EBA欧洲银行-FDonCP34_13页_218kb

报告摘要

Summary of Feedback to CEBS's Draft Guidelines for the Operational Functioning of Colleges (CP 34)

Core Content

The document summarizes the feedback received by the Committee of European Banking Supervisors (CEBS) on its Draft Guidelines for the Operational Functioning of Colleges (CP 34), which were submitted for public consultation on 17 December 2009 and closed on 31 March 2010. A total of eight written responses were received, and the summary highlights both general and specific comments from stakeholders.

CEBS has grouped similar comments and addressed them in a structured manner. The guidelines aim to enhance the supervision of cross-border banking groups by promoting convergence of supervisory practices, efficiency, and coordination among supervisory authorities.

Main Views and Key Points

General Support

Concept of Colleges: Respondents generally supported the concept of colleges of supervisors as a tool for more effective and efficient supervision of cross-border banking groups.
Role of the Consolidating Supervisor: The consolidating supervisor was viewed as pivotal, with flexibility in determining the college structure and the involvement of non-EEA members.
Confidentiality: Emphasis was placed on confidentiality requirements, especially for non-EEA authorities participating in colleges.
Crisis Management: Colleges, particularly core colleges, were seen as important for coordinated crisis responses. However, there were concerns about the guidelines potentially interfering with future developments in crisis management.
Alignment with EBA and ESRB: There was strong support for the involvement of the future European Banking Authority (EBA) and the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) in the functioning of colleges. However, some concerns were raised about the EBA’s influence on information sharing and leadership of the consolidating supervisor.
Implementation Timing: Most respondents agreed that the guidelines should be implemented on the same date as the entry into force of the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD).

Areas for Improvement

Decision-Making Procedures: Some respondents called for clear decision-making procedures within colleges, with the consolidating supervisor taking the lead in case of disagreement.
Harmonisation of Pillar 2 Approaches: There was a suggestion for more harmonisation of Pillar 2 methodologies to facilitate joint decisions on risk-based capital adequacy.
Interaction with Supervised Groups: Stakeholders encouraged greater interaction between supervisory colleges and the management of the supervised banking group, including more extensive feedback and advance notification of supervisory expectations.
Delegation and Task Sharing: The use of task delegation and sharing was supported as a way to improve supervision efficiency, with a suggestion for further clarification in the legal framework.

CEBS' Response

CEBS acknowledged the feedback and outlined its responses, which included:

Waiting for Regulatory Changes: CEBS decided to wait until the regulations of the ESRB and EBA are in place before making changes to its guidelines.
Adaptation to New Developments: CEBS is committed to adapting its guidelines to align with future regulatory changes, especially regarding crisis management and macro-prudential risks.
No Immediate Changes: In most cases, no changes were made to the guidelines, as the comments were considered already adequately addressed.
Clarifications and Amendments: Some specific amendments were proposed, including:
- Adding a footnote to Guideline 16 to clarify that CEBS Secretariat staff are bound by confidentiality provisions.
- Rewording paragraphs to enhance clarity and consistency, particularly in areas related to information sharing, model validation, and the role of the consolidating supervisor.

Specific Remarks and Revisions

The following table outlines the specific comments and corresponding CEBS responses and amendments:

