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
ECB finalized the guide on assessment methodology for the internal model method for calculating exposure to counterparty credit risk (CCR) and the advanced method for own funds requirements for credit valuation adjustment (A-CVA) risk.
EBA published an Opinion addressed to EC to raise awareness about the opportunity to clarify certain issues related to the definition of credit institution in the upcoming review of the Capital Requirements Directive and Regulation (CRD and CRR).
APRA is consulting on updates to ARS 210.0, the reporting standard that sets out requirements for provision of information on liquidity and funding of an authorized deposit-taking institution.
FED released hypothetical scenarios for a second round of stress tests for banks.
PRA published updates in relation to the 2021 Supervisory Benchmarking Portfolio exercise.
FED adopted a proposal to extend for three years, with revision, the capital assessments and stress testing reports (FR Y-14A/Q/M; OMB No. 7100-0341).
HKMA revised the Supervisory Policy Manual module CR-G-14 on margin and other risk mitigation standards for non-centrally cleared over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives transactions.
EBA issued a revised list of validation rules with respect to the implementing technical standards on supervisory reporting.
EBA published its response to the call for advice of EC on ways to strengthen the EU legal framework on anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT).
NGFS published a paper on the overview of environmental risk analysis by financial institutions and an occasional paper on the case studies on environmental risk analysis methodologies.