation Paper EBA/CP/2014/46, which outlines Draft Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS) on resolution colleges under Article 88(7) of the Banking Union Directive (BRRD). The document focuses on the operational procedures and guidance for setting up resolution colleges for EEA cross-border banking groups, including the role of third-country resolution authorities.

Main Areas Addressed

The consultation paper covers three main areas:

1. Operational Organisation of Resolution Colleges
2. Resolution Planning and Joint Decisions
3. Cross-Border Resolution

1. Operational Organisation

• The paper outlines a coordinated and structured approach for the functioning of resolution colleges.
• It addresses the identification of members and observers, the equivalence of confidentiality regimes between third-country authorities, and the establishment and updating of written arrangements and procedures.
• The scope of this section is considered too vague, especially regarding decision-making processes, such as voting rules and majority requirements.
• The BSG highlights the inclusion of third-country resolution authorities as observers, which may be too restrictive given the potential impact of decisions on these countries.

2. Resolution Planning and Joint Decisions

• The draft distinguishes between group resolution plans, resolvability assessments, and substantive impediments to resolvability.
• It also outlines the joint decision process on MREL (Minimum Requirement for Own Funds and Eligible Liabilities).
• The BSG emphasizes the importance of dialogue with the Union parent undertaking/management, particularly in defining MREL requirements.
• The concept of "substantive impediments to resolvability" needs further clarification, ideally through examples, to ensure consistent interpretation.
• The treatment of intragroup debt is another area that requires more detailed explanation.

3. Cross-Border Group Resolution

• The paper discusses cross-border group resolution and the involvement of multiple jurisdictions.
• The number of jurisdictions involved in resolution colleges is a major concern, especially for larger cross-border institutions, where the college may become too large and inefficient.
• The legal scope of the paper is limited to European jurisdictions, which restricts the role of third-country resolution authorities to observers only.
• The BSG argues that this limitation is overly restrictive, as decisions made in the resolution college could have significant implications for third countries.
• The possibility of disagreement among resolution authorities is also a concern, as it may lead to uncoordinated national decisions. The BSG suggests that conflict resolution procedures should be included when third countries are involved.

Key Recommendations

• Clarify decision-making procedures, especially regarding voting and majority requirements.
• Provide more detailed examples of substantive impediments to resolvability.
• Clarify the treatment of intragroup debt in the context of resolution planning.
• Expand the role of third-country resolution authorities beyond mere observers.
• Design conflict resolution procedures for cases involving third countries.

Conclusion

The BSG acknowledges the positive steps taken by the EBA in harmonizing procedures for resolution colleges. However, it emphasizes the need for further clarification and improvement in several areas to ensure effective, efficient, and transparent resolution processes. The collaboration and trust among resolution authorities are deemed essential for the functioning of the global resolution network.