EBA published its report on the application of the regulatory technical standards on criteria to identify categories of staff whose professional activities have a material impact on the risk profile of an institution. This peer review aims to assess the supervisory practices followed and measures taken by competent authorities with respect to the requirements of the technical standards. The results of the review show that, within the European Economic Area, the competent authorities have properly applied the technical standards during the reference period from January 01, 2015 to December 31, 2017.
To gain a deep understanding of the identification process, which begins with practices within the institutions, the review panel selected a small number of institutions forming a representative sample, including one significant institution for each member state and two less significant institutions. These institutions were requested to provide data on the numbers of staff members identified under the qualitative and quantitative criteria set out in the technical standards and through the application of additional internal criteria. This assessment was intended to enable EBA and the review panel to flag any issues that institutions face in the application of the EBA requirements, along with any possible interpretation issues or loopholes resulting from the current text of the technical standards. This report highlights the following observed best practices:
- Competent authorities collect information from institutions to ensure that the required information is all included in the documentation.
- Institutions have a notification and prior approval process regarding exemptions for identified staff under Article 4(4) and (5) of the technical standards.
- The application of exemptions for individual staff is assessed under Article 4(2) to (4) of the technical standards.
- The use of supervisory tools for assessing the compliance of institutions.
Additionally, the review panel identified certain weaknesses in the application of some parts of the technical standards. Competent authorities typically follow a risk-based approach, though some of them have some difficulties to distinguish their standard risk-based methods of supervision and the application of the proportionality principle. This leads to diverging approaches and, in a few cases, to the exclusion of certain institutions from the supervisory review on a systematic basis. The review panel suggested conducting a targeted review of the application of the technical standards after their amendment, following the entry into force of the Capital Requirements Directive or CRD5 (2019/879/EU). However, time should be allowed before this review takes place, as both supervisors and institutions will need time to implement CRD5 and the amended technical standards on identified staff. The review will aim to ensure that the competent authorities have addressed the observed weaknesses in a consistent manner.
Keywords: Europe, EU, Banking, Operational Risk, Peer Review, Competent Authorities, Regulatory Technical Standards, Remuneration, CRD5, EBA
Previous ArticleBoE and FCA Outline Next Steps for LIBOR Transition in 2020
EBA published a report analyzing the impact of the unwind mechanism of the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) for a sample of European banks over a three-year period, from the end of 2016 to the first quarter of 2020.
In response to questions from a member of the European Parliament, the ECB President Christine Lagarde issued a letter clarifying the possibility of amending the AnaCredit Regulation and making targeted longer-term refinancing operations (TLTROs) dependent on the climate-related impact of bank loans.
IASB started the post-implementation review of the classification and measurement requirements in IFRS 9 on financial instruments and added the review as a project to its work plan.
FSB published a report that examines progress in implementing policy measures to enhance the resolvability of systemically important financial institutions.
EBA published a report on the benchmarking of national loan enforcement frameworks across 27 EU member states, in response to the call for advice from EC.
FSB published a letter from its Chair Randal K. Quarles, along with two reports exploring various aspects of the market turmoil resulting from the COVID-19 event.
RBNZ launched a consultation on the details for implementing the final Capital Review decisions announced in December 2019.
The Trustees of the IFRS Foundation, which are responsible for the governance and oversight of IASB, have announced the appointment of Dr. Andreas Barckow as the IASB Chair, effective July 2021.
HKMA issued a letter to consult the banking industry on a full set of proposed draft amendments to the Banking (Capital) Rules for implementing the Basel standard on capital requirements for banks’ equity investments in funds in Hong Kong.
ESRB published an opinion assessing the decision of Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority (FSA) to extend the application period of a stricter measure for residential mortgage lending, in accordance with Article 458 of the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR).