EBA欧洲银行-Presentation-to-public-hearing-on-custodian-banks_-24-March-2009_9页_177kb

报告摘要

CEBS Call for Evidence on Custodian Banks Summary

Core Content

The Committee of European Banking Supervisors (CEBS) conducted a public hearing on 24 March 2009 in London to review the coverage of risks associated with custodian banks under the ECB-CESR Recommendations. This initiative was mandated by the ECOFIN to ensure a consistent regulatory framework while avoiding double regulation and inconsistencies in the treatment of custodian banks by end 2008.

Main Views and Key Findings

1. Mandate and Scope

The ECOFIN mandate initially excluded custodian banks from the scope of the ESCB-CESR Recommendations.
However, it required CEBS to further review the risks borne by custodian banks, especially those that internalise settlement or perform CCP-like activities, to ensure a level playing field and avoid regulatory inconsistencies.

2. Gap Analysis

Custodian banks acting as participants in the system are generally covered by the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD) and other banking regulations.
Custodian banks that internalise settlement or perform CCP-like activities may not be fully or only partially covered by existing banking regulations, creating potential regulatory gaps.

3. Call for Evidence Process

CEBS designed a questionnaire to assess the materiality of these gaps.
The consultation period ran from early February to early March 2009.
16 institutions and 17 CEBS members responded to the questionnaire.

4. Internalisation of Settlement

Internalisation is not currently widespread among custodian banks.
The materiality of internalisation varies significantly across institutions.
OTC traded products show a higher degree of internalisation compared to other products.

Draft Conclusion:

There is little evidence that European-level intervention is necessary.
In markets where internalisation reaches material levels, procedures in line with the ESCB-CESR Risk Supervision and Surveillance System (RSSS) should be adopted.

5. CCP-like Activities

Some custodian banks act as Global Central Makers (GCMs), which may not always be part of their custody business but can be carried out by other parts of their group.
Risk management practices for GCMs vary significantly among respondents.

Draft Conclusion:

Further work should be initiated to understand the diversity of risk management practices among GCMs.
This assessment should be relevant to all clearing members within the scope of CEBS members, not limited to custodian banks.

Timeline

Key Date	Description
24 March 2009	Public hearing to present preliminary results of the analysis
Early April 2009	Report to be published

Questions to Participants

Settlement

What is the driver for the internalisation of OTC transactions (where no CSD exists)?
Are trades by foreign market participants (not participants in the national CSD) associated with a higher degree of internalisation?

Clearing

To what extent do CCP rules influence the risk management of GCMs?
What other requirements are GCMs subject to besides EU banking regulation? (e.g., local guidelines)