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
In a letter addressed to the industry, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) set out an updated schedule of policy priorities for the banking, insurance, and superannuation industries.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published answers to 29 questions in the Single Rulebook Question and Answer (Q&A) tool in September.
The European Commission (EC) adopted a comprehensive review package of Solvency II rules in the European Union.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued Versions 1.0 of the "Earnings" and "Regulatory Reporting" booklets of the Comptroller's Handbook.
The European Central Bank (ECB) published results of its economy-wide climate stress test, which aimed to assess the resilience of non-financial corporates and euro area banks to climate risks.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published a report on the use of digital platforms in the banking and payments sector in European Union.
The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) published updates on the policy measures that were announced in context of the ongoing pandemic.
The International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA), along with several other associations, submitted a joint response to the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) consultation on preliminary proposals for the prudential treatment of cryptoasset exposures.
BIS published the September issue of the Quarterly Review, which contains special features that analyze the rapid rise in equity funding for financial technology firms, the effectiveness of policy measures in response to pandemic, and the evolution of international banking.
The Basel Committee for Banking Supervision (BCBS) met in September 2021 and reviewed climate-related financial risks, discussed impact of digitalization, and welcomed efforts by the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Foundation to develop a common set of sustainability reporting standards