Topic	Guideline	Comments Received	CEBS' Response	Amendments
1	Chapter 1, Guideline 1	Support for the mapping of the group provided that supervisors do not try to use the mapping exercise to influence the group structure.	The purpose of the mapping exercise is to allow for a structuring of the college in accordance with the organisation, scale and complexity of the supervised group.	No changes required.
2	Chapter 1, Guideline 4	One respondent strongly felt that the responsibility for model validation should rest with the core college.	The involvement in the joint decision on the permission to use internal models of all EEA supervisors is a legal requirement. CEBS agrees that more extensive involvement of core college members may be suitable.	No changes required.
3	Chapter 1, Guideline 5	One respondent welcomed the emphasis on confidentiality requirements for the participation of non-EEA authorities.	CEBS agrees with this comment.	No changes required.
4	Chapter 1, Guidelines 6 and 9	One respondent felt that the decision on the inclusion of non-EEA supervisors should be taken by the consolidating supervisor and core college, allowing objections from other members within a given timeframe.	The consolidating supervisor should take the initiative in inviting non-EEA supervisors. CEBS agrees to cross-reference to Guideline 9.	New sentence added to paragraph 36. Reworded paragraph 51.
5	Chapter 1, Guideline 8	One respondent felt that many of the principles used to determine the relevance and significance of a subsidiary were also relevant in the context of determining the level of participation of a branch supervisor.	The three criteria mentioned in the CRD should always be considered. Additional criteria may be used where appropriate.	No changes required.
6	Chapter 1, Guideline 10	Respondents tended to support this guideline, provided that confidentiality is safeguarded.	CEBS agrees with this comment.	Reworded guideline 10.
7	Chapter 1, Guideline 14	One respondent expected colleges to meet more than once a year if they were to reach a joint assessment and decision on risk-based capital adequacy.	CEBS agrees. The annual meeting is a minimum requirement.	No changes required.
8	Chapter 1, Guideline 16	Respondents expressed diverging views, with most supporting CEBS as an observer at college meetings.	CEBS considers it advisable to postpone changes until the new framework is defined.	Reworded guideline 16. Added footnote.
9	Chapter 2, Guideline 17	Diverging views on the information items to be exchanged within the colleges.	CEBS considers the current wording a good compromise.	No changes required.
10	Chapter 2, Guideline 22	One respondent suggested that the parent company be used as a single entry point for communication.	CEBS agrees with this proposal.	Reworded paragraph 80.
11	Chapter 2, Guideline 23	Respondents showed strong support for the coordination of information requests.	CEBS agrees with the proposed change.	Reworded paragraph 81.
12	Chapter 2, Guideline 24	Two respondents suggested that host supervisors jointly inform the locally licensed entities and the parent company.	CEBS aligns the responsibility with the consolidating supervisor and host supervisors.	No changes required.
13	Chapter 2, Guideline 25	All respondents supported the guideline, with some suggesting advance notification of supervisory expectations.	CEBS agrees with the proposal.	Reworded paragraph 84.
14	Chapter 3, Guideline 34	One respondent entrusted the college with the review of the performance of delegated tasks.	CEBS believes the delegating authority is best placed to review performance.	No changes required.
15	Chapter 4	One respondent suggested more granularity on model validation decisions.	CEBS notes this for potential future changes.	No changes required.
16	Chapter 4, Guideline 38	A respondent preferred extending the procedure to ongoing model review.	CEBS notes this for potential future changes.	No changes required.
17	Chapter 5	Several respondents advocated more harmonization of supervisory practices.	CEBS considers this a long-term objective.	No changes required.
18	Chapter 5	One respondent advocated a decision by the consolidating supervisor in the absence of joint decisions.	CEBS notes that this is legally determined by Article 129.3 of the CRD.	No changes required.
19	Chapter 6, Guideline 50	Several respondents suggested more clarity on the interaction with ESRB and EBA.	CEBS considers this more appropriate to clarify when the ESRB and EBA regulations are approved.	No changes required now.
20	Chapter 7, Guideline 51	Several respondents were concerned about local planning not being consistent with the coordinated plan.	CEBS agrees that local planning should be consistent with the coordinated plan.	Reworded paragraph 207.
21	Chapter 8, Guideline 59	One respondent was concerned that confidentiality should be safeguarded when involving other authorities in crisis management.	CEBS agrees with this proposal.	Added final words to Guideline 59.
22	Chapter 8, Guideline 61	Several respondents would welcome more clarity on who has responsibility for identifying emergency situations.	CEBS considers it appropriate for each supervisor to detect emergencies within their areas of responsibility.	No changes required.