EBA欧洲银行-CP34_AFME_8页_227kb

AFME Response to CEBS CP34 on Guidelines for Supervisory Colleges

Introduction

AFME (Association for Financial Markets in Europe) was established on November 1st, 2009, through the merger of LIBA and the European operation of SIFMA. It represents a wide range of European and global participants in the wholesale financial markets, with 197 members including banks, brokers, law firms, and investors. AFME collaborates with SIFMA in the US and the Asian Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association via GFMA, providing its members with a strong voice on international, European, and UK capital market issues.

General Comments

AFME generally supports the draft CEBS guidelines for supervisory colleges, viewing them as comprehensive and practical. Key points include:

• Cooperation and Streamlining: Colleges should be structured to optimize cooperation and streamline supervisory tasks, both within the EU/EEA and in the context of third countries.
• Adaptability: College arrangements must be flexible enough to allow seamless interaction between EEA and global colleges.
• Alignment with Basel Committee: CEBS guidelines should align with the Basel Committee's draft Good Practice Principles on Supervisory Colleges, published on March 30th.
• Role of Consolidating Supervisor: The consolidating supervisor should lead the college, act as the point of contact, and facilitate efficient communication.
• Confidentiality: Special attention must be given to the protection of market-sensitive information, especially when involving third countries.
• Feedback and Planning: Firms welcome advance notification of college meeting agendas and data requests, as well as full feedback on the outcomes of meetings.

Chapter 1: Operational Organisation of Colleges

• Guideline 3: The use of "core" and "general" colleges is supported, as it balances efficiency with full participation. In some cases, broader participation in the core college may be appropriate.
• Guideline 4: The guidelines should provide more granularity on the types of model validation decisions. A system of pre-validation for initial model approvals and material changes, and post-validation for non-material changes, is recommended.
• Guideline 5: CEBS should work with non-EEA supervisors to ensure effective cooperation. The guidelines should support interaction between EEA and third country authorities, both within and outside the EU college.
• Guideline 9: Membership of non-EEA supervisors should be determined based on the relevance of the entity and the equivalence of confidentiality requirements to the CRD. CEBS should consider the EC's list of equivalent countries when determining membership.
• Guideline 10: Central banks should not be regular members of colleges but may participate in specific cases where there is a justified need or concern.
• Guideline 16: CEBS should be invited as an observer to college meetings, with access to relevant information. However, confidentiality arrangements must be strengthened to ensure sensitive data is protected.

Chapter 2: Exchange of Information Among Supervisors and Communication with the Supervised Institutions

• Guideline 22: Communication with the supervised group should be agreed upon by college members and should cover key activities.
• Guideline 25: The consolidating supervisor should organize meetings between college members and the supervised group’s senior management. Advance notice of supervisory concerns is essential to enable effective dialogue.

Chapter 3: Voluntary Sharing and Delegation of Tasks

• AFME agrees with the guidelines in this chapter and has no specific comments.

Chapter 4: Joint Decision on Model Validation

• Guideline 37: The college should agree on a single waiver for all models to avoid duplication. Clear communication and dialogue between the firm and supervisors are necessary.
• Guideline 38: The consolidating supervisor should lead the coordination and review of the supervisory action plan. Rationalization of information requirements and minimizing multiple requests is encouraged.

Chapter 5: Joint Decision on Risk-Based Capital Adequacy

• Guideline 44: Common templates for reporting risk profiles should be used to facilitate assessment and comparison. The focus should be on essential information.
• Guideline 45: Information requests on ICAAP should be coordinated within the college, particularly supporting paragraphs 173 and 174.

Chapter 6: Macro-Prudential Risks

• Guideline 50: Colleges should assess macroeconomic and financial developments, as well as sectoral vulnerabilities, to identify systemic risks. They should also respond to ESRB recommendations and inform ESAs and ESRB of systemic issues.
• AFME supports the integration of macro- and micro-prudential supervision, but calls for clarity on how the CEBS guidelines would apply in case of differing macro-prudential assessments.

Chapter 7: Planning and Coordination of Supervisory Activities in Going Concern Situations

• Guideline 51: A coordinated supervisory action plan should be developed by the consolidating supervisor for the entire group, including the parent company and key entities.
• Guideline 57: Colleges should consider sharing supervisory plans with the supervised group to ensure transparency and efficiency.

Chapter 8: Planning and Coordination of Supervisory Activities in Emergency Situations

• Guideline 59: Colleges should cooperate with other relevant authorities, such as central banks and finance ministries, and other networks like Cross-Border Stability Groups.
• Guideline 61: The identification of potential emergency situations should be clearly defined. The college should assess the impact on financial soundness, market liquidity, and financial system stability, with particular attention to third country supervisors.

Conclusion

AFME emphasizes the need for flexibility, effective communication, and strong confidentiality measures in supervisory colleges. It supports the role of CEBS in promoting convergence and consistency across EU and global colleges, and recommends further clarification and refinement of the guidelines to ensure they meet the needs of the industry while maintaining regulatory effectiveness.