ECB published a booklet on the Supervisory Review and Evaluation Process (SREP) methodology for less significant institutions (LSIs). This methodology has been developed by ECB and the national competent authorities. This common methodology, applicable to the supervision of smaller banks in the euro area, is based on principles and methods used in the supervision of significant institutions but is adapted, simplified, and tailored to the specificities of LSIs. It aims to foster a consistent supervisory approach in the euro area and to support national competent authorities in their day-to-day supervisory responsibilities. The national competent authorities are implementing the harmonized SREP methodology for LSIs and aiming for full implementation by 2020.
The booklet highlights that, from 2019, the parallel run of the liquidity assessment methodology will no longer take place, as the SREP methodology will be applied more consistently. Additionally, national competent authorities are expected to implement the Pillar 2 Guidance, in line with the revised EBA Guidelines on SREP. In the coming years, supervisors will also gradually put more focus on IT risk in their SREP assessments, consistent with the applicable international supervisory standards and in line with Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) supervisory priorities. ECB and national competent authorities will continue to develop and maintain a full-fledged training program for supervisors in the SSM.
As per the methodology, national competent authorities continue to retain full responsibility, as direct supervisors of LSIs, 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 an LSI, according to the priority assigned to the LSI and the nature of its business (minimum supervisory engagement model). As a result, the SREP differs between LSIs, for example, in terms of how intense the assessment is, what information the LSI needs to submit to the supervisors, and what the supervisors expect from the LSI. 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 LSIs. The SREP for LSIs is an ongoing process and the methodology will continue to evolve in the future.
Keywords: Europe, EU, Banking, SREP, SSM, Less Significant Institutions, SREP Methodology, Supervisory Approach, Proportionality, Stress Testing, ECB
Previous ArticlePBC and CBIRC Announce Takeover of Baoshang Bank for One Year
BIS published a paper that provides an overview on the use of big data and machine learning in the central bank community.
APRA finalized the reporting standard ARS 115.0 on capital adequacy with respect to the standardized measurement approach to operational risk for authorized deposit-taking institutions in Australia.
ECB published a guide that outlines the principles and methods for calculating the penalties for regulatory breaches of prudential requirements by banks.
MAS and The Association of Banks in Singapore (ABS) jointly issued a paper that sets out good practices for the management of operational and other risks stemming from new work arrangements adopted by financial institutions amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
ACPR announced that a new data collection application, called DLPP (Datalake for Prudential), for collecting banking and insurance prudential data will go into production on April 12, 2021.
BCB announced that the Financial Stability Committee decided to maintain the countercyclical capital buffer (CCyB) for Brazil at 0%, at least until the end of 2021.
EIOPA has launched a European-wide comparative study on non-life underwriting risk in internal models, also kicking-off of the data collection phase.
SRB published an overview of the resolution tools available in the Banking Union and their impact on a bank’s ability to maintain continuity of access to financial market infrastructure services in resolution.
EBA is consulting on the implementing technical standards for Pillar 3 disclosures on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) risks, as set out in requirements under Article 449a of the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR).
ESAs Issue Advice on KPIs on Sustainability for Nonfinancial Reporting