EBA proposed regulatory technical standards that specify the methodology to be used by resolution authorities to estimate the Pillar 2 and combined buffer requirements at resolution group level for setting the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities requirement (MREL) under the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD). The estimation of Pillar 2 and combined buffer requirements is necessary for setting MREL when the resolution group perimeter differs significantly from the prudential perimeter, at the level of which own fund requirements have been set by the competent authority. The consultation runs until October 24, 2020, with the final standards and the communication to EC being planned for December 2020.
EBA proposes a pragmatic approach aiming to create a framework to improve accuracy in setting the MREL requirement, without requiring sub-consolidation at resolution level and without blurring the lines of responsibilities between competent and resolution authorities in the capital setting process. The proposed approach aims to focus on resolution groups that are significantly different from the prudential group on which capital requirements have been set. To ensure that this methodology only captures resolution groups for which an estimation of Pillar 2 and combined buffer requirements is effectively needed, it was decided to introduce a materiality threshold of 5%. The threshold is meant to express the difference between the total risk exposure measure of the resolution group and the banking group or entity closest in size for which own fund requirements have been effectively set by the competent authority.
If a resolution group is more than 5% different in terms of total risk exposure amount from either the overall banking group or from the main entity for which an additional own fund requirement has been set, then two ways of estimating the resolution group capital requirements have been proposed for setting MREL—a top-down approach and bottom-up approach. With regard to the estimation of the combined buffer requirement, the proposed approach is equally straightforward and proportionate. Under the proposed methodology, the following would apply:
- For the global systemically important institution (G-SII) buffer, the proposal is to keep the G-SII buffer as an input to computing MREL.
- For other systemically important institution (O-SII) buffer and Systemic Risk buffer, the proposal is to use, as an input to calibrate MREL, the buffer of either the banking group or largest entity constituting the resolution group—whichever is the closest in size. The level of the O-SII buffer and the Systemic Risk buffer can be adjusted up or down by the resolution authority as per Article 45c(7), paragraph 6 of the BRRD.
- No estimation methodology has been proposed for both the capital conservation buffer and the countercyclical buffer. This is because the former is not bank-specific and would be simply set at the consolidated resolution group level and the latter is not included in the MREL calibration.
Comment Due Date: October 24, 2020
Keywords: Europe, EU, Banking, MREL, Pillar2, BRRD, Resolution Framework, Basel, Regulatory Technical Standards, Proportionality, Systemic Risk, Capital Buffers, EBA
Previous ArticleBundesbank Issues Circular on Adjustments to AnaCredit Reporting
The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) published the final policy statement PS21/21 on the leverage ratio framework in the UK. PS21/21, which sets out the final policy of both the Financial Policy Committee (FPC) and PRA
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) proposed to amend Regulation B to implement changes to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) under Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act.
The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) decided to maintain, at the 2019 levels, the buffer rates for the Other Systemically Important Institutions (O-SII) for another year, with no new rates to be set until December 2023.
The Financial Stability Board (FSB) published a progress report on implementation of its high-level recommendations for the regulation, supervision, and oversight of global stablecoin arrangements.
In a letter to the authorized deposit taking institutions, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) announced an increase in the minimum interest rate buffer it expects banks to use when assessing the serviceability of home loan applications.
The Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI) and the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) are consulting on the preliminary guidance that clarifies that stablecoin arrangements should observe international standards for payment, clearing, and settlement systems.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) and the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) have set out their respective work priorities for 2022.
The Malta Financial Services Authority (MFSA) updated the guidelines on supervisory reporting requirements under the reporting framework 3.0, in addition to the reporting module on leverage under the common reporting (COREP) framework.
The European Commission (EC) published the Implementing Decision 2021/1753 on the equivalence of supervisory and regulatory requirements of certain third countries and territories for the purposes of the treatment of exposures, in accordance with the Capital Requirements Regulation or CRR (575/2013).
EC published the Implementing Regulation 2021/1751, which lays down implementing technical standards on uniform formats and templates for notification of determination of the impracticability of including contractual recognition of write-down and conversion powers.