EU ambassadors approved the position of European Council on a proposed framework for clearing houses and their authorities to prepare for and deal with financial difficulties. They invited the presidency to start negotiations with the European Parliament as soon as possible. The proposed regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a framework for the recovery and resolution of central counterparties (CCPs) amends Regulations (EU) No 1095/2010, (EU) No 648/2012, and (EU) 2015/2365 and Directives 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, and (EU) 2017/1132. The regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
The proposed rules aim to provide national authorities with adequate tools to manage crises and to handle situations involving CCP failures. They build on the same principles as the recovery and resolution framework applying to banks. The main objectives of the reform are to preserve clearing houses' critical functions, to maintain financial stability, and to prevent taxpayers from bearing the costs associated with the restructuring and the resolution of failing clearing houses. The proposed framework takes into account the global and systemic nature of CCPs. It provides for close coordination between national authorities in the framework of "resolution colleges" to ensure that resolution actions are applied in a coherent manner, taking into consideration the impact on affected stakeholders and financial stability. The position of European Council sets out a three-step approach:
- The framework will be based on prevention and preparation. CCPs and resolution authorities are required to draw up recovery and resolution plans on how to handle any form of financial distress which would exceed a CCP's existing resources. If resolution authorities identify obstacles to resolvability in the course of the planning process, they can require a CCP to take appropriate measures.
- Supervisory authorities have the possibility to intervene at an early stage—that is, before the problems become critical and the financial situation deteriorates irreparably. For example, they can require a CCP to undertake specific actions in its recovery plan or to make changes to its business strategy or legal or operational structure.
- In the unlikely case of a CCP failure, national authorities can use resolution tools. These include the use of write-down of instruments of ownership, a cash-call to clearing members, the sale of the CCP or parts of its business, or the creation of a bridge CCP. While in certain limited cases, extraordinary public support may be provided as a last resort, the purpose of resolution actions is to minimize the extent to which the cost of the failure of a CCP is borne by taxpayers, while ensuring that shareholders bear an appropriate part of the losses.
The Council suggests that the new framework should start applying two years after the date of entry into force of the regulation to allow time to adopt all implementing measures and for market participants to take the necessary steps to comply with the new rules. The European Parliament established its first reading position on this file in March 2019. Trialog negotiations are, therefore, ready to start as soon as possible.
Effective Date: OJ+20 Days (Proposed)
Keywords: Europe, EU, Banking, Securities, OTC Derivatives, EMIR, CCPs, Recovery and Resolution, SFTR, European Parliament, European Council
The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) published the final policy statement PS21/21 on the leverage ratio framework in the UK. PS21/21, which sets out the final policy of both the Financial Policy Committee (FPC) and PRA
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) proposed to amend Regulation B to implement changes to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) under Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act.
The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) decided to maintain, at the 2019 levels, the buffer rates for the Other Systemically Important Institutions (O-SII) for another year, with no new rates to be set until December 2023.
The Financial Stability Board (FSB) published a progress report on implementation of its high-level recommendations for the regulation, supervision, and oversight of global stablecoin arrangements.
In a letter to the authorized deposit taking institutions, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) announced an increase in the minimum interest rate buffer it expects banks to use when assessing the serviceability of home loan applications.
The Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI) and the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) are consulting on the preliminary guidance that clarifies that stablecoin arrangements should observe international standards for payment, clearing, and settlement systems.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) and the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) have set out their respective work priorities for 2022.
The Malta Financial Services Authority (MFSA) updated the guidelines on supervisory reporting requirements under the reporting framework 3.0, in addition to the reporting module on leverage under the common reporting (COREP) framework.
The European Commission (EC) published the Implementing Decision 2021/1753 on the equivalence of supervisory and regulatory requirements of certain third countries and territories for the purposes of the treatment of exposures, in accordance with the Capital Requirements Regulation or CRR (575/2013).
EC published the Implementing Regulation 2021/1751, which lays down implementing technical standards on uniform formats and templates for notification of determination of the impracticability of including contractual recognition of write-down and conversion powers.