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.
Keywords: Europe, EU, Banking, Less Significant Institutions, SREP Supervisory Approach, Proportionality, SSM, Stress Testing, ECB
Previous ArticleEBA and ESMA Clarify Accounting Implications of COVID-19 Measures
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.