EBA Issues Guidelines on Sectoral Exposures for Systemic Risk Buffer
EBA published a set of guidelines on the appropriate subsets of sectoral exposures to which a competent or designated authority may apply a systemic risk buffer. This was done following the entry into force of the fifth Capital Requirements Directive (CRD V). The guidelines suggest a common framework of dimensions and sub-dimensions from which the relevant authority can define a subset of exposures. The guidelines include detailed definitions of elements used in each dimension and sub-dimension, along with examples of application. The deadline for competent or designated authorities to report whether or not they comply with the guidelines will be two months after the publication of translated texts. The guidelines will apply from December 29, 2020.
The guidelines are intended to harmonize the design of the appropriate subsets of sectoral exposures to the application of systemic risk buffer, to not only facilitate a common approach throughout EU but also support reciprocation of the systemic risk buffer measures between member states. The guidelines recommend a common framework in which relevant authorities can define subsets specific to their needs. This is done by employing three dimensions: type of debtor or counterparty sector, type of exposure, and type of collateral. In addition, if deemed appropriate, duly justified and proportionate when targeting systemic risk, the relevant authorities may supplement these dimensions with three sub-dimensions: economic activity, risk profile, and geographical area. A pre-condition when defining a subset of sectoral exposures in the application of a sectoral systemic risk buffer is the systemic relevance of the risks stemming from the subset of sectoral exposures according to a qualitative and quantitative assessment conducted by the relevant authority. The guidelines recommend three criteria to be used in such assessment: size, riskiness ,and interconnectedness. The guidelines also advocate appropriate coordination and cooperation between the competent authority and the designated authority to avoid the risk of overlaps, double-counting of risk, and inefficient risk targeting.
Related Links
Effective Date: December 29, 2020
Keywords: Europe, EU, Banking, CRD5, Systemic Risk Buffer, Sectoral Exposure, Systemic Risk, Macro-Prudential Policy, Basel, EBA
Featured Experts
María Cañamero
Skilled market researcher; growth strategist; successful go-to-market campaign developer
Blake Coules
Across 35 years in banking, Blake has gained deep insights into the inner working of this sector. Over the last two decades, Blake has been an Operating Committee member, leading teams and executing strategies in Credit and Enterprise Risk as well as Line of Business. His focus over this time has been primarily Commercial/Corporate with particular emphasis on CRE. Blake has spent most of his career with large and mid-size banks. Blake joined Moody’s Analytics in 2021 after leading the transformation of the credit approval and reporting process at a $25 billion bank.
Nicolas Degruson
Works with financial institutions, regulatory experts, business analysts, product managers, and software engineers to drive regulatory solutions across the globe.
Previous Article
CMF Consults on Disclosure Requirements Under Basel FrameworkRelated Articles
APRA Sets LAC for D-SIBs, Proposes to Enhance Crisis Preparedness
APRA issued a letter on the loss-absorbing capacity (LAC) requirements for domestic systemically important banks (D-SIBs) and published a discussion paper, along with the proposed the prudential standards on financial contingency planning (CPS 190) and resolution planning (CPS 900).
EC to Review Macro-Prudential Rules while ESRB Assesses Policy Stance
The European Commission (EC) launched a call for evidence, until March 18, 2022, as part of a comprehensive review of the macro-prudential rules for the banking sector under the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) and Directive (CRD IV).
FSB Sets Out Good Practices for Crisis Management Groups
The Financial Stability Board (FSB) published a report that sets out good practices for crisis management groups.
APRA Penalizes Heritage Bank for Incorrect Reporting of Capital
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) found that Heritage Bank Limited had incorrectly reported capital because of weaknesses in operational risk and compliance frameworks, although the bank did not breach minimum prudential capital ratios at any point and remains well-capitalized.
OSFI Releases Annual Report 2021-2022
The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) released the annual report for 2020-2021.
OSFI Updates Timeline for Implementation of Certain Basel Rules
Through a letter addressed to the banking sector entities, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) announced deferral of the domestic implementation of the final Basel III reforms from the first to the second quarter of 2023.
EC Defers Adoption of Regulatory Standards for Disclosures Under SFDR
EIOPA recently published a letter in which EC is informing the European Parliament and Council that it could not adopt the set of draft regulatory technical standards for disclosures under the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) within the stipulated three-month period, given their length and technical detail.
FCA Releases MIFIDPRU Application Forms and Third Set of Rules on IFPR
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published the third in a series of policy statements that set out rules to introduce the UK Investment Firm Prudential Regime (IFPR), which will take effect on January 01, 2022.
APRA Finalizes Capital Adequacy Standards for Banks
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) published, along with a summary of its response to the consultation feedback, an information paper that summarizes the finalized capital framework that is in line with the internationally agreed Basel III requirements for banks.
CPMI-IOSCO Seek Comments on Access to Central Clearing and Portability
The Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI) and the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) issued a consultative report focusing on access to central counterparty (CCP) clearing and client-position portability.
