EBA欧洲银行-BSG-response-to-Consultation-Paper-28EBA-CP-2015-012920-14-April-2015_6页_1mb

EBA Banking Stakeholder Group Summary on EBA/CP/2015/01 Consultation Paper

Core Content

The EBA Banking Stakeholder Group (BSG) has provided general comments and detailed replies to the Consultation Paper EBA/CP/2015/01, which outlines draft Implementing Technical Standards (ITS) on procedures, forms, and templates for the provision of information for resolution plans under Article 11(3) of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD). The BSG supports the objective of establishing a credible and effective resolution framework that allows for the timely and efficient handling of bank failures without threatening financial stability.

Main Views

The BSG emphasizes the importance of resolution planning and the need for resolution authorities to have access to relevant information from institutions. However, they highlight that the current draft of the ITS may impose excessive requirements on certain types of institutions.

Key Issues Identified

1. Proportionality Principle

   • The BSG supports the application of the proportionality principle to ensure that the information requirements are not uniform across all institutions.
   • They suggest that the level of detail in the templates should be adjusted based on the institution's interconnectedness, not just its systemic label (G-SII or O-SII).
   • Institutions with lower interconnectedness and smaller systemic footprints should be exempt from providing highly granular information.

2. Scope of Application

   • The BSG requests clarification on whether the templates apply at the consolidated, sub-consolidated, or solo level.
   • It is unclear whether MPE (Major Parent Entity) banks' subsidiaries operating in third countries should be required to fulfill the templates.
   • The BSG believes that such subsidiaries, which may be independently resolved by non-EU authorities, should not be subject to the same reporting obligations.

3. Materiality Criteria

   • The BSG suggests that objective materiality criteria should be included in the templates to reduce the workload and ensure that only relevant entities are included in resolution planning.
   • This is particularly important for large, globally operating banks with numerous legal entities, many of which are not critical to resolution.

Replies to Questions

1. Agreement with the Level of Detail

• The BSG supports the balance between granularity and the minimum required information, but stresses the need for further clarity on the scope and materiality of the templates.
• They believe that the current level of detail may be excessive for certain institutions, especially those with simpler structures or lower interconnectedness.
• The BSG recommends that the scope should be clearly defined to avoid ambiguity and to prevent unnecessary reporting requirements.

2. Missing Information in the Templates

• The BSG identifies some missing information in the current set of templates, particularly in Annex V (Liabilities Structure).
  • Unsecured deposits should be broken down into "Corporates" and "SMEs and Individuals deposits" as per Article 108 of the BRRD.
  • Certain liabilities, which may be eligible for MREL (Minimum Requirement for Own Funds and Eligible Liabilities) purposes, should be specified in the template due to their potential exclusion by resolution authorities under specific conditions (e.g., time constraints, continuity of critical functions, contagion, and value destruction).
• The BSG also notes that Annex XI (Authorities) may not be appropriate, as institutions should not be responsible for providing information about authorities, which the resolution authority should obtain through official channels.

Conclusion

The BSG endorses the general objective of the ITS but urges the EBA to address the issues of proportionality, scope, and materiality to ensure that the resolution planning process is both effective and manageable for all institutions, particularly those with simpler structures or lower systemic importance.