Featured Product

    ECB Paper Examines the Supervisory Architecture in Euro Area

    May 27, 2019

    ECB published a working paper that examines the benefits and costs associated with different supervisory architectures and suggests key elements that should be included in an optimal supervisory architecture. The paper compares the centralized and decentralized supervisory structures, also describing various benefits and drawbacks of each type of structure in the context of euro area and in relation to the design of the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM). The paper concludes that, overall, going forward, the challenge is to strike the right balance between higher supervisory independence, broader perspective, and more effective organizational structure that is associated with a centralized supervisor, residing within the central bank and exploiting the superior information of national supervisors.

    The paper focuses on the trade-offs associated with allocating supervision to a “central” authority instead of a “local” authority and discusses the specific institutional arrangement in the euro area. It concludes that a centralized structure for supervision entails significant benefits in terms of fewer opportunities for supervisory arbitrage by banks and less informational asymmetry. The use of common and standardized rules and data to assess banks’ health drastically reduces the possibility of regulatory/supervisory shopping for banks. Furthermore, a large central supervisor can take advantage of economies of scale and scope in supervision and gain a broader perspective on the stability of the entire banking sector. For example, it can benchmark the different institutions against one another, thus reducing informational asymmetry and, in turn, improving financial stability. 

    As per the working paper, the potential drawbacks of a centralized supervisory structure are the possible lack of specialization relative to local supervisors and the increased distance between the supervisor and the supervised institutions. These may translate into a more limited knowledge of the markets in which banks operate, their organizational structures and of the products they offer. There is little empirical evidence on how material these costs are. However, it seems that such concerns could be addressed by adequately designing the organizational structure of the centralized supervisor. The paper also espouses the benefits of an integrated structure of monetary policy and supervision and points out that these benefits mostly hinge on the better coordination of policies and the easier flow of information that a structure of this type allows. Coordination between the central bank and the supervisor enables each authority to account for the potential “side-effects” that its policy has on the other authority’s objective, thus reducing the scope and severity of the inefficiencies associated with a coordination failure.

    The paper analyzes the implications of the analyses for the SSM and the regulatory structure in EU. The paper points out that there is some evidence supporting the idea that banks consider the SSM to be tougher than national supervisory authorities. Under this scenario, banks close to the thresholds for SSM supervision may have incentives to shrink their size so as to be subject to the more lenient assessment by national supervisors. The analysis suggests that these considerations call for a more consistent approach in setting the requirements, standards, and criteria of assessment applied to SSM and non-SSM banks. It is not only important that harmonized and proportional rules and standards exist, but also that those rules and standards are applied consistently across countries and banks. It would be important to strive for more aligned incentives between central (SSM) and national supervisors. The harmonization of the legal protection of national supervisors could represent a useful intervention to achieve more consistency in supervisory standards. Similarly, the inclusion of additional criteria, such as a reference to the bank business model, to those determining whether or not a bank falls under SSM supervision, may be beneficial in limiting the strategic behavior of regulated intermediaries.

     

    Related Link: Working Paper (PDF)

     

    Keywords: Europe, EU, Banking, Supervisory Architecture, SSM, Financial Stability, Research, Banking Supervision, ECB

    Related Articles
    News

    FED Revises Capital Planning and Stress Testing Requirements for Banks

    FED finalized a rule that updates capital planning requirements to reflect the new framework from 2019 that sorts large banks into categories, with requirements that are tailored to the risks of each category.

    January 19, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    ECB Releases Results of Bank Lending Survey for Fourth Quarter of 2020

    ECB published results of the quarterly lending survey conducted on 143 banks in the euro area.

    January 19, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    ESAs Publish Reporting Templates for Financial Conglomerates

    ESAs published the final draft implementing technical standards on reporting of intra-group transactions and risk concentration of financial conglomerates subject to the supplementary supervision in EU.

    January 18, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EBA Publishes Report on Asset Encumbrance of Banks in EU

    EBA published the annual report on asset encumbrance of banks in EU.

    January 18, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    MAS Revises Guidelines on Technology Risk Management

    MAS revised the guidelines that address technology and cyber risks of financial institutions, in an environment of growing use of cloud technologies, application programming interfaces, and rapid software development.

    January 18, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    US Agencies Publish Updates for Call Reports, FFIEC 101, and FR Y-9C

    FED updated the reporting form and instructions for the FR Y-9C report on consolidated financial statements for holding companies.

    January 15, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EBA Proposes Guidelines for Establishing Intermediate Parent Entities

    EBA issued a consultation paper on the guidelines on monitoring of the threshold and other procedural aspects of the establishment of intermediate EU parent undertakings, or IPUs, as laid down in the Capital Requirements Directive.

    January 15, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EC Adopts Financial Reporting Changes Arising from Benchmark Reforms

    EC published Regulation 2021/25 that addresses amendments related to the financial reporting consequences of replacement of the existing interest rate benchmarks with alternative reference rates.

    January 14, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    BIS Bulletin Examines Key Elements of Policy Response to Cyber Risk

    BIS published a bulletin, or a note, that examines the cyber threat landscape in the context of the pandemic and discusses policies to reduce risks to financial stability.

    January 14, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    HMT Updates List of Post-Brexit Equivalence Decisions in UK

    HM Treasury, also known as HMT, has updated the table containing the list of the equivalence decisions that came into effect in UK at the end of the transition period of its withdrawal from EU.

    January 14, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    RESULTS 1 - 10 OF 6462