EBA published guidelines for the pragmatic supervisory review and evaluation process (SREP) for 2020, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The guidelines have been published following the publication of an EBA statement, in April 2020, on additional supervisory measures in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. These guidelines complement the SREP guidelines (EBA/GL/2014/13), are addressed to competent authorities, and aim to demonstrate how flexibility and pragmatism could be exercised in relation to the SREP framework in the context of this crisis. The guidelines establish a special procedure for SREP for 2020 and will apply from July 23, 2020.
The risk‐driven approach put forward by these guidelines builds on the existing requirements of the Capital Requirements Directive and the SREP guidelines and adapts them to the exceptional circumstances of the COVID‐19 pandemic; this approach ensures the exercise of supervisory judgment to the greatest possible extent. These guidelines focus on the key aspects of SREP, such as the pragmatic SREP, the overall SREP assessment and scoring, the supervisory measures, and the conduct of SREP in cross‐border context. In terms of the supervisory measures applied in the 2020 cycle, the guidelines express a preference for qualitative measures in the first instance. Due to pragmatic nature of the 2020 SREP, Pillar 2 requirements could remain stable, if it is appropriate, and should be met by the institution at all times.
The guidelines ensure the possibility for competent authorities to leave Pillar 2 guidance stable in 2020, if so warranted by the current uncertainties. Similar to the capital buffers that are designed to absorb losses and ensure continued lending to the economy during a downturn, the usability of the Pillar 2 guidance is important to ensure that institutions can provide the necessary support to households and the corporate sector. These guidelines acknowledge the usability of the Pillar 2 guidance in the current circumstances and provide for an enhanced supervisory follow‐up to ensure eventual restoration. Regardless of the periodic SREP assessment, competent authorities are encouraged to apply supervisory measures, where needed, to address immediate concerns arising from the continuous assessment of risks.
According to Article 16(3) of Regulation 1093/2010, competent authorities must notify EBA whether they comply or intend to comply with these guidelines, along with the reasons for non‐compliance (in case of non-compliance), by September 25, 2020. In the absence of notification by this deadline, EBA will consider the competent authority to be non‐compliant with these guidelines. Competent authorities may continue to apply the SREP guidelines as they currently stand, if they wish to do so. However, there is a need to ensure that competent authorities have the option to apply instead for the alternative specific process for the 2020 exercise, which may be necessary in response to the COVID‐19 pandemic and is set out in a harmonized manner in these guidelines. Due to the urgency of the matter and the limited focus of these guidelines on COVID‐19 pandemic‐related features as well as the continued validity of the SREP guidelines as they stand, EBA decided not to carry out public consultations or a cost–benefit analysis.
Keywords: Europe, EU, Banking, COVID-19, SREP, Pillar 2, Cross-Border, Capital Buffer, Risk Assessment, Credit Risk, Liquidity Risk, CRD, EBA
Leading economist; commercial real estate; performance forecasting, econometric infrastructure; data modeling; credit risk modeling; portfolio assessment; custom commercial real estate analysis; thought leader.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published the final draft regulatory technical standards on disclosure of investment policy by investment firms, under the Investment Firms Regulation (IFR).
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published version 5.1 of the filing rules for supervisory reporting.
The European Central Bank (ECB) Guideline 2021/1829 on the procedures for the collection of granular credit and credit risk data has been published in the Official Journal of European Union.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) published the prudential practice guide CPG 511 to assist banks, insurers, and superannuation licensees in meeting requirements of CPS 511, the new prudential standard on remuneration.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) published a bulletin that provides an updated self-assessment tool for banks to evaluate their preparedness for cessation of the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR).
The Financial Stability Board (FSB) published a report that examines the progress made toward disclosures aligned with recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD).
The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) published the progress report on adoption of the Basel III regulatory framework in member jurisdictions.
The French Prudential Supervisory Authority (ACPR) has implemented, in its information system, updates linked to the Data Point Model (DPM) version 3.1.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published a thematic note that aims to identify and raise awareness of the transition risks of benchmark rates, as the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) and the Euro Overnight Index Average (EONIA) are close to being phased out.
In a letter to the federally regulated financial institutions and pension plans, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) published a summary of the feedback received to the January 2021 discussion paper on ways to address climate risks.