EBA欧洲银行-Peer-Review-Report-on-the-functioning-of-colleges_28页_250kb

Summary of the Peer Review on the Functioning of Supervisory Colleges

Core Content

This report outlines the findings of a peer review conducted by the Review Panel on the functioning of supervisory colleges within the European Economic Area (EEA), focusing on three core areas: Information Exchange, Risk Assessment, and Planning and Coordination. The review was carried out between April and June 2010, based on self-assessments completed by 17 supervisory colleges in March 2010. The goal of the peer review was to assess the convergence of supervisory practices and to identify good practices that could enhance the effectiveness of these colleges.

Main Viewpoints

• Purpose of the Peer Review: To promote supervisory convergence across the EEA by evaluating the implementation of supervisory provisions from Community legislation, CEBS guidelines, and other relevant documents.

• Methodology: The Review Panel used a self-assessment questionnaire and conducted independent reviews through conference calls. The process was structured around essential, important, and additional criteria to assess compliance and identify advanced practices.

• Focus Areas: The review concentrated on the following areas:

  • Information Exchange
  • Risk Assessment
  • Planning and Coordination

• Key Findings:

  • Information Exchange: A majority of colleges actively exchange information, but there is significant variation in the frequency, timeliness, and methods used. Some colleges have adopted good practices such as web platforms, conference calls, and newsletters.
  • Risk Assessment: Colleges have developed diverse approaches, with some using a top-down model and others a bottom-up method. A common template and scoring scale were used by some colleges to anticipate the implementation of the JRAD guidelines.
  • Planning and Coordination: This was identified as a challenging area for many. While some colleges have fully implemented planning and coordination requirements, others have only partially or not at all.

Key Information

Information Exchange

• Essential Criteria: Consistent with Article 132 of the CRD and active, two-way information exchange among members.
• Important Criterion: Timely exchange of information.
• Good Practices: Use of web platforms, conference calls, and newsletters for regular and interactive communication.
• Findings:
  • 11 colleges fully applied the requirements.
  • 4 colleges partially applied them.
  • 2 colleges did not apply them satisfactorily.

Risk Assessment

• Essential Criteria: Risk assessments conducted at consolidated, sub-consolidated, and solo levels.
• Important Criterion: Coordination and cooperation in risk assessment.
• Good Practices: Risk expert meetings, joint inspections, use of CEBS sectoral risk assessment, stress tests, and liquidity identity cards.
• Findings:
  • 15 colleges fully applied the requirements.
  • 2 colleges did not apply them satisfactorily.

Planning and Coordination

• Essential Criteria: Coordination and streamlining of supervisory activities.
• Important Criterion: Exchange of supervisory plans and common planning.
• Good Practices: Regular updates of supervisory plans, joint on-site inspections, and common reporting of findings.
• Findings:
  • 9 colleges fully applied the requirements.
  • 3 colleges partially applied them.
  • 5 colleges did not apply them satisfactorily.

Conclusions

• Supervisory colleges are an evolutionary process and require ongoing development to achieve full convergence.
• The Review Panel emphasizes that multilateral cooperation is essential for effective supervision and that it is a shared responsibility among all members.
• The consolidating supervisor plays a central role in leading the coordination, while host supervisors also contribute.
• The report highlights that while progress has been made, further work is needed to ensure that risks are commonly identified, assessed, and mitigated across all colleges.
• The Review Panel believes that this report will contribute to the effective functioning of supervisory colleges and the convergence of supervisory practices in the EU.

Anticipated Improvements

• A common framework for information exchange is needed to promote horizontal convergence.
• Agreement on a non-exhaustive list of information to be shared would help structure the exchange process.
• Common reporting of joint inspections and the development of common planning are recommended to enhance coordination.

Final Note

The Review Panel notes that the benefits of multilateral coordination include a better understanding of group activities, enhanced risk assessment, and more efficient supervisory processes. It concludes that the peer review process has been instrumental in identifying areas for improvement and promoting a more unified supervisory approach across the EEA.