EC published results of the fitness check of supervisory reporting requirements in financial services legislation in EU. The fitness check is a follow-up to the feedback received in the EC Call for Evidence and in a number of sectoral legislative reviews. The results show that the supervisory reporting rules, which have been put in place since the financial crisis, have been effective in delivering the necessary data. However, the assessment shows that reporting is not as efficient as it could be. The fitness check suggests a comprehensive approach by EC and the relevant stakeholders to further streamline the requirements and develop a supervisory reporting that is fit for the future.
The results highlight that there are inconsistencies between reporting rules, which not only increase the administrative burden for financial institutions and other market participants but also reduce the quality and usability of the data for supervisors. Additionally, the recent trend toward data-driven monitoring and advances in data technology will require more high-quality and granular data going forward. Targeted improvements are under way and even completed in some cases. The fitness check also highlights the need for a comprehensive approach by EC and the relevant stakeholders. This will require improvements in different areas, including the following:
- Legislative process and instruments. There is scope for improving the design of primary (Level 1) legislation, including the need for clear and consistent empowerment for ESAs to develop the necessary technical standards in secondary (Level 2) legislation and for better consideration of implementation timelines.
- Data needs and uses. There is a case for further review of what data supervisors actually need, for what purpose, and what data they already have access to. More feedback and better communication on the purposes and actual use of the data, insofar as feasible and compatible with the nature of supervision, could help address concerns that supervisors request data that is "nice-to-have" as opposed to necessary and actually used.
- Consistency and harmonization. In addition to common definitions and terminology, there is a case for greater use of standards, including for identifiers and data formats. Consistent definitions and standards enhance comparability, communication, and streamlined processes, both within firms and with supervisors, facilitating automation and reducing the costs related to data collection and analysis. There is also scope for improving the interplay between EU and national reporting, given industry concerns about flexibility in national implementation and additional national reporting requirements.
- Governance. There is scope for more coordination and cooperation between stakeholders, from the early design phase through to data sharing between authorities.
- Technology. Although alternative solutions are not yet sufficiently advanced to replace the current supervisory reporting system on an EU-wide basis, technological developments (increasingly referred to as regtech and suptech) provide new opportunities to collect, transmit, access, and process large amounts of data more efficiently and effectively. However, new data technologies also place new demands on the design of future supervisory reporting.
Overall, this fitness check concludes that EU-level supervisory reporting requirements as a whole are broadly effective, highly relevant, and bring EU value added. Nonetheless, a number of issues in the development process, adoption, setup, and implementation of these requirements reduce their efficiency and coherence and impair the quality and usability of the reported data.
Keywords: Europe, EU, Banking, Insurance, Securities, Reporting, Fitness Check, Call for Evidence, Governance, Data, Regtech, Suptech, EC
The Bank of England (BoE) published the Statistical Notice 2021/09 requiring additional information from firms and software vendors to assist in the onboarding and testing phases for migrating statistical reporting to the BEEDS portal.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published the final rules on the Investment Firms Prudential Regime (IFPR) to streamline and simplify the prudential requirements for solo-regulated UK firms authorized under the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID).
The working groups of the Climate Financial Risk Forum (CFRF) published a second round of guides (or Session 2 guides), written by the industry for the industry, to help financial firms manage climate-related financial risks.
The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) published the final Policy Statement PS24/21 that contains the new Non-Performing Exposures Securitization Part of the PRA Rulebook and an updated Supervisory Statement SS10/18 on the general requirements and capital framework with respect to securitizations.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published version 5.1 of the filing rules for supervisory reporting.
The European Central Bank (ECB) Guideline 2021/1829 on the procedures for the collection of granular credit and credit risk data has been published in the Official Journal of European Union.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published the final draft regulatory technical standards on disclosure of investment policy by investment firms, under the Investment Firms Regulation (IFR).
The European Council adopted conclusions inviting the European Union (EU) and the member states to further develop the cybersecurity crisis management framework.
The European Commission (EC) adopted the work program for 2022.