EBA published the final draft regulatory technical standards on criteria to identify all categories of staff whose professional activities have a material impact on the risk profile of institutions (also known as risk-takers). Once the final draft standards have been adopted, risk-takers will be identified based on the criteria laid down in the revised Capital Requirements Directive (CRD) 5 and the criteria specified in the regulatory technical standards. The identification process is based on a combination of qualitative and quantitative criteria.
The EBA consultation on these standards ended in February 2020. Based on feedback received during the consultation phase, the qualitative criteria have been revisited to enhance the application of proportionality. The definition of managerial responsibility has been revised taking into account that institutions of different sizes have different layers of hierarchical levels. The final draft regulatory technical standards also clarify how the criteria should be applied on a consolidated, sub-consolidated, and individual basis. To ensure that all risk-takers are identified, members of staff are identified as having a material impact on the risk profile of an institution as soon as they meet at least one of the criteria, be it the criteria foreseen under the CRD, the qualitative or quantitative criteria in the regulatory technical standards, or, where necessary because of the specificities of their business model, additional internal criteria.
Additionally, some flexibility in calculating the amount of remuneration for the application of the quantitative requirements has been introduced. In terms of quantitative criteria, the revised CRD set out a threshold of total remuneration of EUR 500,000 combined with the average of the remuneration of members of the management body and senior management. The final draft regulatory technical standards retain the qualitative criteria that identify the staff at high levels of remuneration as above EUR 750,000. In addition, the 0.3% of staff with the highest remuneration criterion has been amended to be applied only by institutions that have more than 1,000 staff members, to reduce the burden for small institutions. The quantitative criteria are based on the rebuttable assumption that the professional activities of those staff members would have a material impact on the risk profile of institutions. It should be noted that the quantitative criteria set out in the draft standards should be applied to institutions only on an individual level, so that subsidiaries that are subject to specific remuneration requirements can follow those.
Keywords: Europe, EU, Banking, CRD5, Proportionality, Regulatory Technical Standards, Operational Risk, Remuneration, EBA
Previous ArticleBoE and PRA Publish Annual Reports for 2019-20
IAIS published technical specifications, questionnaires, and templates for 2020 Insurance Capital Standard (ICS) and Aggregation Method data collections.
BIS announced that it will establish new Innovation Hub centers across Europe and in North America in cooperation with member central banks.
FED updated the reporting form for FR 2052a, which is used to monitor the overall liquidity profile of certain supervised institutions.
PRA published a statement that sets out its views on certain amendments made to Capital Requirements Regulations (CRR and CRR2) via EU Regulation 2020/873 (CRR "Quick Fix"), including some guidance for firms.
The Climate Financial Risk Forum (CFRF), which is a joint climate risk forum of FCA and PRA, published a guide written by the industry for the industry to help firms approach and address climate-related financial risks.
IAIS published an application paper on liquidity risk management for insurers.
EBA published its response to the EC consultation on a new Digital Finance Strategy for Europe.
EIOPA responded to the EC consultation on a new digital finance strategy for Europe.
ESMA published its response to the EC consultation on the new digital finance strategy for EU.
FSB published, for consultation, a report on evaluation of the too-big-to-fail (TBTF) reforms for systemically important banks.