2014年-EBA欧洲银行管理局_ImplementationReportHLPR_20页_243kb

Summary of the Report on National Implementation of CEBS High-level Principles for Remuneration Policies (June 2010)

Core Content

This report provides an overview of the national implementation of the CEBS High-level Principles for Remuneration Policies (Rem. HLP) across the European Union. It outlines the progress made by both supervisors and financial institutions in aligning their practices with the principles, identifies key challenges, and outlines proposed next steps for further development and convergence.

Main Findings

1. National Regulatory and Supervisory Actions

• Implementation Status: Most CEBS members have adopted a regulatory approach to implementing the Rem. HLP, with laws, regulations, or recommendations in place by 2009 or early 2010.
• Transitional Periods: Some jurisdictions allowed a transitional period for institutions to adjust existing contracts in line with the Rem. HLP.
• Compliance with CRD 3: Preparations for the implementation of CRD 3 are ongoing, with more detailed rules expected.
• Supervisory Challenges:
  • Navigating through different international guidelines (e.g., FSB, BCBS, EC).
  • Ensuring a level playing field across national financial markets.
  • Achieving consistent treatment among institutions.
  • Efficient allocation of supervisory resources.

2. Scope and Proportionality

• Scope of Application: In more than half of the countries, remuneration requirements apply to all financial institutions, including credit institutions, investment firms, fund management companies, and pension funds.
• Proportionality Considerations:
  • The principle of proportionality is widely recognized, with drivers such as size, complexity, ownership structure, and risk-bearing capacity.
  • Proportionality is often expressed implicitly in supervisory methodologies rather than explicitly in laws.
• Implementation of Proportionality:
  • Some countries use self-assessment systems to determine if "special" remuneration rules apply.
  • Numerical thresholds are also used to identify which staff categories require specific measures.
  • Supervisors may define more detailed areas for proportionality, such as the presence of a remuneration committee or the use of equity-linked instruments.

3. Supervisory Measures and Sanctions

• Qualitative vs. Quantitative Measures: Most countries apply both types of measures, with qualitative measures generally taking precedence.
• Quantitative Sanctions: These include Pillar II capital add-ons, though real-life examples have not yet emerged.
• Proportionality in Sanctions: Supervisors emphasize the need for proportionality in both the application of measures and the severity of sanctions.

4. Home/Host Dimension

• Cross-border Institutions: Larger cross-border institutions typically have a firm-wide remuneration policy, with local adjustments for regulatory and fiscal requirements.
• Supervisory Expectations: All institutions within a consolidated group should be covered, with the parent company having top-down influence but local subsidiaries retaining responsibility.
• Need for Coordination: Supervisory colleges are seen as a useful tool for discussing remuneration policies and achieving alignment. CEBS is encouraged to design a framework for this process and recommend timelines.

Assessment of the Substance of the Rem. HLP

1. Governance

• Management Body Role: The management body is increasingly involved in remuneration governance, though in some cases, its role remains limited.
• Remuneration Committees (Rem. Co.):
  • Commonly established in listed and larger institutions.
  • Composed mainly of non-executive and independent members.
  • Often involved in advising, assessing, and overseeing remuneration policies.
  • In some cases, they may also have formal or de facto approval powers.
• Control Functions:
  • Expected to be involved in remuneration policy design and review.
  • In many institutions, their remuneration is based on specific objectives, not business unit performance.
  • Some supervisors allow remuneration to be tied to overall performance, given the limited influence of control functions on aggregated results.
  • Most remuneration for control functions is in the form of fixed pay, with some institutions aligning pay levels with those in other industries.

2. Transparency

• Internal Transparency: Generally not problematic, and not a top priority for supervisors.
• External Transparency: Not yet assessed in detail due to the timing of the questionnaires before 2009 annual reports were available.

3. Performance Measurement

• Criteria for Compensation: Institutions use both qualitative and quantitative criteria, with a focus on risk-adjusted performance.
• Bonus Pools: Determined at the institutional or business line level, often using a "top-down" approach.
• Risk Adjustments: Some countries have started incorporating ex ante risk measures (e.g., expected losses, delinquency ratios), but techniques are still developing, especially for liquidity risks.
• Risk Alignment: Explicit mechanisms such as malus or clawback have not yet been observed.

4. Structure of Remuneration

• Fixed vs. Variable Pay: Most countries follow an open criterion, with some setting relative limits based on seniority and business lines.
• Deferral of Bonuses: Increasingly common, with longer deferral periods and more risk-sensitive practices.
• Equity-linked Instruments: Used in some institutions, though not universally.

Proposed Next Steps

• CEBS Guidelines: Development of broader CEBS guidelines on remuneration policy and practices, aligned with CRD 3 and international standards.
• Collaboration with FSB and BCBS: Further cooperation is needed for technical areas such as performance measurement, risk adjustment, and remuneration structure.
• EU-specific Work: CEBS will focus on EU-specific dimensions such as scope, proportionality, and home/host relationships in close cooperation with CESR.
• Supervisory Colleges: A framework for discussion in supervisory colleges is recommended to enhance alignment and coordination, particularly for large cross-border institutions.
• Timeframe: Uncertain due to pending trilogue negotiations for CRD 3. Guidelines will be launched for consultation once CRD 3 is approved.

Key Challenges

• Discrepancies: Between supervisory requirements and actual institutional practices, especially in areas like risk-adjusted performance measurement.
• Lack of Convergence: Among national supervisors, particularly regarding the application of proportionality.
• Need for Clarity: On how remuneration requirements for institutions within a group are influenced by home/host relationships.
• Development of Practices: Many institutions are still in the process of adjusting their compensation systems to reflect all material risks.

Conclusion

The report highlights that while progress has been made in implementing the CEBS Rem. HLP, challenges remain in achieving full convergence and ensuring consistent application across the EU. Further guidance and collaboration are necessary to address these issues and align practices with international standards.