EBA欧洲银行-Opinion-of-the-European-Banking-Authority-on-the-First-Part-of-the-Call-for-Advice-on-Investment-Firms-28EBA-Op-2016-1629_4页_167kb

EBA Opinion on the First Part of the Call for Advice on Investment Firms

Core Content

This document is the EBA's opinion on the first part of the Commission's Call for Advice (CfA) regarding the prudential requirements for investment firms. The EBA provides technical guidance on identifying which investment firms should be subject to the full prudential requirements of the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD) and the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR), and what rules should apply to them.

Legal Basis and Background

1. The EBA's competence to provide this opinion is based on Articles 8(2) and 34(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.
2. The opinion is adopted in accordance with Article 14(5) of the Rules of Procedure of the Board of Supervisors.
3. The EBA was asked by the Commission in June 2016 to provide further technical advice on the first two recommendations of its 2015 report on investment firms.
4. The first part of the CfA seeks advice on:
   • The criteria to identify the class of investment firms for which the CRD and CRR are applicable.
   • The rules that should apply to them.
5. The EBA's response to this part is due by the end of September 2016, with a separate response to the remainder of the CfA due by 30 June 2017.

Main Recommendations

Recommendation 1

• The EBA recommends that investment firms subject to the full CRR and CRD should be those identified as Global Systemically Important Institutions (G-SII) or Other Systemically Important Institutions (O-SII) under the current regulatory framework.
• This is based on the systemic importance and bank-like activities of these firms, which are exposed to credit risk, counterparty credit risk, and market risk.

Recommendation 2

• The EBA suggests that the suitability of the OSII guidelines for identifying systemic and bank-like investment firms should be revised after the completion of the new prudential framework for investment firms.
• The current OSII guidelines were developed within a different regulatory context and may not fully align with the needs of investment firms.

Recommendation 3

• The EBA recommends postponing specific regulatory changes related to investment firms until the CRR review has reached a more advanced stage.
• This is due to the ongoing development of the prudential regime and the need for a more comprehensive understanding of its implications.

Key Considerations

• The EBA identifies Class 1 firms as those that are systemic, interconnected, and bank-like, and thus should be subject to the full CRD and CRR.
• The EBA notes that only eight investment firms in the EU are currently identified as systemically important, which limits the ability to assess the effectiveness of specific prudential rules.
• The EBA emphasizes the importance of consistency in identifying systemic institutions across the EU and highlights the need to avoid regulatory arbitrage.
• It is recommended to review the OSII guidelines in light of the new prudential framework to ensure they are appropriate for identifying systemic and bank-like investment firms.

Conclusion

The EBA's opinion focuses on the identification of systemic and bank-like investment firms and the application of full prudential requirements to them. It highlights the need for consistency, review, and proportionality in the regulatory approach, and advises postponing specific regulatory changes until the broader prudential framework is more developed.