EBA欧洲银行-BSG-Response-to-EBA-CP-2017-05-on-draft-RTS-on-Simplified-Obligations-under-BRRD_4页_202kb

EBA Banking Stakeholder Group Response Summary

Core Content

The EBA Banking Stakeholder Group (BSG) has responded to the European Banking Authority's (EBA) consultation on Draft Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS) regarding simplified obligations under Article 4(6) of Directive 2014/59/EU. The BSG, composed of 30 members representing credit and investment institutions, their employees, consumers, SMEs, and academics, aims to facilitate stakeholder consultation in areas relevant to the EBA's tasks.

The BSG supports the concept of proportionality in EU financial regulation, emphasizing the need to balance the costs and benefits of regulatory measures. They argue that effective bank resolution arrangements have reduced the costs of failure, thereby lessening the need for intensive regulation aimed at preventing failures. This perspective suggests that supervisory focus should be on systemically important banks, while less systemically important banks can benefit from simplified obligations.

Main Views and Key Points

Support for Proportionality

• The BSG strongly advocates for a principle of proportionality.
• They believe that the reduction in the costs of bank failures through resolution regimes should lead to a less intensive regulatory approach for less systemically important banks.
• They recommend that policy makers should recognize this new equilibrium and adjust regulatory intensity accordingly.

Simplified Obligations Approach

• The BSG supports the incorporation of the significant elements of the existing Guidelines (Article 4(5) of the Banking Recovery and Resolution Directive) into Technical Standards.
• They endorse a two-stage approach for identifying institutions subject to simplified obligations.
• They suggest that the second stage should be waived for the very smallest banks, below the total asset threshold, as these institutions are unlikely to be systemically important.

Comprehensiveness of the Draft RTS

• The draft RTS comprehensively covers the criteria specified in Article 4(1) of the Directive.
• The BSG supports the rationalization of Annex 2 of the current Guidelines, favoring a judgment-based approach over a "tick-box" exercise.
• They note that Article 2(1)(f) introduces a new qualitative consideration regarding the different objectives of recovery and resolution planning and request further clarification on this point.

De Minimis Threshold

• The de minimis threshold is set at 0.015% of the total assets of all credit institutions in a Member State.
• Below this threshold, authorities may move directly to a qualitative assessment.
• The BSG suggests harmonizing the de minimis threshold with the O-SII threshold of 0.02%, to simplify the process.
• They propose that the de minimis exemption should apply to both stages of the filtering process to avoid uncertainty for the smallest banks.
• However, they acknowledge that competent authorities should retain discretion to apply a qualitative assessment in special circumstances.

Investment Firms

• The BSG supports the list of quantitative indicators for investment firms in Annex II.
• They agree with the ability provided in Article 3 for competent and resolution authorities to set the threshold score.
• They suggest that both authorities should jointly agree on a single threshold to avoid discrepancies.
• They also support the list of qualitative assessment factors for investment firms as described in Article 4.