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
BCBS Finalizes Revisions to Credit Valuation Adjustment Risk Framework
PRA published a statement to insurers that clarifies the approach to application of the matching adjustment during COVID-19 crisis.
EBA published a report on the implementation of selected COVID-19 policies within the prudential framework for banking sector.
EC launched a consultation to revise the network and information systems (NIS) Directive (2016/1148), which was adopted in July 2016 and is the first horizontal internal market instrument aimed at improving the resilience of the EU against cybersecurity risks.
PRA published a statement that outlines its view on the implications of LIBOR transition for contracts in scope of the “Contractual Recognition of Bail-In” and “Stay in Resolution” parts of the PRA Rulebook.
PRA published the policy statement PS15/20 to reflect additional resilience associated with higher macro-prudential buffers in a standard risk environment with a reduction in Pillar 2A capital requirements.
BCBS published the eighteenth progress report on implementation of the Basel III regulatory framework in member jurisdictions.
FCA announced proposals that would provide continued support for certain consumer credit products to users, who are facing a financial impact because of the exceptional circumstances arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.
ACPR published a draft version of taxonomy RAN 1.4.0_PWD1, along with the related documentation, for Solvency II reporting.
BCBS amended the guidelines on sound management of risks related to money laundering and financing of terrorism (ML/FT).