PRA has identified error in the “higher paid material risk taker” definition in Rule 1.3 in the Remuneration Part of the PRA Rulebook, which was introduced as part of the PRA implementation of the fifth Capital Requirements Directive (CRD5). PRA intends to consult on amending the rule at the earliest opportunity. FCA is aware of the PRA position on the definition of the term “higher paid material risk taker” and, to maintain alignment, FCA also intends to consult on amending this rule at the next suitable opportunity.
The incorrect definition of the "higher paid material risk taker" sets the requirement that "an individual would be treated as a "higher paid material risk taker" when:
(a) their annual variable remuneration exceeds 33% of their total remuneration; and
(b) their total remuneration exceeds GBP 500,000."
However, according to the correct definition an individual does not need to satisfy both the above-mentioned conditions, rather an individual would be treated as a "higher paid material Risk taker" when either one of these conditions is met. Thus, the correct text should convey that an individual should be treated as a “higher paid material risk taker” where either their annual variable remuneration exceeds 33% of their total remuneration, or their total remuneration exceeds GBP 500,000. This is in line with the PRA position outlined in the consultation paper (CP12/20) and policy statement (PS26/20) on the implementation of CRD5.
Related Link: Statement
Keywords: Europe, UK, Banking, Remuneration, PRA Rulebook, CRD5, Basel, Operational Risk, FCA, PRA
APRA issued a letter on the loss-absorbing capacity (LAC) requirements for domestic systemically important banks (D-SIBs) and published a discussion paper, along with the proposed the prudential standards on financial contingency planning (CPS 190) and resolution planning (CPS 900).
The European Commission (EC) launched a call for evidence, until March 18, 2022, as part of a comprehensive review of the macro-prudential rules for the banking sector under the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) and Directive (CRD IV).
The Financial Stability Board (FSB) published a report that sets out good practices for crisis management groups.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) found that Heritage Bank Limited had incorrectly reported capital because of weaknesses in operational risk and compliance frameworks, although the bank did not breach minimum prudential capital ratios at any point and remains well-capitalized.
The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) released the annual report for 2020-2021.
Through a letter addressed to the banking sector entities, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) announced deferral of the domestic implementation of the final Basel III reforms from the first to the second quarter of 2023.
EIOPA recently published a letter in which EC is informing the European Parliament and Council that it could not adopt the set of draft regulatory technical standards for disclosures under the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) within the stipulated three-month period, given their length and technical detail.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published the third in a series of policy statements that set out rules to introduce the UK Investment Firm Prudential Regime (IFPR), which will take effect on January 01, 2022.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) published, along with a summary of its response to the consultation feedback, an information paper that summarizes the finalized capital framework that is in line with the internationally agreed Basel III requirements for banks.
The Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI) and the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) issued a consultative report focusing on access to central counterparty (CCP) clearing and client-position portability.