EBA欧洲银行-Feedback-on-the-review-of-the-use2C20usefulness-and-implementation-of-the-EBA-Single-Rulebook-Q26A-_33页_1mb

Summary of Feedback on the EBA Single Rulebook Q&A Review

Core Content

This report provides an overview of the use, usefulness and implementation of the EBA Single Rulebook Questions and Answers (Q&A) process, focusing on the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) and Capital Requirements Directive (CRD). The Q&A process, initiated in 2013, aims to deliver consistent regulatory guidance by involving the EBA, competent authorities (CAs), and the European Commission in a collaborative manner.

Despite the non-binding nature of Q&A, they are widely used and recognized as important supervisory guidance. Over 4,440 questions were submitted by the end of 2018, with around 1,545 answered and 1,360 rejected. The EBA and CAs have invested significant resources in this process, which has been positively received by the industry and supervisory community.

Main Findings

3.1 Measures to Promote the Q&A Process and Answers

• CAs often use similar measures to promote the Q&A tool and its answers, though the formality and extent of these measures vary.

• Common measures include:

  • Raising awareness internally about the Q&A tool and the Interactive Single Rulebook (ISRB).
  • Referring to Q&A through internal information platforms, databases, or websites.
  • Providing communication about new or specific Q&A via email or newsletters.
  • Conducting training or information sessions for policy or supervisory staff.
  • Establishing working groups or forums for discussion.

• These measures are often applied in coordination between policy and supervisory teams, and they affect various areas of regulation including:

  • Own funds
  • Credit risk
  • Market risk
  • Liquidity risk
  • Supervisory reporting

3.2 Non-Application of Q&A and Obstacles

• A limited number of Q&A were not applied, with 29 out of 620 final published CRR/CRD Q&A identified as non-applied.
• CAs reported 11 cases of non-application, while institutions reported 23 (with some duplication).
• Common reasons for non-application include:
  • Inconsistency with Level 1 text or national legislation.
  • Different interpretations or disagreements between CAs and institutions.
  • Lack of clarity in the answers.
  • Technical or systems constraints leading to delayed implementation.
  • Proportionality considerations.

3.3 Utility of the Q&A Tool and Answers

• Overall, CAs and institutions are satisfied with the utility of the Q&A tool and the answers.

• Suggestions for improvement include:

  • Faster response times.
  • Greater transparency about the review process.
  • Better involvement of institutions in the Q&A process.
  • Enhanced search functionality and presentation of answers.
  • Improved clarity and quality of the answers.
  • More user-friendly ISRB functionalities.

• The ISRB is appreciated, though it is seen as having room for improvement.

Good Practice Guidance

• The EBA has provided non-prescriptive good practice guidance for institutions on how to use the Q&A tool effectively.
• This guidance includes promoting awareness, using internal communication channels, and maintaining databases or spreadsheets for tracking and implementing Q&A.

Suggestions for Improvement

• The EBA is considering feedback and suggestions to develop realistic and workable proposals for improving the Q&A process, tool, and answers.
• The EBA will also examine the reported cases of non-application to better understand the underlying obstacles.

Next Steps

• The EBA will evaluate the feedback and suggestions received.
• Follow-up actions are expected to be informal and ad hoc, focusing on exchanges with relevant CAs.
• The review was not intended to be a comprehensive survey or to re-open final Q&A.

Methodology and Scope

• The review focused on final Q&A related to the CRR and CRD, particularly those on policy issues (around 625 Q&A).
• The methodology involved questionnaires sent to CAs and selected industry representatives.
• The survey included 54 institutions and 5 associations, with a high response rate (93.8% from CAs and 87.0% from institutions).
• The review was not intended to be a compliance or peer review, nor a comprehensive review of the Q&A process itself.

Key Observations

• The use of Q&A is widespread and has led to changes in supervisory practices and institutional procedures.
• The Q&A tool plays a significant role in helping institutions interpret and apply the regulatory framework.
• The EBA is open to further examining the Q&A process and its status, based on the feedback received.

Conclusion

The EBA Single Rulebook Q&A process is seen as an important tool for achieving consistency in the application of EU banking regulations. While there are some obstacles to its application, the overall satisfaction with the tool and its answers is high. The EBA is committed to reviewing and improving the process, in line with stakeholder feedback and the outcomes of the ESAs review.