EBA published a report on the application of early intervention measures under the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD). The report highlights the key challenges faced by supervisors in the application of the current regulatory framework on the early intervention measures and various options for addressing them. This report follows the discussion paper that was launched in June 2020 to explore ways of enhancing crisis management tools available for competent authorities, in addition to the well-established and widely used supervisory powers laid down in the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD) and in the Single Supervisory Mechanism Regulation (SSMR).
The BRRD introduced early intervention measures to expand the existing set of powers available to supervisors when institutions are experiencing difficulties. EBA monitored the application of early intervention measures in 2015-2018 and observed their limited use across EU. Instead of resorting to early intervention measures, competent authorities often preferred to apply other pre-BRRD supervisory powers available to them. EBA investigated the reasons for these supervisory practices and, in June 2020, had published a discussion paper including its preliminary findings on the most important implementation issues in the area of early intervention measures and possible solutions on how to address them. The discussion paper on early intervention measures brought the key challenges in the implementation of the early intervention measures framework to the attention of the EU legislators and EC is currently working on revising the existing BRRD provisions on early intervention measures. The report that has been published now concludes the EBA work on early intervention measures and provides an overview of the feedback received from public consultations as well as the EBA conclusions.
The report states that EBA observed supervisory consensus on the need to eliminate existing overlaps between early intervention measures and other supervisory powers as well as on the need to remove the formal sequencing of early intervention measures specified in Articles 27-29 of the BRRD. EBA also observed that competent authorities supported the importance of amending Article 27(1) of the BRRD, which includes an example of a quantitative early intervention trigger. For early intervention triggers specified in the regulatory technical standards (for example, based on the Supervisory Review and Evaluation Process, or SREP, scores or monitoring of key risk indicators), EBA will conduct further work and amend its current guidelines on the early intervention triggers, upon finalization of the ongoing review of the BRRD.
EBA also concluded that it would be important to amend the existing Level 1 legislation that includes the example of the quantitative early intervention trigger of 1.5% above Pillar 1 capital. In its current form, it might lead to a situation where the early intervention trigger is met when institution’s capital is even below the level where competent authorities may already consider withdrawing its authorization. Moreover, the current hard trigger from Level 1 interferes with a process of setting institution‐specific early intervention thresholds for capital key risk indicators monitored by supervisors for early intervention purposes. Independently from the possible amendments of early intervention measures framework, the EBA guideline on recovery indicators, which are currently being reviewed, may clarify that in principle, institutions should be able to apply recovery options before supervisors use the early intervention measures.
Keywords: Europe, EU, Banking, BRRD, CRD, Crisis Management Framework, Early Intervention Measures, SREP, SSM, Basel, Pillar 1, Regulatory Capital, EBA
The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) published an update on the discussion paper that intended to engage federally regulated financial institutions and other interested stakeholders in a dialog with OSFI, to proactively enhance and align assurance expectations over key regulatory returns.
The European Commission (EC) published a report summarizing responses to the targeted consultation on the supervisory convergence and the single rulebook in the European Union (EU).
The European Central Bank (ECB) published its opinion on a proposal for a regulation on European green bonds, following a request from the European Parliament.
The Advisory Scientific Committee (ASC) of the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) published a report that explores the expected impact of digitalization on provision of financial and banking services, and proposes policy measures to address the risks stemming from digitalization.
The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) is consulting on the draft Financial Institutions (Resolution) Ordinance (Cap. 628), or FIRO, Code of Practice chapter on liquidity and funding in resolution, until March 14, 2022.
The Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority (FI) announced that the capital adequacy reporting as at December 31, 2021 must be done by February 11, 2022.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) announced that the guidelines on the reporting and disclosure of exposures subject to measures COVID-relief measures shall continue to apply until further notice.
The Central Bank of the Philippines (BSP) issued communications covering developments related to online lending platforms, open finance framework and roadmap, and on the expected regulations in the area sustainable finance.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FED) published the final rule that amends Regulation I to reduce the quarterly reporting burden for member banks by automating the application process for adjusting their subscriptions to the Federal Reserve Bank capital stock, except in the context of mergers.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published its assessment of risks through the quarterly Risk Dashboard and the results of the Autumn edition of the Risk Assessment Questionnaire (RAQ).