FSI published a paper that reviews the post-crisis "fit and proper" assessment criteria for bank directors, along with the related guidance on board composition and structure, in 19 jurisdictions. The paper identifies areas where additional guidance on aspects of board governance can help to further strengthen the quality of bank boards, which, in turn, may enhance confidence in the financial system. The stock-take also provides insights on the methods authorities use to enhance board composition and structure.
The 19 jurisdictions reviewed in this assessment include the US, the UK, EU, Australia, Bahrain, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, China, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Nigeria, the Philippines, Russia, South Africa, and Thailand. The paper finds that, while all jurisdictions prescribe the "fit and proper" criteria, some have no regulatory powers to approve board candidates or they do not require prior approval of all bank directors. Where prior regulatory approval is required, regulatory decisions are driven by the fitness criterion, which comprises a range of different factors. When it comes to board composition, nearly all authorities require the chair and the CEO roles to be separated and many prescribe an appropriate mix of executive directors, non-executive directors, and independent non-executive directors on the board. In this context, all jurisdictions provide guidance on what is not considered "independent," focusing on the relationship between a bank and a director. Several jurisdictions also impose tenure limits for non-executive directors and independent non-executive directors. As for board structure, most authorities require banks to establish risk, audit, and remuneration committees, while ethics and culture committees are rare. While regulatory guidance on corporate governance is applicable to all banks, authorities differentiate expectations through the use of proportionality.
The review of fit and proper assessment approaches identifies practices that may be useful for supervisory authorities. Authorities might, where appropriate, seek regulatory powers to approve board candidates and determine whether aspects of the fitness criterion can be enhanced to help support desired outcomes. These include clarifying the “expertise” requirements of board candidates, particularly the board chair and the chair of board subcommittees; assessing the time commitment of board candidates, considering their outside obligations; incorporating the “independence of mind” concept, which goes beyond determining whether candidates have a conflict of interest; and outlining the role of interviews in the assessment process. In determining formal independence, supervisory assessments might be improved by defining more concrete attributes for an independent non-executive director, establishing maximum tenure limits for an independent non-executive director, and monitoring how often an independent non-executive director dissents from the majority opinion.
Keywords: International, Banking, Operational Risk, Fit and Proper Criteria, Governance, Proportionality, FSI
Previous ArticleEIOPA Issues Statement on Mitigating Impact of COVID-19 on Insurers
Next ArticleIASB Defers Effective Date for IFRS 17
EBA published phase 2 of the technical package on the reporting framework 2.10, providing the technical tools and specifications for implementation of EBA reporting requirements.
FASB issued a proposed Accounting Standards Update that would grant insurance companies, adversely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, an additional year to implement the Accounting Standards Update No. 2018-12 on targeted improvements to accounting for long-duration insurance contracts, or LDTI (Topic 944).
APRA updated the regulatory approach for loans subject to repayment deferrals amid the COVID-19 crisis.
BCBS and FSB published a report on supervisory issues associated with benchmark transition.
IAIS published a report on supervisory issues associated with benchmark transition from an insurance perspective.
ESMA updated the reporting manual on the European Single Electronic Format (ESEF).
EBA published a statement on resolution planning in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.
ECB published a guideline (2020/97), in the Official Journal of European Union, on the definition of materiality threshold for credit obligations past due for less significant institutions.
FED temporarily revised the capital assessments and stress testing reports (FR Y-14A/Q/M) to implement the changes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
BCBS Finalizes Revisions to Credit Valuation Adjustment Risk Framework