ECB Updates SREP Methodology Booklet for Less Significant Institutions
ECB updated the booklet on the Supervisory Review and Evaluation Process (SREP) methodology for less significant institutions. This common SREP methodology for less significant institutions is based on the EBA SREP Guidelines and builds on the methodology for significant institutions and existing national SREP methodologies. The national competent authorities are implementing the harmonized SREP methodology for less significant institutions and aiming for full implementation by 2020.
The SREP booklet highlights that, in 2019, 15 national competent authorities implemented this SREP methodology for non-high-priority less significant institutions, in addition to the high-priority less significant institutions that were covered last year as a minimum. Some authorities had already done so in 2018. These authorities are expected to continue the roll-out of the methodology to non-high-priority less significant institutions to ensure that, by the end of 2020, all less significant institutions will have been assessed on the basis of the SREP methodology for less significant institutions. For 2020, the SREP methodology has been enhanced in the areas of interest rate risk in the banking book and IT risk assessment, in line with the EBA guidelines and the supervisory priorities of the Single Supervisory Mechanism. Additionally, the national competent authorities are expected to implement the Pillar 2 Guidance by 2021, in line with the revised EBA guidelines on SREP.
As per the methodology, national competent authorities continue to retain full responsibility, as direct supervisors of less significant institutions, for carrying out the assessments and deciding on capital, liquidity, and qualitative measures. The methodology reflects the principle of proportionality, as it sets out the minimum extent to which supervisors must engage with a less significant institution, according to the priority assigned to the less significant institution and the nature of its business (minimum supervisory engagement model). As a result, the SREP differs between less significant institutions, for example, in terms of how intense the assessment is, what information the less significant institutions needs to submit to the supervisors, and what the supervisors expect from the less significant institutions. The methodology also offers some flexibility to the national competent authorities. Flexibility in the SREP plays an important role when it comes to assessing the Internal Capital Adequacy Assessment Process (ICAAP), the Internal Liquidity Adequacy Assessment Process (ILAAP), and the stress tests for less significant institutions. The SREP for less significant institutions is an ongoing process and the methodology will continue to evolve in the future.
Related Links
Keywords: Europe, EU, Banking, Less Significant Institutions, SREP Supervisory Approach, Proportionality, SSM, Stress Testing, ECB
Featured Experts
María Cañamero
Skilled market researcher; growth strategist; successful go-to-market campaign developer
Amnon Levy
Financial researcher; authority in credit portfolio management and AI/ML, risk-based pricing, climate and credit, CECL/IFRS 9; credit and ALM
Emil Lopez
Credit risk modeling advisor; IFRS 9 researcher; data quality and risk reporting manager
Previous Article
EBA and ESMA Clarify Accounting Implications of COVID-19 MeasuresRelated Articles
ECB Finalizes Methodology to Assess CCR and A-CVA Risk of Banks
ECB finalized the guide on assessment methodology for the internal model method for calculating exposure to counterparty credit risk (CCR) and the advanced method for own funds requirements for credit valuation adjustment (A-CVA) risk.
EBA Provides Opinion on Definition of Credit Institution in CRR
EBA published an Opinion addressed to EC to raise awareness about the opportunity to clarify certain issues related to the definition of credit institution in the upcoming review of the Capital Requirements Directive and Regulation (CRD and CRR).
APRA Consults on Alignment of Daily Liquidity Report for Banks
APRA is consulting on updates to ARS 210.0, the reporting standard that sets out requirements for provision of information on liquidity and funding of an authorized deposit-taking institution.
FED Releases Scenarios for Second Round of Stress Tests on Banks
FED released hypothetical scenarios for a second round of stress tests for banks.
PRA Announces Update on Supervisory Benchmarking Portfolio Exercise
PRA published updates in relation to the 2021 Supervisory Benchmarking Portfolio exercise.
FED Revises and Extends Capital Assessment and Stress Testing Reports
FED adopted a proposal to extend for three years, with revision, the capital assessments and stress testing reports (FR Y-14A/Q/M; OMB No. 7100-0341).
HKMA Updates Policy Module for Non-Centrally Cleared OTC Derivatives
HKMA revised the Supervisory Policy Manual module CR-G-14 on margin and other risk mitigation standards for non-centrally cleared over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives transactions.
EBA Updates List of Validation Rules for Reporting by Banks
EBA issued a revised list of validation rules with respect to the implementing technical standards on supervisory reporting.
EBA Responds to EC Call for Advice to Strengthen AML/CFT Framework
EBA published its response to the call for advice of EC on ways to strengthen the EU legal framework on anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT).
NGFS Advocates Environmental Risk Analysis for Financial Sector
NGFS published a paper on the overview of environmental risk analysis by financial institutions and an occasional paper on the case studies on environmental risk analysis methodologies.
